----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Pollak" <mpollak at panix.com>
And in this case, the huge historical change that negated it only happened very recently. The cold war only ended a few years ago. The world at large has has only dimly registered how profoundly this changes things. And the security establishment, which provides the world with its authorities on this subject, has a vested interest in not recognizing it; the cold war is deeply institutionalized into all establishments they man. Their first instinct, like any vested establishment, was to find a substitute. And they are overjoyed that they think they have.
And who is to dispute their definition of strategic importance? Us non-authorities? :o)
Michael
============================
Ok, so if oil *in fact* is not of strategic value because *strategic value* is an empty signifier, then what are we left with? Similarly with the semiotics of *control*; how do you distinguish your position from, say, Kevin Kelley's "Out of Control" -- as in the politico-econ. world is too complex to be controllable? Aren't we flirting with neoclassical econ. here?
What, if anything, has strategic value? Forests? Fisheries? Fresh water? MP3 files? My cats hairballs?
What is strategy?
What is value?
Ian