I've often wondered whether the real goal of "regime change" and "nation building" is to send once semi-stable countries into chaos. The only other alternative is that the advocates of these policies are extremely naive and are stupid enough to think that western style republican governments will take root in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Third World.
If the goal is to create chaos, it's still a misguided one, since terrorist organizations can flourish in times of civil war in ways that they can't under the stable rule of an autocrat.
[I]I’ve often wondered whether the real goal of “regime change” and “nation building” is to send once semi-stable countries into chaos.
If the goal is to create chaos, it’s still a misguided one, since terrorist organizations can flourish in times of civil war in ways that they can’t under the stable rule of an autocrat.[/I]
I suspect that the statists present in the intelligence bureaucracy may be controlling the flow of information (first to GWB, then to Obama) to encourage actions that would result in chaos, more terrorism, and more power for said intelligence bureaucracy. That is why certain policies between GWB and Obama didn’t change.
I suspect the reason for this is that continued globalization (the working class jobs moving to China, and the white collar jobs moving to India) will result in a disgruntled former Middle Class and political instability that will require a police state to tamp down, absent any attempt to make globalism more equitable for the Middle Class.
I suspect at some point, increased terrorist attacks using small arms such as in San Bernadino will lead the GOPe to abandon the 2nd amendment and support yet more of this hidden 4th branch of government’s agenda, which would include more surveillance of Americans.
It is interesting that Trump policies against China and against immigration (espec from Middle East) would be at odds with trying to create a police state in the US.