EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Don’t You Know There’s a War On?
A recent headline on the New York Daily News website was blunt: "In case you’ve forgotten," it read, "we’re at war."
The story was about the deaths of six Americans in Afghanistan in five separate attacks and one accidental explosion, all on the same day. The day before, coalition forces had mistakenly killed six Afghan civilians when an artillery strike missed its target; the day after, the Taliban would kill eleven Afghan policemen and a district governor.
It is the deadliest year of the war in Afghanistan, now the longest in American history. And although for most of us it’s out of sight, out of mind, each day, the numbers continue to slowly creep up. So far this year, 241 Americans have died, 60 of them in June, 39 in July, according to the website iCasualties.org.
On July 12, the independent watchdog Afghanistan Rights Monitor reported, "In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since the demise of the Taliban regime." By the group’s calculations, 1074 civilians had died so far in 2010, although the much-discussed restrictions on rules of engagement have lowered the number of civilian deaths caused by international forces. The majority -- 61 percent -- died in insurgent attacks.
All of which is to say, whatever it is we’re trying to do in Afghanistan -- fighting the so-called global war on terrorism, waging a counterinsurgency, nation building -- it isn’t working. And in continuing to fight this conflict we are not only guaranteeing the continued destruction of that faraway land but our own country as well, lives and treasure pouring into futility abroad as double dip financial disaster threatens on the homefront.
For an American military already stretched to the cracking point, the human cost spreads beyond the immediate casualties of the battlefield. June was the worth month ever recorded for US Army suicides, the service reported last Thursday, with soldiers killing themselves at the rate of one per day, 32 confirmed or suspected in all. Twenty-two of them had been in combat; ten had been deployed two to four times. What’s more, by the spring of 2009, according to The Washington Post, "The percentage of the Army's most severely wounded troops who were suffering from PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] or traumatic brain injury had climbed to about 50 percent, from 38 percent a year earlier."
The one bit of good news: "Senior commanders have reached a turning point," the Post reported on Sunday. "After nine years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are beginning to recognize age-old legacies of the battlefield -- once known as shellshock or battle fatigue -- as combat wounds, not signs of weakness. [Army Vice Chief of Staff] Gen. Peter Chiarelli... has been especially outspoken. 'PTSD is not a figment of someone's imagination,' Chiarelli lectured an auditorium of skeptical sergeants last fall. 'It is a cruel physiological thing.'"
Yet many remain unconvinced and military medicine suffers from a chronic shortage of money and personnel -- neurologists especially -- to provide the care so desperately needed. Like so much else associated with this war, the solution remains out of reach.
Even among those who still publicly declare victory is within grasp there is uncertainty and doubt, their arguments a threadbare tapestry behind which it’s increasingly difficult to hide. Despite this week’s international conference in Kabul with Secretary of State Clinton in attendance, and despite the announcement that President Karzai has agreed to create local defense forces that will augment the police and military, little real progress is being made in creating any semblance of stability in Afghanistan. The ferocity of the insurgency continues to intensify, the size of their bombs grow larger and more deadly. Last week’s fatal attack on an Afghan police base in Kandahar was described by an experienced US Army Airborne captain as "definitely well-planned and coordinated much better than anything we’ve seen before." A preview of coming attractions as some 10,000 Afghan and coalition troops prepare to escalate fighting aimed at clearing out the Taliban’s Kandahar strongholds.
But even if we were to "win," what then? As Tom Engelhardt wrote last week on the website TomDispatch.com, "We would be in minimalist possession of the world’s fifth poorest country. We would be in minimal possession of the world’s second most corrupt country. We would be in minimal possession of the world’s foremost narco-state, the only country that essentially produces a drug monocrop, opium. In terms of the global war on terror, we would be in possession of a country that the director of the CIA now believes to hold 50 to 100 al-Qaeda operatives ('maybe less') -- for whom parts of the country might still be a ‘safe haven.’ And for this, and everything to come, we would be paying, at a minimum, $84 billion a year."
