Klein's Shock Doctrine

[relative autonomy]

Capitalism does do more than that, though not to the extent Barber and you want -- I doubt that it will ever do that. Nor, I would add, are a lot of government attempts to force it to do so likely to have much effect. Neither do I think it necessary; most of the world will do alright if only provided a level playing field; capitalism per se rarely denies that to anywhere near the extent that politicians do (see subsidies, tariffs, et,al.)



Possibly true but valid critiques will not focus on one aspect but will fairly critique all authoritarian forms -- to include rampant socialism which has proven to be ineffective, as authoritarian as fascism and more pernicious as it is couched in idealistic terms (see Klein, N.)



What is a value that anyone should spill blood for?

The economy, world type, is not run by TNCs but by their owners and investors. I'm one. I assure you I'm not a plutocrat.



Starting at the end and working backwards, who is using an exclusively military focus?

"Hearts and Minds" is a myth, a dangerous myth. It presumes (in the worst sense of the word) to know what others want or need, then to deliver it and thus to convert them into mini clones of the presumer. Fatal fallacy. No foreign power is ever going to win the heart or mind of anyone in any real sense. People will do what is perceived to be in the interest of themselves and, in many societies of their family, clan or tribe. Only the people can determine what those interests are and while they will take what is freely offered that they want or can use, they will utterly reject giving anyone their heart or mind. They will assert their independence in various ways -- as well they should. That's what is inevitable.

Hearts and minds is pure bunkum, sold by snake oil salesmen who believe all people are innately good and will behave just as said salesmen behave (or want others to behave...). People are not innately good nor are they all equal in any sense. Michael Jordan plays basketball several orders of magnitude better than I ever could. Of all the people in the world, about half are good ranging to great and the remainder are poor ranging to dangerously bad. Kant may have had some things wrong (as is true with all of us) but he had the selfish and own interest parts right. There are a lot of evil folks out there and most will take an idealistic thought and parlay it to their advantage and then slit your throat.



Money supply isn't endless. As for needless, that is at least arguable. There were admittedly other ways to do what was done (shake up the ME in an attempt to speed up the inevitable from five or six generations -- or even more -- to just two or three) and the invasion was admittedly a calculated risk. Whether it achieves the goal is to be determined.



What do you think we've been doing to both those nations since the 1950s? Didn't get much traction, did it.



Civic action is somewhat overrated but in any event, it takes the willing acceptance of the sovereign nation of your program to be effective. Lacking that acceptance and a massive program, the probability of any success is slim. The Peace Corps is a mixed bag, it has many dedicated volunteers who do good stuff. It also has really, overall, been only marginally effective. In any event, if you think either nation would have accepted a lot of Americans in their country to 'help' them, you don't understand the pride and sovereignty factor. If you think hiring local contractors or funneling money to the local government to do the job in lieu of sending Americans, you don't understand the local mores on skimming money from gullible fools while doing no or little work -- and that sub standard.



True but do not buy the myth that those disaffected are the poor and downtrodden. Those folks are too busy staying alive to indulge in revolutionary foolishness. The disaffected who do engage are predominately educated and at least moderately well off and imbued with radical fervor because the society from which they come irritates them to some degree and / or cannot productively employ them.



Clean drinking water and medical treatment where?

The "secular, quasi-socialist authoritarian state, which had no love for Islamic radicalism nor any connection to 9-11." also had the misfortune of possessing an unloved dictator, pariah status, a largely ineffective military and, most importantly, geographic centrality in the Middle East. Tough but them's the breaks in the real world



We can disagree on most of that with agreement on the word "help" -- war cannot do that, this one can open a window for that to occur, no more. That's all we've done.

I understand your points. I'm not going to respond on economics because i think its pretty clear neither of us are going to convince the other. The only thing i will say is that there is a big difference between an you everyday investor and someone with a controlling share. everyday investors can send in their proxy statements and it doesn't mean much. investors with controlling shares set policy.

As for critiquing authoritarian forms, i don't really understand you point. I never said the only authoritarian forms that needed to be critiqued exist in the economy so i am not sure what you are getting at.

You point about hearts and minds is basically the problem of culture. if that's your position i don't understand how you can justify a the US invading any country that isn't western Christian nation. Culturally and historically, when the US intervenes in a formerly colonized nation with a different religion it is more likely than not to be understood as imperialism, plain and simple.

The leaders of Al Queda maybe educated but i bet the people doing the grunt work are the downtrodden Afghans, Iraqis and whomever duped into dying for one of the few organizations that they see as culturally relevant and anti-imperialist. If i was Afghani or Iraqi, I would be fighting the Americans too, any patriot would.

Toe the Bush Administration line on Iraq if that makes you feel better but that doesn't change the fact that intelligence was manipulated and the country was duped into supporting an invasion for reasons that turned out to be lies. There are no WMDs in Iraq. No one can say otherwise. When that reason was exposed as a total lie and lost all viability, all of sudden it became about democracy. If we were interested in democracy in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't have been on CIA payroll killing democratic socialists, liberal democrats, and like from '58-'68. The US helped the Baath party come to power becuase they were anti-soviet. The US gave the Saddam regime weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war. People tend to conveniently forget that history. If you think this war is really about making Iraq a democracy, i feel sorry for you. This is were I think its important to consider Klein's argument, especially in light of the reforms Bremer pushed through.

As for the US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Pakistan since 1950, it hasbeen a lot more complicated than that your one sentence suggests. I know more about Pakistan so I will talk about that. The US supported Pakistan immediately after the partition of the Raj becuase they saw it as a necessary anti-soviet bulkhead. The US had complex relationship with Pakistan various military dictators (Khan, Yahya, Zia and now Musharraf). In all cases pressures for democratization were undercut by the imperial demands of the cold war/war on terror. The case of Pakistan's civil war with what became Bangladesh's is instructive. The US didn't put pressure on Zia to end the war until Zia helped the Nixon administration engineer their diplomatic reapproachment with China. If you don't believe me see: Pakistan's Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal by Shahid M. Amin

Back to Klein shock docterine, i think her work is important becuase it addresses the larger context that "small wars" are fought in. If all a "small war" can do is open political opening that could lead to anything from civil war and ethnic cleansing to liberal democracy and rebirth, then, i am not sure if they even worth fighting, especially, as in the case of Iraq, there were many chances to realize a democracy that were dashed by the cynical hands of foreign meddling.