[Peace-discuss] The Long War cabal
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Sat Jun 20 22:47:40 CDT 2009
[In the Kennedy years, the US military used to say of Vietnam, "It's a dirty
little war, but it's the only war we've got." In spite of the wince-making
prose, the following analysis seems about right on the current version of that
attitude. --CGE]
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Bully Pulpiteers
Contrary to what the most recent U.S. president named George told you, the
oceans are “still there” and they still protect America. There is no evildoing
navy or air force that can haul enough wild-eyed Islamofabulists here to conquer
and occupy us. Another 9/11 will always be a slim possibility, no matter what we
do, but fighting goofy wars overseas for gossamer reasons won’t prevent it. That
9/11 ever happened at all was proof positive of the institutional Onanism that
infested the CIA and the FBI and the FAA and the NSA and JFCOM and rest of the
alphabet soup that was supposed to keep it from happening.
June 30, the day all of our troops are supposed to be out of Iraq cities, is
right around one of those corners Dick Cheney used to say we’d just turned. I
can’t wait to hear the excuse the Obama administration springs on us about why
we still have soldiers in places they swore they’d get them out of. We’re also
about to shove another 21,000 G.I.s into Afghanistan, a maneuver that the Army
appears to have been planning on since before the 2008 election, and there’s
still danger that the American warmongery will elbow our president and
legislature into displaying fool traits vis-à-vis Iran.
Philip Geraldi put up a stunning article at Antiwar.com on Tuesday about the
decades of abject failure our clandestine operations have produced. “Covert
action,” he adroitly notes, “rarely turns out to be positive in the long term
because the covert action in itself inhibits healthy political tendencies in the
targeted country.” Covert actions, he adds, “support elites and the military”
and in result “they are essentially anti-democratic and regressive in nature.”
He also aptly observes that no country we have our finger stuck in today is
“more stable or better governed because of the American intervention in its
affairs.”
One can reasonably argue—as Theodore Roosevelt did—that America has a
responsibility to be the major player in world affairs. I have no argument with
that argument, but I wholly disagree with the warmongery’s argument that staying
engaged with the rest of the world means we have to keep blowing the bejesus out
of it a scrap at a time. What makes us so happy about beating everyone else up
these days? When I was a kid, everybody viewed bullies as overgrown jerks. We
became a colossus with our 20th century wars. I still assert that if we’d stayed
out of the First World War, there might not have been a second one, or a cold
one either. We can’t row upstream and relocate those boulders, but we can glance
over our shoulders as we look upstream and think about what kind of world we
want to be part of creating.
Russia and China won’t ever be military competitors, and we’ll never have
another Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan to fight. Iran couldn’t bench press our
jock strap. By some credible estimates, more than half of our Federal budget
goes into funding defense related items, yet you seldom hear anybody with a
mainstream pulpit blame the present state of our economy on our
over-adventuresome military policies. You’ll hear instead about how the economy
was going along swimmingly until all those blacks and Hispanics defaulted on
$700 billion worth of mortgage loans the banks had to give them because of some
law the liberals passed during the Carter years.
George Washington cautioned us to avoid entangling alliances. Dwight Eisenhower
warned us to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” George W. Bush said,
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans,
again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the
very best."
How is that we continue to heed the words of the third conservative in that
lineup and ignore the first two?
As recently as May, the Obama administration was considering reaching out to
coax “moderate” elements of the Taliban into laying down their arms. The Afghan
government at the time was negotiating with the Taliban, whose initial demands
included a total withdrawal of U.S. troops. In early June, Gen. Stanley
McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee he wasn’t interested in
talking to the Taliban. McChrystal’s new command is still on track to grow by
21,000 troops. Funny how that worked out, eh?
McChrystal now says he intends to shift the Afghanistan strategy away from
remote regions of the country to concentrate on protecting population centers.
Funny how we tried that before and it didn’t work out, so now we’re doing it
again. UPI calls McChrystal “a Special Forces expert schooled in the
counterinsurgency doctrines employed in Iraq.” That’s the kind of remark UPI
probably derived from the press kit McChrystal’s public affairs people handed out.
The Pentagon has successfully pushed the media into parroting the “successful”
Iraq strategy of Gen. David Petraeus line, which even Petraeus acolyte Tom Ricks
admits “succeeded” because Petraeus gave everybody guns and bribed them not to
shoot at anybody. Ricks also confesses that, “U.S. soldiers will probably be
engaged in combat there [Iraq] until at least 2015.” Ricks says that conclusion
reflects “The quiet consensus” of many soldiers who have served in Iraq. But
it’s actually the “consensus” of Iraq commander Gen. Ray Odierno and the rest of
the long war cabal, who have used Ricks and the rest of the media as a
stenography pad to shill their agenda for eternal low level conflict.
And it appears that they now own the pulpit lock stock and bullhorn.
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes at Pen and Sword and
Antiwar.com. Jeff's novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books), a lampoon on
America's rise to global dominance, is on sale now.
http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list