Meanwhile, McClatchy News reported Thursday on two Kabul glamour spots, the Fig Health Centre and the Kabul Health Club, where the expatriate community can relax with a hot stone massage or an Arctic berry facial: "One spa treatment at Fig would be a month's salary for most Afghans in a country with a 35 percent unemployment rate, a pervasive culture of state-sanctioned corruption and constant dangers posed by the war with the Taliban."
Abdul Farani, owner of the Kabul Health Club told McClatchy, "I believe in the value of a peaceful environment. We can rise to the levels of angels or sink to the level of devils and what's different is the environment."
In case you’ve forgotten, we’re at war.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


56 Comments so far
Show AllAs Pete Seeger sang in the 1960s:
"Bring 'em Home!"
In the US there's always a war on.
At last - a posting that tells the truth about "our WAR in the Middle East!!!
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a very important inclusion regarding the deaths of our troops has been omitted: the number of troops who have committed suicide (including my young grand nephew) after they returned.
And the government is doing NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prevent this when the troops return!!!
Doesn't this all seem so familiar? I bet some of the same CIA field officers that worked in Saigon 45 yrs. ago are working Kabul as senior officers now. This is the work of Empire and long before them were their British and then the Russian counter parts. We will come and go as well and the Afghans will still be there. It's sad that thousands of them will die as well as thousands of our young people all of them to feed the maw of another Empire and it's enemies a few hundred religious fanatics. But, then that's what Empires do isn't it?
I wish I believed the real reason to be there at all wasn't simply: to be there.
Central to Asia...Iran, Pakistan, India, the nearby 'Stans; patrolling the Unocal pipeline, if it ever gets finished; managing to not stem the flow of opiates; managing to not stem the never-ending formation of new terr'ists; spending weapons as fast as they can be manufactured, and field-testing new ones that can be used at home, if need be; giving the ever-growing population of paupers a way to gamble on escaping their economic fates...
it's actually working very well for they who run things.
Resource competition. Using the US military to push the competition out of the way, to ensure USan access to the resources. Its "allies" having exactly the same agenda.
Notice that the people are never asked if they want the resources. The elite agenda is to addict the people to the resources before they have a chance to think.
A war here and a war there, everywhere there is war. We hate the war machine but rely on it for money or relief from boredom. For some, being at peace translates to boredom and poverty. It is easier to get into a war and prolong it than it is to make peace and keep it.
$84 billion a year to get nothing!
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."
Nineteen Eighty-Four/Part II, Chapter 9, by George Orwell.
War is just another arm of capitalism. After the cold war ended we had to find new theaters of death, new reasons to blow things up, build new bombs, jets, drones, etc. see: Janes Missles and Rockets. A great site. We are so screwed
One of the turning points of the American war crimes in Vietnam was when grunts began fragging their officers after realizing the Vietnamese were not our enemy.
refuse to deploy. refuse to serve. refuse to pay taxes.
these are the weapons we can wield against empire. and they are more powerful than guns
We're lucky they aren't knocking our aircraft out of the sky with missiles and aren't flying drones over the U.S. That's what a war could look like. We're accustomed to "war" being something that's "over there" fought by "those guys".
Right now, our troops are in the middle of a police operation and those tactics are not what the military was designed for.
If there was either a draft or a tax on gas to pay for the "war" people wouldn't need a reminder. The war would move back to #1 concern.
We're not at war, we're at "Police".
What's the surprise? The 'metro-sexualized' guys who run the government (going way back) have never fought in a war, never tasted blood, and have little idea what an army's used for.
Successful armies are only good at destroying people and things; that's their business. That's why nations use them. To expect that armies will 'build' anything - confidence, security, infrastructure, 'nations' - is as irrational an expectation as the modern brain can contain. It is an ideological blindspot. Which is why the Pentagon is failing miserably, and expensively, wherever it lands. We've become so militarized a society that we can no longer see that the military has become the primary interface through which we address the rest of the world.
Are you sure? Perhaps sometimes a nations army builds a few things or fixes a few things. What about Malaria in the Phillipines or the bridges in Haiti. Roman roads and aquaducts, etc. Is there any nation that can stand for long without its army or someone elses providing security?
