EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scoring the Global War on Terror: From Liberation to Assassination in Three Quick Rounds
With the United States now well into the second decade of what the Pentagon has styled an “era of persistent conflict,” the war formerly known as the global war on terrorism (unofficial acronym WFKATGWOT) appears increasingly fragmented and diffuse. Without achieving victory, yet unwilling to acknowledge failure, the United States military has withdrawn from Iraq. It is trying to leave Afghanistan, where events seem equally unlikely to yield a happy outcome.
Elsewhere -- in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, for example -- U.S. forces are busily opening up new fronts. Published reports that the United States is establishing “a constellation of secret drone bases” in or near the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula suggest that the scope of operations will only widen further. In a front-page story, the New York Times described plans for “thickening” the global presence of U.S. special operations forces. Rushed Navy plans to convert an aging amphibious landing ship into an “afloat forward staging base” -- a mobile launch platform for either commando raids or minesweeping operations in the Persian Gulf -- only reinforces the point. Yet as some fronts close down and others open up, the war’s narrative has become increasingly difficult to discern. How much farther until we reach the WFKATGWOT’s equivalent of Berlin? What exactly is the WFKATGWOT’s equivalent of Berlin? In fact, is there a storyline here at all?
Viewed close-up, the “war” appears to have lost form and shape. Yet by taking a couple of steps back, important patterns begin to appear. What follows is a preliminary attempt to score the WFKATGWOT, dividing the conflict into a bout of three rounds. Although there may be several additional rounds still to come, here’s what we’ve suffered through thus far.
The Rumsfeld Era
Round 1: Liberation. More than any other figure -- more than any general, even more than the president himself -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dominated the war’s early stages. Appearing for a time to be a larger-than-life figure -- the “Secretary at War” in the eyes of an adoring (if fickle) neocon fan club -- Rumsfeld dedicated himself to the proposition that, in battle, speed holds the key to victory. He threw his considerable weight behind a high-tech American version of blitzkrieg. U.S. forces, he regularly insisted, were smarter and more agile than any adversary. To employ them in ways that took advantage of those qualities was to guarantee victory. The journalistic term adopted to describe this concept was “shock and awe.”
No one believed more passionately in “shock and awe” than Rumsfeld himself. The design of Operation Enduring Freedom, launched in October 2001, and of Operation Iraqi Freedom, begun in March 2003, reflected this belief. In each instance, the campaign got off to a promising start, with U.S. troops landing some swift and impressive blows. In neither case, however, were they able to finish off their opponent or even, in reality, sort out just who their opponent might be. Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, the “terrorists” refused to play by his rulebook and U.S. forces proved to be less smart and agile than their technological edge -- and their public relations machine -- suggested would be the case. Indeed, when harassed by minor insurgencies and scattered bands of jihadis, they proved surprisingly slow to figure out what hit them.
In Afghanistan, Rumsfeld let victory slip through his grasp. In Iraq, his mismanagement of the campaign brought the United States face-to-face with outright defeat. Rumsfeld’s boss had hoped to liberate (and, of course, dominate) the Islamic world through a series of short, quick thrusts. What Bush got instead were two different versions of a long, hard slog. By the end of 2006, “shock and awe” was kaput. Trailing well behind the rest of the country and its armed forces, the president eventually lost confidence in his defense secretary’s approach. As a result, Rumsfeld lost his job. Round one came to an end, the Americans, rather embarrassingly, having lost it on points.
The Petraeus Era
Round 2: Pacification. Enter General David Petraeus. More than any other figure, in or out of uniform, Petraeus dominated the WFKATGWOT’s second phase. Round two opened with lowered expectations. Gone was the heady talk of liberation. Gone, too, were predictions of lightning victories. The United States was now willing to settle for much less while still claiming success.
Petraeus offered a formula for restoring a semblance of order to countries reduced to chaos as a result of round one. Order might permit the United States to extricate itself while maintaining some semblance of having met its policy objectives. This became the operative definition of victory.
The formal name for the formula that Petraeus devised was counterinsurgency, or COIN. Rather than trying to defeat the enemy, COIN sought to facilitate the emergence of a viable and stable nation-state. This was the stated aim of the “surge” in Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush at the end of 2006.
With Petraeus presiding, violence in that country did decline precipitously. Whether the relationship was causal or coincidental remains the subject of controversy. Still, Petraeus’s apparent success persuaded some observers that counterinsurgency on a global scale -- GCOIN, they called it -- should now form the basis for U.S. national security strategy. Here, they argued, was an approach that could definitively extract the United States from the WFKATGWOT, while offering victory of a sort. Rather than employing “shock and awe” to liberate the Islamic world, U.S. forces would apply counterinsurgency doctrine to pacify it.
