37 Seconds to Insult Your Intelligence

The utter obtuseness of "strategic" arguments produced (here by pompous dignitaries) to keep American forces busy in Afghanistan never ceases to amaze me.

What Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen are saying in the first 37 seconds of the below clip is both breathtakingly stupid, disrespectful of your intelligence, and an admission of the inevitable defeat of the mission they are trying to sell to the public.

They argue: America must be in Afghanistan with a massive presence of conventional military forces - there is simply no other way to defeat "terrorism," says Gates, or "Al Qaeda," says Mullen seemingly more specifically.

What they are saying is, if "terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" (they don't really know what they mean by these terms) should have the audacious cleverness to use a third, fourth, or fifth country as their operational base, the United States will not be able to cope with that move, as American forces are already stretched to the max by confronting "terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What they are saying is, if "terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" spread to other countries and in that sense do not fully concentrate their forces in the two countries that America happens to have invaded and barely manages to occupy and control satisfactorily with her conventional forces, the fight against them is lost.

In insulting the intelligence of the American people, what they are saying is: "terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" will choose to operate only in the (two) countries that American forces are capable of pestering by dint of their huge presence; to think otherwise betrays an attitude "that does not accord with reality," suggests Gates.

What they are saying is, "terrorism" or "Al Qaeda" are attracted to countries where it is most dangerous for them to operate.

Is it so hard to understand the agenda of these stubborn technocrats, who make a career of having American soldiers needlessly maimed and killed? They just want to justify the massive deployment of American forces, where and to what purpose is pretty much a secondary matter.

Characteristically, Gates and Muller falsely and demagogically equate the need of "non-remote" counter terrorist action with the huge military presence that is their job to sell to the public.

The biggest stateside terror assault ever was pulled off by 19 guys that could have been sufficiently prepared for that purpose virtually anywhere in the world.

Like these entrepreneurs of evil, many other self-contained, independently operating terrorists could strike anytime, with no need of a state or an organisation of appreciable size to back them, let alone one whose defeat can only be accomplished, if at all, by the most powerful army in the world.

Mullen implies the possibility of defeating "Al Qaeda," "which is the mission," he says. However this insinuation is disingenuous: you cannot defeat episodic terrorism, i.e. bring it to an irreversible end.

But somehow, not only cold-blooded technocrats of the military-industrial complex like Gates and Mullen, but large sections of the American public seem to remain convinced that one needs to send 150 000 (or so) American soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to safeguard against such events.

Comments

[jimcarroll.pip.verisignlabs.com]

Does anyone think that Obama is anguishing in the Oval Office saying, "Oh, my God -- if I've lost George Will, I've lost the Nation"?

Naaahhh....

[Triple Hash]

What is a problem now is that Obama supporters now support the Afghanistan war. Talking to an anti-war democrat just a couple weeks ago he stated that we had to be in Afghanistan since Pakistan had nukes. Where is the ANTI-WAR party in the US? It's gone. (Some would say it never existed.) George Will at least had the courage to stand up to this. But as a voter, who do you vote for if you are against war?

###

[Brutus]

"Some would say it never existed."

Out history certainly shows that to be the case. Most anti-war rhetoric from democrats or republicans is a disagreement on procedure rather than a condemnation of war in general.

We need to elect some Quakers into office.

[Triple Hash]

We did. Richard Milhous Nixon. And we see how well that turned out. : )

###

[Brutus]

Son of a .... I never Tricky dick was a Quaker! Certainly, he wasn't a practicing one.

Well, then, maybe we need a Shaker. They made good furniture and used to be the premier plant seed distributors, maybe they would make good politicians if there are any left.

[James]

The truth is that we have not fought a "war" in the traditional sense of that word since WWII. Therein lies the rub. When you look at WWII you see the true carnage that is required to "win" a war. Having lost the stomach for such in the wake of WWII, we have redefined war to be a more "comfortable" use of force. That is why we have not "won" a war since and will not unless we are willing to return to that rather horrific definition of what war really is. If we do, then not only will we fight far fewer of them, but our prospects for a definitive victory improves dramatically, albeit our consciences might suffer.

Just my opinion and you are welcome to it.

[eric larson]

I disagree that we lost the stomach to fight wars after WWII. Look at Korea and Vietnam. They were bloody affairs and used tremendous resources.

I do think it is fair to say that we have made the mistake to never have our army 'stand down'. It is precisely the fact that they are just sitting around with 'nothing to do' that they are always are an option for dealing with problems.

If we maintained our military the way we did before WWI it would not be quite so easy to go traipsing about starting conflicts. However, the history of states is one of violence and we would probably still have many of these military actions. It's why the declaration of war clause was so important within the Constitution and too bad that it has been ignored for years.

[Laura Ebke]

1) I think it's safe to say that Nixon wasn't really a practicing Quaker--but if I recall correctly (I read parts of his memoirs when I was working on my dissertation), his mother was the real Quaker, quite conservative in her beliefs--his father not so much.
2) Nixon (more Kissinger) followed the "realist" school of international relations--which brings about some real conflicts sometimes between personal morality and ethics public foreign policy. (Can you tell that I'm boning up on my International Relations theory in preparation for teaching in a month?)
3) What it seems that we find in anti-war rhetoric comes from those who aren't really in the position to actually have to implement policy--today that's the Ron Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's of the world--in days gone by it was people like Robert Taft, George McGovern, etc. Neither party seems to have a lock on anti-war vocalists--although whichever party doesn't have the President in power tends to have the most at any given time.

The problem, I think, is that we've forgotten the Constitution. We've (collectively) projected upon the President the responsibility to "protect" us. That's really not his role--at least not directly--but nevertheless, I think that the projection of that role upon the office has resulted in people who might take office with the most peace loving intentions, to end up fighting wars that they shouldn't--because they've been convinced that they have to in order to keep us safe....Either that, or they're all power hungry SOBs who like having the power of life or death in their hands.