Just to say maybe its not quite all bad as you say. But I wouldn't suggest you are at all off base with your description of the guys that so easily send others to war.
"Is there any nation that can stand for long without its army or someone elses providing security? "
Our US military is broke to the point of relying on privatized everything to do all the rebuilding.
"What about Malaria in the Phillipines or the bridges in Haiti."
The army doesn't get much say anymore. CD has posted a lot of articles on the privatization of rebuilding Haiti. The Pentagon won't say anything about corporate thugs like Blackwater and Monsanto preying on Haitians.
Battle Begins Over Who'll Get Lucrative Haiti Cleanup Contracts
U.S. firms want part in Haiti cleanup
by Martha Brannigan and Jacqueline Charles
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/09-5
Disaster Contractors Eye Haiti for New Deals
by Sue Sturgis
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/11-4
Mercenaries Circling Haiti
by Bill Quigley
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/03-4
Please Don’t Superdome Haiti
by Michelle Chen
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/18-5
Haitian Farmers Leery of Monsanto's Largesse
by Peter Constantini
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/22-10
"Roman roads and aquaducts"
Rome never needed a military to build roads. What they needed was dedicated labor.
As for the army itself to another nation's rescue, I don't recommend it. Soldiers have to go through training and most of it is on fighting and winning for the politicians and business leaders who wanted these wars but wouldn't bother fighting on their own. Anyone can make an advertisement on soldiers helping kids but all that video is just illusions. Soldiers don't get to do things peacefully with friendly civilians. They're put in tough spots of shooting them or facing court marshaling for not following orders. Vietnam may have recovered but records show that it was only after the troops got withdrawn that the civilians started to feel more at ease. I didn't see civilians benefiting when I was serving there. If helping other nations to build or rebuild was really taken seriously, we wouldn't be sending an army to do it. In fact, a lot of what we're supposedly helping them rebuild was destroyed either mainly by our forces or the capitalist policies that made foreign exploitation and ruination possible. Armies and rebuilding just don't mix.
"Our US military is broke to the point of relying on privatized everything to do all the rebuilding"
I disagree brother. Our military isn't relying on these dogs of mercenaries. They generally detest them for the rabble they are. Most of the problems with civilians have been caused by them. As for the rest, they could take care of it as we always did, but then the Corp.'s couldn't rob the country blind.
But our military is indeed nearing the breaking point with people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Obama, Rahm, etc in charge.
Actually I was referring to the bridges in Haiti that Marines built many years ago, most of the bridges in Haiti were built by our Marines as a matter of fact. From the look of what we are all doing, they could use the Marines again. Looks as if the Hatians have been let down by everybody.
But you are on the money that our kids should come home so the Afghan and Iraqi don't have to look at foreign soldiers in their country anymore. We both remember what its like to look in the eyes of people whose country we're in that would just as soon not have us there.
"Anyone can make an advertisement on soldiers helping kids but all that video is just illusions"
Ain't that the truth! Remember the "journalists" who "told it like it was"...HA! Our guys were indeed helpful and kind to the civilians...big deal...we were there in their country and most just wanted to be left alone. Even when they were helping us in the mountains, I remember them asking when we were going home?
I was a Marine back in the Vietnam War days but left after I returned. I couldn't go back after getting severely maimed by land mine blast. If I had to look at the Marines today, they would be nothing like the 70s. I'm not so sure that they could help rebuild Haiti today like they used to. The troops need to first be brought home, cured of their PTSDs and retrained to serve for peaceful purposes. However, if I had to pick between letting the Marines helping in the rebuilding of Haiti and those crooked contractors, then I would choose the Marines to do the rebuilding as the lesser evil. As to the civilians asking us when we wanted to go home, I saw that too and a few of those times slowly made me realize that these people aren't so bad after all and made me wonder what we're doing there anyway. I still regret joining and it isn't just because of my injuries. All I can say for the current Marines is lots of luck to them.
We are NOT AT WAR!
The criminal and corrupt US govt. is engaged in violent imperial MILITARY OCCUPATIONS!
This is freakin textbook, why do even so-called progressives use the frame of the right-wing?
