Iraq torture part of the PNAC plan?

[Shakespeare]

This thread in LBN jogged my memory a bit on something I've meant to post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x548239

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Palast speak here in NoCal. One of the things he talked about was the post-invasion Iraq plan authored by Grover Norquist WELL before 9/11--Norquist refers to their objectives as "the Chilean model." My blood ran cold when Palast said that, and it's been on my mind a lot since the torture photos were leaked.

Thoughts?

[oostevo]

1. What benefit can they gain from it?

I can understand how they can benefit from invading, but how can humiliating/torturing some Iraqis and pissing the rest off possibly benefit them?

[gottaB]

8. "beaurocratic reasons"

It's like Watergate, the coverup is worse than the crime.

[Mike Niendorff]

12. escalation and expansion

resulting in a full-scale regional war.

Think Iran, Syria, the whole Bush hit list.

Then, assuming they ultimately can achieve their enlarged war, think "military stranglehold over regionally critical oil supplies".

Now think bigger.

(You get the idea.)


MDN

[librechik]

2. it's part of the philosophy to have contempt for the "volken"

to lie and use any means necessary to achieve their ends.

[gottaB]

3. absolutely

my last tirade: Enron, Seditious Conspiracy, Abu Ghraib

Consider the point Octafish made, that according to these guys, the job of the Army is to procur oil. Not national security. Not protection. Not national interests. Private interests. Private gains. Rumsfeld's Transformational Army is designed to meet one primary objective: to secure the flow of oil money into the Cheney gang coffers. No fluff. No room for other tasks. And no respect for law. That's built-in.

There is no room in this model for strategic thinking beyond what is required to procur oil. There are of course strategic and other reasons to abstain from torture and to honor the Geneva protocols and other international laws. But those don't matter if you can't steal oil and project force in the Middle East.

[HooptieWagon]

4. If they think they can get away with it

they wouldn't limit the torturing to Iraq. They are arrogant and sociopathic enough to implement the policy in the US. Patriot Act I & II are the beginning. Throw in another "Pearl Harbor", then Martial Law, and presto - torturing here in the US. Outsourced, of course. And don't expect any videos to surface.

[Shakespeare]

5. Oh, I don't think it's limited to Iraq....

I think it's also happening in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Pakistan....

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. let's not forget its already happening in America

and in particular to African-American non-violent drug offenders often subjected to humiliation and rape in our own prisons, but we joke about that.

[VOX]

7. And opening soon in Africa...

No continent is too big (or small) for the Orwellian tentacles to reach...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/international/africa/11AFRI.html?hp
New York Times
U.S. Training African Forces to Uproot Terrorists
Published: May 11, 2004
STUTTGART, Germany — The American campaign against terrorism is opening a new front in a region that military officials fear could become the next base for Al Qaeda — the largely ungoverned swath of territory stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Western Sahara's Atlantic coast.
<snip>

[Jack Rabbit]

9. In fairness to Grover Norquist

In fairness to Mr. Norquist, when he speaks of the "Chilean model", he is not speaking of torture, but of social security privatization.

I'm strongly opposed to both, but I still wonldn't compare them.

[gottaB]

10. socialize risk, privatize reward

sounds like an m.o. to me.

[leesa]

11. I think it's one of the perks. It's easier to steal the oil if there

aren't as many owners around.