A regional war in the Middle East: Cui bono?

So, the other day in a diary we were discussing why we're at war, and it got me thinking: there are many factions with tremendous influence in the White House, all of whom stand -- independently -- to benefit from war in the Middle East.  Each alone probably doesn't have the power to drive us to war or to embroil us deep in a wide war in the middle east, but there is a horrible confluence of interests, all of which stand to reap enormous benefit from such a war, and together, well, together they sure can do it.

So if sometimes it seems that the White House really doesn't give a shit about the entire ME erupting in flames, there's a reason for that.  And if it seems that the White House doesn't know what it's doing, it's because no one is in charge: it's decision-making by (horrible) committee.  

Follow me around the corner and see some of the players....

So, cui bono?  Everybody.  What I find fascinating is just how many apparently separate groups are all invested in a big old war in the Middle East.

Here's my list:

• The necons: digby has an excellent post on the neocons, about how they've been agitating for nearly 20 years for a wider war in the mideast.  As far as I can tell, it's largely based on some sort of triumphal vision of America spreading democracy to all the little people of the mideast, sprinkling it down like rose petals, elating the little people and making over the middle east into a vision of peace and love and 21st-Century American hegemony.  Seems to have worked well in Iraq, right?  Why not try it on Syria and Iran?  Eventually even the Saudis will see the light, and we'll have one big happy middle east!
  
• The dominionists, and other end-timers.  For these people, a conflagration in the middle east is a wet dream: "After the last tree is felled, Jesus will come back."  Raptures, destruction of the apostate, things like that all follow on the end times -- which are ushered in by a giant war in the middle east.  So far Iraq is just a start; to get the attention of Jesus, we need a really big war over there.  And these people are getting pretty influential.
  
• The "unitary executive" whack jobs, especially Addington in the office of the veep, who, as far as I can tell, thinks that the president should be a king -- and never is a king's power more absolute than when he's the Commander in Chief.  And for him to be a really good CinC, we gotta have a war -- and the bigger the war, the better.  More threats = more power in the hands of the Prez.
  
• The Norquist Nuts: one way to starve social programs is to make damned sure that the government spends whatever little money it has, after the six rounds of tax cuts for the rich, on defense.  Can't buy pills for you, poor grandmother!  Gotta buy bombs!  We're at war!
  
• The war profiteers, who are many, from tiny MZM to gargantuan Kellog, Brown & Root -- and of course, Halliburton (old, but still good -- and things have only gotten worse), which stands to profit not only on wartime contracts, but on any oil profits that can be secured by a lapdog middle east. I reckon since all those billions of barrels of oil that were due to come out of Iraq haven't worked out, we need to try to destabilize some other governments over there, too.
  
• The Pentagon.  Always at war with the universe, the Pentagon is filled with people who's business it is to make war.  That's what they're for.  And never does the Pentagon have more power over what happens in Washington than when it's in charge of a war.  Especially a big war.  And gosh, think of the Air Force, largely out of the glory in Iraq: what a wonderful role they could play lobbing giant new bombs onto Irani targets!  Those multi-billion-dollar bombers just sitting around, not doing anything.  Those strategic guys are itchin' to get into a fight!
  
• Congressional Republicans: if Bush is strong (read "if people are afraid") then they can latch onto his "Republican" coattails and slide back into office.  If that doesn't work, at least having people afraid and willing to believe that Republicans are better able to take care of security (yeah, I know, but people still believe it), you stand a better chance of re-election.  (But if that doesn't work, they can declare war on gays.  Oh.  Wait.)
  
• George W. Bush.  I really believe that he thinks that it is his duty to establish American hegemony over the middle east.  His vision is shaped by the neoncons blowing sunshine up his ass, by his need to out-do his father, and by the fact that he hasn't got a clue about what's causing the mess over there.  He really thinks that the American military can actually do something positive over there.  Poor little Georgie.
  
• and of course, Richard Cheney.  He's one of the original PNAC signatories, he professes to be a Christian, and he's deeply in bed with the war profiteers.  In one way or another, he's hooked into all the other factions, but I believe it's all a sham.  I believe Cheney is in this for two reasons: power and money.  He is without question the most powerful veep in history, and this has largely come about as a result of the war-making.  And for all his blather about "giving profits to charity," Cheney has been tremendously enriched by the good fortune falling on Halliburton as a result of this war.  Tremendously enriched.
  

So there you have it: feel free to add any other players you think are invested in war in comments; I'd like to get a complete list.

And while we are all distracted by war, allow Billmon to scare the shit out of you with visions of an al Qaeda, jealous that Iraq and Iran, Israel and Hezbollah are getting all the press.  Only way to get back into the news is to blow something up.

Sleep well, America.  The Grownups are in charge!