There is a class war going on and we are losing badly.
So then are those whose lands we are currently occupying engaged in a war?
Of course if you define "war" as any conflict, then yes. However in this context no.
According to Merriam-Webster.com:
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war...
Is Afghanistan a nation-state?
Is the Taleban a nation or a state?
How many tank divisions do "the Taleban" have?
How many fighter aircraft?
How many heavy bombers?
Tactical artillery?
Drones?
None?
What would you call it?
I call it the indigenous armed struggle for autonomy from imperial military occupiers.
So then are those whose lands we are currently occupying engaged in a war?
You tell me. I thought I answered the question. Your turn.
It's not what I think, or even what you think, it's what the people who take up arms in those places we occupy think that matters. I submit that if it smells like a war, tastes like a war, sounds like a war, and destroys like a war - which it does all around them, it's probably a war - notwithstanding our armchair niceties.
I disagree: the language, discourse, metaphors and frames of any issue are very important indeed from a cognitive and linguistic standpoint. One does not have to be a follower of George Lakoff to realize this.
I asked some relevant questions above, yet you did not bother to answer them. I stand by my statement.
A War is not the same as Violent Military Occupation. You may think it is splitting hairs, but language makes a big difference. Or maybe we can reduce the lexicon of the English language to say, 5,000 words it would be easier that way eh.
I guess I failed to articulate it properly. The basic definition of the word does not fit as you can see. Military Occupation is BEYOND war - in the case of Afganistan. Of course the two words go hand in hand, but when one refers to Afghanistan, we need to describe the situation not just as war, but as the invasion, and long-term imperial occupation.
What you refer to as a GENERAL state of war by the Empire Inc. That I do agree with.
It seems we are largely in agreement here and I know I seem pedantic when I nitpick about metaphors, frames, narratives etc. but the language used or omitted is quite important.
Its an occupation not a war. Iraq and Afghanistan were both unwarrented invasions. You can hardly describe what happened as war. They had no chance.
During the occupation of both countries they have engaged in fighting the only way they can. But War it is not.
I don't believe its nit picking to destinguish between these occupations and Viet Nam, WW2, etc where nations were engaged in fighting. There is no field army opposing us in either country as there was in the others.
"the language used or omitted is quite important."
please consider your use of "class war" above.
we need to conduct our struggle without resorting to memes of violence.
as you rightly said: "the language, discourse, metaphors and frames of any issue are very important indeed from a cognitive and linguistic standpoint."
Don't get excited, my friend, my answer to you is that I don't have a strong opinion about what we can call an 'armed conflict' (a very general term that can move from a gang fight with knives to an all-out nuclear exchange). I come down more on the side of symantical differences but understand your point about 'framing' when it comes to us deciding who is telling the truth about - let's say conflict in the middle east. But I think the distinction is only interesting in passive observers. I would suggest that it makes little sense to those living in an 'armed conflict' zone - whether in Oakland or Kabul. And frankly, their views are far more germain to the question than ours. The problem with most of us is that we see things in terms of how it affects 'us' - as in "oh my god, my government's lying to ME about killing all those folks in..." you can pick the place.
It takes me back to the 'tree in the forest' question. If it falls and no one's around does it make a sound? It's a non-sequitor depending on how you define 'sound'. If 'sound' is defined as the vibrations made by the tree falling, then yes it makes a sound - even if no one's around to hear it. If 'sound', however, is defined as the point when an auditory apparatus (an ear for example) senses the 'sound' (and no one is around to hear) then the falling tree doesn't make a sound. That's how your question sounds to me - the answer depends on how you define your terms - and that doesn't sound to me very helpful in understanding.
As an aside, Lakoff also opines that although we claim to be logical creatures, that 95% of what we think is generated from our emotions and not our intellect. In short, we emote a response then use our intellect to rationalize. Some on CD are far less successful at this than others.
