great post, as usual, by starroute.
Looking at starroute's original question - whether the MIC is either a coherent conspiracy or a super-organism - if we take Sibel's allegations and push them a little bit, it's not difficult to come to a possible 'conclusion' that there is indeed a coherent conspiracy - in fact, in the simple version of the conspiracy, we don't even need to push the allegations very far at all.
Where you have ologopolistic industries, regulations are *always* required to prevent stuff like price collusion - for example, it is illegal for competitors to discuss pricing with each other. We don't have to look very far to see why, or to see that organisations will collude at the first opportunity - even where there are criminal penalties. Look at the AIG case in the insurance industry for example - and you have 'competitors' putting in false (high) bids on certain contracts, presumably with an explicit promise that the favour will be returned on a different contract.
If you take Sibel's claims - with respect to say the American Turkish Council and I suspect that AIPAC is equally in play here, although it doesn't get as much attention (wrt her case) - they can basically be conceived of as 'fronts' for the MIC (more so than representatives of Turkey and Israel) - and when I say 'fronts,' I mean that they have effectively become fronts, aka they have been white-anted, which may be different from their original purpose. So these organizations are the 'smoke-filled-rooms' where the behemoths of the MIC meet and devise their 'coherent conspiracy' - which at it's simplest is to sell as much product, at the highest profit, as possible. We know that this sort of arrangement can lead to all sorts of troublesome 'market' outcomes when leaders in any industry meet (think tobacco, insurance, banking, oil etc) - when the MIC does it, knowing that they are immune from prosecution (because of the bribes and the threat of job losses), and knowing their product, then it becomes particularly problematic.
Now - if you want to push Sibel's allegations to the edge, it's not too difficult to imagine that there is a fully integrated vertical industry in place - where the MIC itself is actually dealing the heroin and the logistics arm of the MIC is the Pentagon. We start to get into some definitional issues here - I strongly suspect that it isn't the 'MIC' that is profiting from dealing the heroin - but perhaps that it's the 'executives' of the MIC who are getting all the profits and laundering them through the banking centers in dubai and cyprus etc.
Interestingly, despite the fact that Sibel implicates the 'geostrategists' - and the region she describes is part of the grand resource-chessboard - I don't think I've ever heard her mention oil in any substantive sense.
And if you really want to push Sibel's claims to the edge, it's not inconceivable that she's saying that the ATC (and AIPAC) are an 'arm' of 'al-Qaeda' (or perhaps even al-Qaeda headquarters) - which comes back to starroute's point that maybe the MIC is a "coherent conspiracy, consciously manipulating US domestic spending and foreign policy to its own ends."
I'm sure it won't be lost on you that the same OSP cabal that cooked up the iraq invasion - via delusion and/or groupthink and/or whatever else - are the same people that Sibel is fingering.
(now is probably a good time to introduce steven andreson's post - but one more dollop of starroute first)
Now to starroute's final question:
"Are they just in it for the money -- or is there a fanatical, xenophobic, perhaps Christianoid mindset behind them as well?"Y'all know my default position on that question - but in terms of xenophobia, specifically, we have a substantial body of evidence that these same people have supported pakistan for the best part of 3 decades, including helping them build, and sell, nuclear weapons, and we have them dealing with Turkey, and we have them selling weapons to the chechens, and helping the KLA. So that seems to answer part of the question. On the other hand, we know that the pentagon is freakishly christianist - is that a design flaw, or a design feature? I don't know.
ok - so here's steven andreson's post
I am drawn back to considering the 9-11 murders. We were told that bin Laden organized these attacks out of Afghanistan, yet there was very little explaination how that was done. Here, we are told that Afghanistan is the center of the opium and drug trade going to Europe. However, the routes and the wherewithalls involving Turkey, for example, are not discussed.Lots of great issues raised here. I've tried to get my head around many of them before.
If we can easily see that the U.S. intelligence services or some American crime organizations are behind the drug trade, why shouldn't we have the same question about 9-11?
The physics of the 9-11 bombings are confusing to me because I don't understand about how to demolish these buildings or operating these planes.
The motivations behind these attacks, are just as confusing, but it seems understanding the why's should be more important.
So, did we go to war with Afghanistan, despite the cooperation of the Taliban in the possible recovery of bin Laden because the Taliban were not supportive enough of American control of the poppy fields?
Did the United States support the Islamic resistance to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in order to obtain control or to maintain control of opium production?
How much of our attack on Afghanistan was about drugs instead of bin Laden? After all, bin Laden has not been captured and the poppy fields under United States control have had record outputs.
If Afghanistan is about opium, and the Europeans are the one's whose populations suffer from this production, why haven't they exposed this fact? Are the elites in Europe making too much out of the drug trade to spend any effort protecting their own populations?
Would Turkey's involvement in the drug trade be exposed and the role of the United States crime organizations and corrupt politicians thwarted if Turkey became a member of the European Union? Or not?
Is the war on terrorism really a way to obscure the fact that American politicians and their benefactors are drug dealers?
I was under the impression that the stock market was kept from collapsing mostly by the influx of drug money laudered through American banks and investments. Is this true, and if so, wouldn't this be another motivation for 9-11? Was the attack part of a plan to maintain this kind of market manipulation?
I have questions, but at the moment, no answers.
The motivation of 911? I have no idea why osama would want to do it (in the official version) - the official narrative is apparently that he wanted to get the US quagmired in iraq or somewhere. if so, osama: 2, democracy-givers: 0. But as we've seen, I don't really think that there are strong delineators between *ahem* good and evil - so that complicates things a whole lot. Similarly, if we are to suggest that the neocons and osama are on the same side, then we presumably need to account for the 93 attack on the wtc - and i don't really know how to do that.
In terms of control of the afghan poppy fields - whether during the soviet war, or the 2001 invasion - and the implications of the booming poppy supply over the last few years - I've mentioned a few times that I've been trying to do an 'industry analysis' of the heroin trade for a month or so now (which is why i was particularly interested in this World Bank report.) In most industries, an increase of supply of 300% (or whatever) is terrible for profitability - so i'm not one to immediately jump to the conclusion that the booming supply is great for business. OTOH - standard strategy analysis tells us that if you have really high margins, then you should actually try to reduce them by selling as much as possible (particularly when you can't 'brand' your product).
I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that heroin consumption has increased dramatically in the last 5 years - there's some anecdotal evidence that heroin deaths have jumped 75% in 3 years in LA - but that appears to be related to heroin quality more than increased consumption. and we have some evidence that the market share of afghan/turkish heroin in the US has tripled to 15% - but the details are all a bit murky. remember - the turkish producers were supplying 90-ish% of the european market, and only 5% of the US market. The 'obvious' advice from any corporate strategist would be to try to cut back on the supply, and increase the price, so that you could take advantage of the euro-monopoly - rather than flood the market and try to raise market share in the US. So it's all a bit baffling.
As for Turkey's admission into the European Union - I don't really know how that plays out, net-net. it's difficult to imagine how it could make importing drugs any easier (they don't seem to have any problems today).
Is the war on terrorism really a way to obscure the fact that American politicians and their benefactors are drug dealers?i don't really think so - but they are perhaps related. It appears that the politicians don't really need any obscuring. otoh, it appears that the MIC and the heroin trade are intrinsically entwined - and TWOT is undoubtedly a great MIC boondoggle - so perhaps there is a connection. As starroute notes, TWOT is also a propaganda play by (in part) the christianist billionaires - but I have no idea what motivates these people.
that is all.