The task of demonstrating the validity of COIN beyond Iraq fell to General Stanley McChrystal, appointed with much fanfare in 2009 to command U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Press reports celebrated McChrystal as another Petraeus, the ideal candidate to replicate the achievements already credited to “King David.”
McChrystal’s ascendency came at a moment when a cult of generalship gripped Washington. Rather than technology being the determinant of success as Rumsfeld had believed, the key was to put the right guy in charge and then let him run with things. Political figures on both sides of the aisle fell all over themselves declaring McChrystal the right guy for Afghanistan. Pundits of all stripes joined the chorus.
Once installed in Kabul, the general surveyed the situation and, to no one’s surprise, announced that “success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign.” Implementing that campaign would necessitate an Afghan “surge” mirroring the one that had seemingly turned Iraq around. In December 2009, albeit with little evident enthusiasm, President Barack Obama acceded to his commander’s request (or ultimatum). The U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan rapidly increased.
Here things began to come undone. Progress toward reducing the insurgency or improving the capacity of Afghan security forces was -- by even the most generous evaluation -- negligible. McChrystal made promises -- like meeting basic Afghan needs with “government in a box, ready to roll in” -- that he proved utterly incapable of keeping. Relations with the government of President Hamid Karzai remained strained. Those with neighboring Pakistan, not good to begin with, only worsened. Both governments expressed deep resentment at what they viewed as high-handed American behavior that killed or maimed noncombatants with disturbing frequency.
To make matters worse, despite all the hype, McChrystal turned out to be miscast -- manifestly the wrong guy for the job. Notably, he proved unable to grasp the need for projecting even some pretence of respect for the principle of civilian control back in Washington. By the summer of 2010, he was out -- and Petraeus was back in.
In Washington (if not in Kabul), Petraeus’s oversized reputation quelled the sense that with McChrystal’s flame-out Afghanistan might be a lost cause. Surely, the most celebrated soldier of his generation would repeat his Iraq magic, affirming his own greatness and the continued viability of COIN.
Alas, this was not to be. Conditions in Afghanistan during Petraeus’s tenure in command improved -- if that’s even the word -- only modestly. The ongoing war met just about anyone’s definition of a quagmire. With considerable understatement, a 2011 National Intelligence Estimate called it a “stalemate.” Soon, talk of a “comprehensive counterinsurgency” faded. With the bar defining success slipping ever lower, passing off the fight to Afghan security forces and hightailing it for home became the publicly announced war aim.
That job remained unfinished when Petraeus himself headed for home, leaving the army to become CIA director. Although Petraeus was still held in high esteem, his departure from active duty left the cult of generalship looking more than a little the worse for wear. By the time General John Allen succeeded Petraeus -- thereby became the eighth U.S. officer appointed to preside over the ongoing Afghan War -- no one believed that simply putting the right guy in charge was going to produce magic. On that inclusive note, round two of the WFKATGWOT ended.
The Vickers Era
Round 3: Assassination. Unlike Donald Rumsfeld or David Petraeus, Michael Vickers has not achieved celebrity status. Yet more than anyone else in or out of uniform, Vickers, who carries the title Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, deserves recognition as the emblematic figure of the WFKATGWOT’s round three. His low-key, low-profile persona meshes perfectly with this latest evolution in the war’s character. Few people outside of Washington know who he is, which is fitting indeed since he presides over a war that few people outside of Washington are paying much attention to any longer.
With the retirement of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Vickers is the senior remaining holdover from George W. Bush’s Pentagon. His background is nothing if not eclectic. He previously served in U.S. Army Special Forces and as a CIA operative. In that guise, he played a leading role in supporting the Afghan mujahedeen in their war against Soviet occupiers in the 1980s. Subsequently, he worked in a Washington think tank and earned a PhD in strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University (dissertation title: “The Structure of Military Revolutions”).
Even during the Bush era, Vickers never subscribed to expectations that the United States could liberate or pacify the Islamic world. His preferred approach to the WFKATGWOT has been simplicity itself. “I just want to kill those guys,” he says -- “those guys” referring to members of al-Qaeda. Kill the people who want to kill Americans and don’t stop until they are all dead: this defines the Vickers strategy, which over the course of the Obama presidency has supplanted COIN as the latest variant of U.S. strategy.
The Vickers approach means acting aggressively to eliminate would-be killers wherever they might be found, employing whatever means are necessary. Vickers “tends to think like a gangster,” one admirer comments. “He can understand trends then change the rules of the game so they are advantageous for your side.”