Any occupation of foreign lands is prone to running into wars. Those wars may not involve weapons but the civilians there are not going to keep putting up with the costs of being occupied forever. I was in Vietnam myself when it slowly dawned on me what civilian families go through. Life isn't sweet when they have to worry about foreign troops occupying their lands. Some civilians will find themselves no longer able to put up with foreign oppression that they'll fight back or even cause an insurgency to give the troops and the elite leaders on both sides a strong message. Occupation is in some ways a continuation of war because the occupier is at a lopsided advantage against defenseless civilians so to answer your question, yes in a different sense. If you were to change the wording of your question from "then" to "when", the answer would be always. From my experience and those of some of my friends who also served, I have come to view occupations as covert wars at large.
To be more exact, JWVerez; The occupation of one country or swatch of land by a foreign occupier IS an act of war.
I'm sure there are Afghanis and Iraqis who would find your analysis puzzling. Of course we are at war--an illegal war, an undeclared war, an assymetrical war, but a war none the less.
"-- it isn’t working."
Sure its working. As a distraction to our woes at home, its perfect. Its working for a lot of citizen-spooks and government flunkies. Didn't you see the WP story yesterday about our newest and bestest job breeder: the MIC? Plus the army gets to play real army and bust-up real stuff and kill people. These wars are great testing grounds for the latest & greatest killing and maiming tools.
Yeah, its working fine.
It may be "working" in that perverted sense, but economically it is slowly leveling this country (I'm sure you know this). These MIC jobs don't create anything truly useful... for the most part, they are in the make-and-destroy business. Anyone who thinks any of this militarism is somehow good for the economy or is "working fine" is either deluded or a psychotic shill for the MIC. Yes, we need jobs, but we need CONSTRUCTIVE jobs that either conserve and/or create wealth, not blow it up. Does anyone really think that all this militarism is somehow good for our security either?
The MIC is all predicated on American paranoia. Paranoia is a psychosis that breeds mistrust and ends up fostering exactly the kinds of conditions that perpetuate the paranoia... an unwillingness to engage and understand. I place a lot of the blame on cloistered, institutional religion. The best defense is a strong economy, and the clearest mind is one free of religion.
"These wars are great testing grounds for the latest & greatest killing and maiming tools."
These war crime situations are also an opportunity for the military and the corporate fascists to train the next generation of "super killers", meaning those soldiers who adapt to combat and have no conscience about killing innocent people.
In other words. they are good cops working for the economic elite.
History has shown that it is not difficult to find people who will do anything or kill anyone in exchange for modest salary or to fulfill their delusional views of right and wrong.
Don't forget to support the troops.
"All of which is to say, whatever it is we’re trying to do in Afghanistan -- fighting the so-called global war on terrorism, waging a counterinsurgency, nation building -- it isn’t working"
Ah, but it is working, albeit not as well as expected. The objective is and always has been to maintain a continued presence for strategic and energy unilateralism.
Just like the lily pads of military bases dotted around Iraq the whole game is to maintain a stranglehold of power in the region as a buffer to surround China and Russia etc. and pick up Iran's oil along the way.
It's not really a war, we're just spreading anarchy in all of the enemies of Israel. Or at least all the ones we can handle; two nations destroyed by western abuse (Iraq and Afghanistan) and another being destroyed as we browse the web (Pakistan). And I'm sure there's more to come, but we might need a new corporate president before that happens. The one we have seems to be wearing a little thin around the edges.
>>
The day before, coalition forces had mistakenly killed six Afghan civilians when an artillery strike missed its target;
<<
This shit got old nine years ago.
The Afghans are just supposed to lie down and take this?
There is really only one way for the government to sincerely atone for such incidents. The military inside the US should at random kill one US citizen for every civilian mistakenly killed overseas. If a family of six innocents is mistakenly killed by US forces then a family of six innocents inside the US, picked at random amongst all US families of six, should be deliberately killed by the military. This would let the American people know what war is really like -- sudden needless horrific violence coming seemingly from nowhere. It might prompt a renewed antiwar effort in the US.
Do you think this is a sick, sick horrid idea? Me too. Almost as sick and horrid an environment established inside Afghanistan by the US. Almost.
No one inside the US has ever known what it is like to be invaded, occupied and slaughtered at random. But plenty of people worldwide know what it is to be invaded and occupied by the US while it kills their people, seemingly at random.
