Friday, October 16, 2009

"Winning the Peace" Involves American Economic Model

Who knew peace had to be won? When did peace carry a ROI, return on investment? General David Petraeus says it's so. I respectfully disagree.

Peace doesn't require another to lose. It can occur independent of economic situations, albeit shortages and bribes work against its expression. Hegemonic powers use economic manipulations, along with cultural divide and conquer, to keep conflict going. Keep the little people occupied. They won't see the powerful raping their country.

David Petraeus offers "bait and switch" on peace. Tony Blair initiated the term "economic peace" in regard to Palestinians. He did so just before Israel razed Gaza, while President elect Obama sat on his hands.

Economic peace means the military obliterates the opposition. Afterwards, American branded multinationals dangle potential jobs at the behest of (and large funding from) U.S. and country leaders. Subsidized corporations pay shell shocked survivors a pittance for their efforts. When the profits approach high tide, the division is sold off for the big ka-ching.

Think I'm wrong. The Carlyle Group has their eye on Iraq, in addition to Turkey, Libya and Saudi Arabia. The Carlyle Group may be good at winning (while setting the stage for an economic crisis), but they know little about peace or quality.

America exports abysmal management theory and practices. David Petraeus' "winning the peace" line, Obama's neocon on Iran and the latest Beltway stink tank confirm it.

Update: There's a reason Tony Blair loves economic peace. It provides him with a piece of the action.