Lily Pads & Islamic Disunity

Ideas act irrationally through the blood.

Oswald Spengler

As anthropologists pour over the remains of modern-day America at some point in the future, they’ll be bewildered by a society that was obviously mystified by its own state of affairs and its remarkably misguided foreign policy initiatives, while at the same time obsessed about understanding everything available concerning a fictional trifle called the DaVinci Code. And you can bet one of them will remark, "If only they had paid as much attention to the real world they may not have fallen so far." Ha Ha. Those humans, they’re a pretty odd species, huh?

At this late stage in the Iraqi War and "the War on Terror," there’s no shortage of explanations for why the wars are being conducted, how they’re going, what their purposes are, and why, despite all evidence to the contrary, the U.S. shouldn’t cut and run. You name it, it’s been put forth, from WMDs to the supposition that these aggressions represent the New Crusade, from the interests of the Elders of Zion to a cabal of Skull & Bones and Saudi Princes, from the New World Order to Democratizing the Middle East.

There may be a grain of truth here and there in such assertions, but two recent events - the Defense Department’s announcement to build Lily Pad bases in strategic areas of the world http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/... and the publication of the essay, "Religions and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe" by Carolyn Warner and Manfred Wenner http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/POPS... - more clearly explain what’s really happening behind the smoke and mirrors.

Eventually, it was only a matter of time before the puzzle began to conspicuously assemble itself. And now that the Lily Pad concept has gone mainstream, it’s easier to understand how a fellow with a rather ordinary level of intelligence, namely W, could feel so smug about his projects. In a bizarre twist of fate, he may have been protecting American interests all along, arguably, in such a way that many if not most gas guzzling Americans would concur. After all, despite all the ineptitude, an astounding number have approved. Call it the Oil Factor. It may just be the Republican key to ’08.

Bush’s problem regarding "the War on Terror" is that he hasn’t been able to be honest about his intentions, not mainly for the purpose of deceiving Americans but to snooker the Islamic world. Indeed, Rumsfeld’s streamlined military, the Neocons’ aim to democratize Muslims, and Cheney/Kissinger’s Vietnam style realpolitik have formed a blueprint to build minimally staffed bases in and around Arabia that could quickly service much larger forces during conflicts that (Officially) threaten the area’s "new democracies" and (Unofficially) threaten to disrupt oil supplies. Get it?

The Administration’s actually looking out for the engine that keeps capitalism churning, the gas that keeps the griddles burning. See? Sure, the oil companies and their service related affiliates are going to win/win as they say, but above all, Joe Sixpack will be able to take that Sunday drive with the family and not be forced onto a crammed subway car on Monday morning. That’s because one of the most important areas in the world - the Strait of Hormuz - will be vigorously defended by Lily Pad bases. It’s an ingenious neoimperialistic strategy essentially based on the minimalist staffing policies used by many Fortune 500 firms - one cashier until there’s a rush.

The old style imperialism required massive forces, moved rather slowly and annexed land it then had to manage. Neoimperialism, however, isn’t as obviously predatory nor as demanding. Neoimperialists are not allowed by the prevailing international court of public opinion to annex territories like Napoleon did, though they are allowed to occupy alien lands for unspecified periods of time to establish "democracies" and protect "civil societies." Rather than camp out in that nation’s political headquarters, neoimperialists are comfortable setting up on the periphery within striking distance. It’s much more discreet and therefore about 23% more ethical than pure, raw imperialism. And contrary to popular opinion, neoimperialists cannot and will not steal oil fields or supplies; they’re simply there to protect the free-market flow of goods, as well as to make a quick buck servicing those trades.

What’s amazing about this scenario is that the costs of attempting to Lily Pad the world via "the War on Terror" - $400B maybe? - could’ve been used to develop alternative fuels and energy independence. Then, at some point, America’s need for foreign oil could’ve been radically reduced, if not eliminated. But if that policy had been followed America could’ve never gotten Saddam to give up the WMDs, never established a theocratic "democracy" in Iraq sympathetic to Iran, never tracked down bin Laden and then, well, let him go, never indirectly assisted Afghanistan’s heroin trade, etc.

Those mighty efforts of the world’s only so-called Superpower appear even more foolish in light of the essay by Warner and Wenner, which illustrates the vast difficulties Muslims face in Europe in trying to collectively organize on their behalf. The gist of the piece accentuates the fragmented nature of Muslims throughout Europe, and by inference, throughout the world.

Frequently, the word, ideology, is used to describe Islamic militancy, as if all radical Muslims are united in a unified manner. Such was the case with Communism, which triumphed over tribal allegiances, splintered factions, regional disputes, and theological schisms, to represent one unified force. The same was true for Nazism and Fascism. But Islamic societies, which still haven’t overcome the turmoil of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, aren’t organized in ways that make such unity possible. That is why there are different variations of the Muslim Brotherhood, different strains of Baathists, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Wahhabis and so on. There’s no Marx, Lenin, or a Pope to shape their rebellion into a unified force despite America’s intrusive "War on Terror."

The Administration would have unsuspecting Americans believe "the terrorists" are united to tear down America. Often, they’re too divisive to agree on just how to respond. Consequently, there are bands of lethal ideologues, groups of genuine terrorists and, no doubt, viable plans to harm Western and American interests. But this ragtag collection of malcontents is much more like a group of street gangs than a bona fide army. Thus, special forces, the FBI and local police units would’ve been far more appropriate than the Armed Forces, including
National Guard Units unacquainted with Islamic ways, have been. But if the Administration went after the terrorists with these more moderate measures, it wouldn’t have been able to pursue democratization and the Lily Pad strategy.

And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if the Strait of Hormuz was shut down by Iran, or mined by al-Qaeda during those circumstances and gas was $6 a gallon, if there was any left, there would be hell to pay in America. By that point, the use of nuclear weapons wouldn’t seem so unattractive to many people. This futuristic vision and the belief that he’s preventing it from ever happening is, apparently, what provides W with so much bravado. Sure, he and the Neocons have given away much of the empire to accomplish their goals, but damnit, Americans are going to keep their gas supplies for the foreseeable future.