What a sick, sick society. What a sick, sick government populated by killer psychopaths. This country deserves to be wiped from the pages of time.
"This country deserves to be wiped from the pages of time."
Elsewhere in today's CD is an article which claims that 55% of likely voters think Obama is a socialist. We are slowly yet surely wiping ourselves off the map. No foreign invader is accomplishing this; we are doing this to ourselves. Stupidity and coarseness have their consequences.
Socialist can be anything. I believe that Obama is a corporate socialist.
Karma's a bitch when you're in the wrong, and this country, MY country, is in the wrong on this one. Did we "deserve" 9/11? Probably. Will we deserve the next one? Definitely! LIve by the sword... it's Biblical folks, you Bible thumping freaks who support this war. Live by the sword, die by the sword--the word of God.
"This country deserves to be wiped from the pages of time."
That's pretty tough talk, but who's gonna do it? And after they're done, assuming they survive, how will 'they' be any more ethical after destroying half a continent?
Sounds like more of the same - which doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
See Mordechai Shiblikov July 20th, 2010 4:08 pm.
We are doing it to ourselves. The comment itself was a 'sendup' of Ahmadinijad's similar statement about Israel which was misconstrued as "Israel needs to be wiped off the map". It does not have to happen militarily. We are doing it to ourselves, thus, we deserve what we get. We DESERVE to be... etc.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program: killing innocent people in the middle east, brought to you by those proud American providers of jobs, the Military Industrial Complex. $16 bucks an hour assembling hellfire missiles. Nice work if you can get it.
All of which is to say, whatever it is we’re trying to do in Afghanistan -- fighting the so-called global war on terrorism, waging a counterinsurgency, nation building -- it isn’t working.
The USA presence in Af-ganef-stan is not about any of those things. It's about MONEY - anything there or in the region that has a dollar sign on it, as well as yet another juvenile display of USA machismo and Swinging Dickism.
Capitalism has made America stupid and numb to the pain of others.
ShadowDancer...your posts are a breath of fresh air.
Peace, Old Indian
Take from the poor and give it to the military – way to go.
"whatever it is we’re trying to do in Afghanistan -- fighting the so-called global war on terrorism, waging a counterinsurgency, nation building -- it isn’t working"
Apparently, the propaganda campaign is working, because so-called leftists such as the author of this article continue to cite the bogus pretexts for Oceania's endless war on people/planet.
It's rather offensive. Also offensive is the author saying "we" when the instigator of endless war is not the people, but Big Brother.
Meanwhile, Oceania's campaign in Eurasia happens to be working wonders. Lots of resources are being channeled from the Oceanian people to Big Brother and his thugs. The ultimate agenda is to keep Big Brother strong, and his thugs loyal/obedient.
I agree with you. The article takes the stated excuses for the invasion at face value. And the rest of the article seems to make a damn good illustration of why the stated reasons are not valid.
"But even if we were to "win," what then?"
Well here is where the real reasons need to be stated. For starters, we would would have secured all of the oil pipeline profits, and we would have a military basis for the invasion of Iran and the further domination of the oil producing region.
Vietghanistan is about oil and part of a sophisticated propaganda scheme and neither the Pentagon nor Obama is in charge of this war. The questions to ask why this is so: Where are the remaining fossil fuel reserves in the world? Which areas would you need to control to make sure that the biggest growth consumers of energy, India and China, don't get their hands on those reserves?
Good Article and comments.
Got me thinkin....
Words matter but, If it there is no war then there are no war crimes.
Why is the peace movement so weak?
Because there is no war.
Now there is no war economy or war profiteers.
That was easy...
There is no War on Drugs either, the cops just use that as an excuse to have work to do.
War is also state of mind.... unless there is no war.
There is no Class War because there is no Class and there is no War.
So we are fine even if we are occupied by the War Machine.
But there is no war machine without War and no war president...
But still somethin feels not right.
We could demand an end to "occupation" but even more folks would wonder where they would find a job.
So, to me War is evil but it is still a good word because you don't have to explain it so Bring um Home!