…comes up with a different explanation why America’s political/corporate bosses wanted an Iraq war. Essentially, Pitt digs out the early-’70s era allegation that the US is under the thumb of a “permanent war economy,” that certain powerful interests have a lot to maintain by starting and prolonging wars, and a lot to lose with peace.

Do I believe it? Only partly. From my perspective here in Jet City, it’s easy to see many BigCorps with heavy investments in the infrastructure of making and selling military stuff. (Who’d you rather buy stock in–a Boeing heavily exposed to the commercial airline piz, or a Lockheed that sells almost exclusively to the world’s air forces and armies?)

But there are also many sectors of the US economy that can get hurt in times of long, dragged-out military misadvantures. As the Pentagon sops up huger portions of both federal spending and federal borrowing, other industries that rely directly or indirectly on civilian government support (domestic transportation, construction, education) wither.

Of course, the current DC regime isn’t a generally pro-business, pro-economic-growth group. It’s a gang of grafters responsive only to those specific interest groups that have bought and paid for it. Thus, we have a health care system that makes the pill companies rich while ignoring the needs of employers (let alone citizens). GM, if you believe some sources, pays some $200 more per US-built car than per Canadian-built car just because Canada’s got a saner health care system.