It's not a bug, it's a feature

There has been some intriguing speculation floating around among commentators on the net that the Neo-Cons never had any real intention of building electoral democracies -- as we know them -- in the Middle East. In fact, their goal may be the destruction of nation states in their current form in the Middle East and their replacement with a United States "protectorate" of sorts...

The current nation-state structure of the Middle-East is a relatively modern creation that came in the wake of post-colonial rule, primarily by the French, British and Ottomans (and if you go far enough back Rome and other armies who have receded into history.)

Iraq is the perfect example of an artificially constructed nation-state in the Middle East. That is why it is currently experiencing civil war...

In large part, with the exception of Iran (which is Persian, not Arab), identities are still largely determined by religious denomination within Islam rather than national identity. Ironically, this is only less true in a secular dictatorship like Syria (and was also the case in Iraq) -- but the old fault lines are and were just simmering below the surface.

This is a very superficial overview of the Middle East leading back to the point that the fantasy lure of "democracy" for the Middle East is a canard because the nation states Bush is talking about are largely artificial constructs. Given true democracy, they would become dismembered into new nation state constructs along lines that more accurately reflect religious and tribal identities than European imposed artificial national nation state constructs.

That is why much consideration should be given to the idea that the Neo-Cons want to create instability in the Middle East by destroying the very concept of the nation states created during the post-Colonial era. Because with chaos and destruction, the Neo-Cons believe, comes the opportunity to divide and conquer.

The end result would be something akin to a U.S.-British protectorate of sham governments in the Middle East, which would allow the U.S.-British oil companies to control the natural resources.

If all this sounds preposterous to you, remember that a truly Western style democratic government in Iran was overthrown by the U.S. in 1953, largely over the issue of Iran's desire to reclaim their rights to their own oil (which was then completely run as a concession by the British). The Dulles brothers claimed that they were protecting the oil fields from the Soviet Union, but that was so much bunk. They were upholding the right of the West to basically control oil in the Middle East.

The 1953 overthrow of a charismatic, truly democratically elected leader in Iran led, ultimately, to the seizing of the American hostages and the "Ayatollah revolution."

What is clear from history is that U.S. policy has laid the seeds of its own destruction in the Middle East. And Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Neo-Cons are surpassed by no one for being Johnny Appleseeds of self-defeating chaos and destruction.

All that will be born of their wanton and reckless bloodshed is a new generation of anti-American sentiment, more radical, militarized and even further away from any notion of the peaceful development of their societies...

Let's take it one step further. What if that's what the Company intended all along? What if the schemes of the NeoCons like Kristol were touted by Cheneyburton and Darth Rumsfeld because they'd create the Endless War that would produce Endless Profit?