Saturday, September 13, 2014
Inferred Intent
Puzzling question: Why did the US gov't invent ISIS? Basic generic answer for any of our invented "threats" is good old Parkinson. A new "threat" gives our army and military contractors a good "reason" to increase their budget and workforce.
But that doesn't explain the specific characteristics of ISIS. Why did we need such a fierce and all-conquering "enemy" when a lesser one would have accomplished the standard Parkinson goal?
Polistra's Law of Inferred Intent. Look at the full picture of consequences and you can see the intention.
What is the special consequence here? We are resuming our old alliances with all those old dictators, after spending 20 years breaking them down and arming the rebels. We are even resuming our pre-1979 alliance with Persia after spending 30 years calling it the Heart Of Evil.
We needed a tremendous justification for such a reunion, after we've spilled so many trillions of dollars and millions of lives to break those dictators. We needed a "reason" so large that it would force everyone to forget the decades of destruction.
Our new SOB ISIS was necessary to bring back our old SOBs.
We could simply have sent Bashar a greeting card. "All is forgiven, Bashy babe. I remember the good times. Won't you take me back, dear old sweetheart?" But that would be sane and practical. Can't do that.
¶ 5:06 PM 
