Chalabi is a triple or quadruple agent, depending on how many countries you think he works for: Iran, Israel and debatably, the U.S., and, possibly in some charitable sense, Iraq.

Here is the spying for Iran for which he was definitively caught: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/…..94DC404482

Ian: As long as they play the kind of roles in U.S. foreign policy they do, you have to include the Saudis and Israel in your list of countries.

This is the best summary of relevant history of the past century or so that I’ve ever seen. I especially agree with your comment on the value of understanding the motives of others. Empathy is greatly underrated. I have one comment and one question.
Comment: As you describe, Iran clearly has benefited famously by the US invasion of Iraq. Have you looked into the ways Iran coaxed Cheney, etc., into launching the invasion? Seems to me Chalabi and his INC and other exile groups were dedicated to spinning the fables that led to the US military being bled white in Iraq, from WMD’s to “greeted as liberators” to promises of a compliant client gov’t, lucrative oil contracts and permanent military bases.
Question: It seems that Iran’s vision of Persian power contrasts with Al Quaeda’s plans, at least in terms of the end game, i.e., who becomes the preeminent power. Do you think Iran will remove Al Quaeda from Iraq when they take over there? Who do you think will win that argument?

Iran won’t take over Iraq formally, though they’ll have a lot of influence. Al-Qaeda’s fate depends on whether the Sunnis are either crushed or made happy enough to turn on it in a significant way. If they don’t, it will survive.

I do know that Iran may have had a lot to do with the invasion, aye. they may have played the US very very well.

Oh, God.

…that is why I am not a corporatist! :-)… I fully understand and agree with your follow-up comment. Warren Buffet seems to be a down to earth guy who has been a wealth multiplier for many who invest in his B-H undertakings. I would hope(key word=hope) that is because he shoots square most of the time. Jeffrey Skilling on the other hand surely was fully vested in the ways and desires you point out.

A very favorite book I have a copy of is titled ’small is beautiful—Economics As If People Mattered–25 years later…with commentaries’ by E.F.SCHUMACHER. First published in 1973 it was then way out front with insightfulness and foresightedness. Remains so today. This is a short quote from the updated book…

…Conventional development thinking implicitly defines equity as a problem of the poor. Facing the gap separating the rich from the poor,devlopmentalists perceive this gap as a deficit of the powerless and not as a fault of the powerful. They launch themselves into raising the living standards of the poor toward the level of the rich. They work for lifting the bottom rather than lowering the top. However,with the emergence of biophysical limits to growth,the classical notions of justice,which were devised in a perspective of infinity,acquire new relevance: justice is about changing the rich and not about changing the poor.

(from page 136 side commentary)
….from ’small is beautiful–25 years later’–first written by E.F.SCHUMACHER in 1973.

I look forward to reading more of your view series.

But that’s a hard article to write.

Bob Schacht @ 88

Another question to add on:
Would you address the issue of globalism a bit more? One of the effects is that the American labor market is no longer being protected against the world labor market, and as a result, there is big downward pressure on American wages. Labor is much cheaper overseas. As a result, the current generation of working families is likely to be the first to be less well-off than their parents for the first time. At the same time, corporate profits are going through the roof.

How do you see globalism and the American labor market playing out in the next generation? Is there any way for working families to regain lost ground? Or are our children destined to work harder for lower pay as far as the eye can see?

Bob in HI

That’s really too big a subject for me to do more than touch on in comments. I’ll try and write a post on it for FDL at some point, but it’s a hard post to write. However, globalization is not inevitable, it is a political choice. There are ways to fix it, but my guess is the US is in for a big protectionist backlash. 10 to 20 years outside. And the last great globalist era ended in the Great Depression.

I don’t, honestly, see this bout ending well. It could be fixed, but I don’t think it will be. And while I don’t dare predict the exact date of the collapse (my experience is that these things go on longer than you’d think) I just don’t see what needs to be done to prevent it as likely to be done.

That said, I do believe it /can/ be fixed. It’s a question of political will and public will – it would be rather painful for lots of important people as well as for ordinary people.

The simplest metaphor for the US’s condition is that of the junkie. Every hit has less effect, but going off the drug is really bloody painful.

Ian,
Thanks for hanging out with us even after a new thread was posted. I appreciate your answers to my questions. As your answer to my first question suggests, with globalization and the internationalization of banking, national borders are becoming increasingly obsolete as containers of power. The Power Elite can move where it wants, and take their assets with them. And they don’t have to put all their eggs in one basket, either. I’ll bet they are looking right now at where they think it will be best to hang out 30 years from now. And I think Dubai is looking good, to those who know how to wheel and deal in that environment. Cheney is well-connected to those guys, right?

Bob in HI