Don't be under any illusions - Bill and Hillary, Barack and Michelle, the Bushes, and the McCains are all just the public front men and women. There are rich and powerful people behind them who stay out of public view. Politics is pretty much of a puppet show.

Hello,oldfarmermac

These are interesting thoughts, though painful in the extreme to think about the actual persons killed, wounded and traumatized (all around) by the violence of weapons, bombs, violations, and assaults.

re: "I can even make a good case that doing so is in the short term interest of this country, and maybe humanity, as a whole."

There's a kind of logic to thinking about "peak" that has, as a possibility, the idea of control-by-force. It's almost as though, if one *can* see the big picture, it's a somewhat normal - (or normalized; i.e., logical) - to want to control the big picture. Hence, the idea of catching the "tiger's tail."

One place I differ is in the short v. long term idea. If one sees this as the only viable option, it's a trap. (Just as you say.)

There is no difference between "short" and "long" term, because the ends were used to justify the (supposedly "short-term") means in the first place.

The thinking that can see no other option cannot escape continuing it. (Well, I suppose I should make this into a question.)

Can the way of thinking that sees this as the only option possibly escape a continuation of the same?

How can actors inflict this much pain and suffering, only to say "OK, now that we are the police, we will be ethical and moral police?" Or, "We will use our access to oil in the most wise way - for sustainability?"

Or, even "We will control it all, for ourselves, yes - but for the greater good, lest those worse than us get it first?"

re: "We". I wonder...perhaps I can make the argument there is no "we," especially as people who know (as you describe) do not make it a priority to share their knowledge with others.

Then, there are...to add to your thoughts...different ways of dividing the "we."

Sometimes I think about the studies that show the number of sexual assaults of women serving in the US military by their fellow male colleagues; think about the sexual assaults that occur (always) during invasions, wars and occupations, and that these occur in a context where the "background" of domination - (lack of women's rights, lack of safety) - is already high. It's almost like an invisible form of control, in a way. (Not that this is conscious, necessarily.) And then, into this background comes the added violence, directed toward one simply because of one's femaleness (and/or youth). To me, this is a factor that is real for the people affected.

So, it's a different way to look at things, perhaps. It's completely invisible, to those who think in terms of "strategies," such as troop levels, or, insurgency/counter-insurgency - and the technology (advanced and less advanced) of warfare/invasion/control. But not at all in the background for the victims, whose victimization disappears in the face of the material gain.

However, the victimization remains in the form of the trauma and the resulting lack of ability to nurture, mature and otherwise think or feel our way out of this.