[Peace-discuss] A fresh wind blows against the Empire.

[C. G. Estabrook]

Principled?  Will seems to me to be making a purely prudential judgment.  Or, as 
we say today, "pragmatic," which means a judgment that specifically excludes 
ethical considerations.

There are two quite different ways to oppose America's Mideast war:

[1] it will cost too much to achieve US war aims; or

[2] it's a crime.

Will seems to be embracing [1], not [2].  --CGE


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> /"People can try and fool themselves that...Obama truly wants peace. The 
> reality of facts on the ground dispute this.  We are deceiving ourselves 
> if we think otherwise.  Obama is fully on the trajectory of the Empire, 
> there is no denying this…I do not place the blame for imperial violence 
> on any president:  It is the system...What can the people do to 
> counteract our governments that don’t have our best interests in mind?"/
> - Cindy Sheehan
> 
> Fresh Winds Blow Against the Empire, as the Nation Tires of Futile, 
> Endless, Back-Breaking War.
> by E. Wayne Johnson   republicmedia.tv (http://tiny.cc/ewjrmtv6sep09)
> 
> Conservatives Flee Failed NeoCon Dogmata, while Anti-War Left Fumes at 
> Obama, and Former BHO Supporters Struggle to Fight Back Buyer's Remorse.
> 
> After 8 years, nearly a trillion dollars spent (that's the "Official" 
> Figure, the "total spent" on the war when the "off-the-balance sheet" 
> expenditure is known undoubtably much much more), over 5100 US lives 
> lost, tens of thousands wounded, and more soldiers suffering from 
> shellshock/PTSD, what do Americans have to show for the sacrifice?  
> Bubkes.  Bubkes.  Who's got the bubkes?...  
> 
> In the ancient Chinese classic Sun Zi Bing Fa ("Master Sun's Art of 
> War"), Master Sun advised 2500 years ago that there are only two 
> possible outcomes of War:  Survival or Ruin.  Considering that neither 
> Iraq nor Afghanistan had threatened our survival, the inevitable ruin 
> was anticipated by our wiser leaders, but not by those who were in charge.
> 
> In a couple of extraordinary columns last week in the Washington Post, 
> Conservative Pundit George Will speaks out against Bush's war which has 
> expanded into Obama's war.  "The war already is nearly 50 percent longer 
> than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars" says Will, who 
> finds a solution for military success in Afghanistan to be 
> "inconceivable".   Will also notes that the Iraqis are quite likely to 
> demand an end to the despised US occupation of their sovereign land, and 
> says "The United States should treat this as a Dirty Harry Moment: Make 
> our day.", meaning that a "Yankee Go Home" message from the Iraqi voters 
> should be the cue for our long-overdue departure from Iraq.  
> 
> Will suggests that there might be some need for a military force in the 
> Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, but nonetheless his principled 
> stance against the war is reminiscent of the pre-neocon Robert Taft 
> Conservative days when the GOP was the peace party and the Dems were the 
> war party.
> 
> Arch-neocon William ("Bloody Bill") Kristol wasted no time in asserting 
> that George had lost his "will" by "urging retreat, and accepting 
> defeat", and encouraging more expenditures and more effort and more 
> troops in Afghanistan.  One is not surprised to hear such from Bill 
> Kristol and gang.
> 
> (read more:  http://tiny.cc/ewjrmtv6sep09)