War, Inc. is a political satire that just opened in LA and New York, produced, co-written, and starring John Cusack, Hillary Duff, Marisa Tomei, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd.
Cusack plays Brand Hauser, a hit-man for hire who is deployed to the fictional country of Turaqistan to kill a Middle Eastern oil baron. Hauser's employer is Tamerlane, a secretive for-profit military corporation headed by the former US vice president, played by Dan Aykroyd. In this scene, Hauser receives his mission orders:
BRAND HAUSER: Turaqistan. What's the gig?
TAMERLANE CEO: Omar Sharif.
BRAND HAUSER: Omar Sharif?
TAMERLANE CEO: Yeah, CEO of Wuji Gas, the Yujigastani conglomerate. Terminate. Do do that voodoo that you do so well. You'll be working directly under the viceroy, just appointed by the president. His identity is still being withheld until further notice. It's on a need-to-know basis.
BRAND HAUSER: And no one needs to know.
TAMERLANE CEO: He asked for you personally.
BRAND HAUSER: What's my cover?
TAMERLANE CEO: Trade show producer.
BRAND HAUSER: Trade show? What show? What show? What show?
TAMERLANE CEO: Oh, it's going to be huge, Hauser. Tamerlane is sponsoring a trade expo, Brand USA. It's our big launch, bringing democracy to this part of the world. Plus, now that we've
bombed the shit out of them, well, there's a lot of rebuilding to do.
BRAND HAUSER: Shows a nice spirit.
TAMERLANE CEO: Well, somebody has to help these poor people. This moment presents a great opportunity for Tamerlane, and the United States, for that matter, not to mention the people of
Turaqistan. To top it all off, there's going to be a gala wedding! Isn't that great?
BRAND HAUSER: Seems like a pretty elaborate cover. I'm actually going to be responsible for all that shit?
TAMERLANE CEO: This is a historic moment, Hauser: the first war ever to be 100 percent outsourced to private enterprise. Tamerlane jets. Tamerlane tanks. Tamerlane soldiers. And to top it all off, a Brand USA Expo. It's your show, baby.
Excerpts from his Democracy Now interview on jump.
Here is a thought experiment that has been running through my head for the past three days, and which effectively serves as my final decision making process on which candidate to support in the Democratic primaries: which candidate is best at ending the causes of the war? In this context, "war" is flexibly defined as not only the war in Iraq, but also the "war on terror," the war on American democracy, etc. As I see it, there are seven main issue areas at stake:
Media Reform: An improved, open, non-corporate consolidated media that no longer has a vested interest in military contracts, internal and world conflict, or in holding back open, citizen produced media is key. Matt says that Obama is very good on this front, with Edwards close behind.
Sustainable Energy Development: Achieving sustainable energy independence and reducing the negative effects of global warming is another key to preventing wars that are, at least in part, apart increasing the American sphere of influence on foreign oil. As far as I can tell, many energy experts in the blogosphere, including A Siegel and Dave Roberts, think that the three top Democrats all have pretty good energy plans.
Ending Military Privatization: The privatization of the military continues unabated, and at its current levels it threatens not only to break the military, but to make it much easier for future Presidents to engage in wars like Iraq. Rep. Jan Schakowsky has a bill to end military privatization, but this isn't something that I have seen many, or really any, presidential candidates discuss. Please, enlighten me in the comments if I am wrong.
No residual forces: This is one I have harped on for a long time. As long as we have residual forces in Iraq, we can't end the war in Iraq. No residual forces means no troops, no bases, and no equipment. Obviously, I think Richardson is the best among all Dems on this front, but among the top three I think Edwards is better than Obama and Clinton.
Election reform: Stolen elections, especially the 2000 election, obviously played a major role in starting both the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Maintaining election integrity and preventing future meltdowns are thus key to ending the causes of war. I don't know which candidate is best on this front, but I've heard some good things from Obama.
Think Tank and Advisor Reform: Clearing out the community of professional foreign policy advisors that have led to things like pre-emptive war, the Iraq war, and the war on terror is also key. I think the candidates have all rejected neo-conservatism and pre-emptive war as a philosophy, but the differences between Clinton and Obama's advisors should be noticed. Also, Edwards has rejected the war on terror frame while Obama rejected the war from the start on the grounds that pre-emtpive war was a bad idea. Not sure who has the edge here.
Constitutional Restoration: Ending executive over-reach and restoring checks and balances are also key. This touches on a wide range of civil liberties issues, as well as investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing and laying making sure an executive as powerful as bush never happens again. Dodd has led the fight on several civil liberties issues, Clinton has promised to continue investigating Bush and to set aside the executive powers created under the Bush administration. Kucinich has called for impeachment. Overall, again I'm not sure who is best.
The more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the candidate who is best on this set of issues will almost certainly get my vote. Collectively, they not only end the Iraq war, but are the issues most closely connected to preventing such a disaster from ever happening again. I'm going to keep investigating how the candidates matchup in each of these areas, and probably come to a conclusion in about two weeks or so. Your help is greatly appreciated.
STATE BLOGS