Round three of the WFKATGWOT is all about bending, breaking, and reinventing rules in ways thought to be advantageous to the United States. Much as COIN supplanted “shock and awe,” a broad-gauged program of targeted assassination has now displaced COIN as the prevailing expression of the American way of war.
The United States is finished with the business of sending large land armies to invade and occupy countries on the Eurasian mainland. Robert Gates, when still Secretary of Defense, made the definitive statement on that subject. The United States is now in the business of using missile-armed drones and special operations forces to eliminate anyone (not excluding U.S. citizens) the president of the United States decides has become an intolerable annoyance. Under President Obama, such attacks have proliferated.
This is America’s new MO. Paraphrasing a warning issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Washington Post dispatch succinctly summarized what it implied: “The United States reserved the right to attack anyone who it determined posed a direct threat to U.S. national security, anywhere in the world.”
Furthermore, acting on behalf of the United States, the president exercises this supposed right without warning, without regard to claims of national sovereignty, without Congressional authorization, and without consulting anyone other than Michael Vickers and a few other members of the national security apparatus. The role allotted to the American people is to applaud, if and when notified that a successful assassination has occurred. And applaud we do, for example, when a daring raid by members in SEAL Team Six secretly enter Pakistan to dispatch Osama bin Laden with two neatly placed kill shots. Vengeance long deferred making it unnecessary to consider what second-order political complications might ensue.
How round three will end is difficult to forecast. The best we can say is that it’s unlikely to end anytime soon or particularly well. As Israel has discovered, once targeted assassination becomes your policy, the list of targets has a way of growing ever longer.
So what tentative judgments can we offer regarding the ongoing WFKATGWOT? Operationally, a war launched by the conventionally minded has progressively fallen under the purview of those who inhabit what Dick Cheney once called “the dark side,” with implications that few seem willing to explore. Strategically, a war informed at the outset by utopian expectations continues today with no concretely stated expectations whatsoever, the forward momentum of events displacing serious consideration of purpose. Politically, a war that once occupied center stage in national politics has now slipped to the periphery, the American people moving on to other concerns and entertainments, with legal and moral questions raised by the war left dangling in midair.
Is this progress?
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...
52 Comments so far
Show AllAbsurdities define USA-kistans foreign policy. It was always absurd that Iraq was ever any kind of threat to this nation. It is just as absurd that tribals from North Waziristan pose any threat whatsoever to the U.S. But those tribals make for good target practice and profit for the Military Industrial Cannibal. What a waste of blood and treasure these wars have been. Now we are facing global ecological catastrophe and all our leadership can do is more of the same. It is truly like cutting down that last tree on Easter Island to roll one more stone head (see "Collapse" by Jared Diamond). Disgusting.
As it is equally absurd to consider for a moment invading Iran, as is being aggressively promoted by Israel's right-wing government (but not its people) and by the Big Three Senate Neocons, McCain-Lieberman-Graham, in order for America ... nay, The World, to be safe from Iran's "intentions" to build and use nuclear weapons. It's Iraq all over again -- prove a negative or take the consequences.
Or Collapsenet.com - to see the realities of the societal collapse we are actually facing.
In addition to being an attempt to handle the reality of "Peak Oil," these wars serve as distractions from:
1) The Plutocracy's consolidation of political power and the governments usurpation of our fundamental freedoms in the face of the coming economic-ecological collapse.
And
2) The Military-Political-Economic-Intelligence-Complex's focus on the U.S. of A. dominating the rest of the world. ("We're not safe unless we control everything and everyone").
Whether Roman or American - these are the ways of Empire
"We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future.... To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth Community with a common destiny."
----The Earth Charter (2000)
The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community
"In The Great Turning, David Korten argues that 'Empire,' the organization of society through hierarchy and violence has always resulted in misery for the many and fortune for the few, but now it threatens the very future of humanity as Empire has become unsustainable and destructive.
"[He] traces the roots of Empire and charts the evolution of its instruments of control, from absolute monarchies to the multinational institutions of the global economy. He describes efforts to develop democratic alternatives to Empire, such as the founding of the United States and shows how elitists with an imperial agenda have undermined the 'American experiment.'
"Empire is not inevitable, and we can turn away from it. Korten draws on evidence from evolutionary theory, developmental psychology, and religious teachings to show that a life-centered, egalitarian, sustainable, democratic "'Earth Community' is possible."
I suppose that last question was meant to be rhetorical?
No - answers are left to us - the grunts on the ground.
We have the vote - we pay all the bills - but WE are morally bankrupt.
Following bankruptcy comes the re-building - if we have the strength and the imagination. We have to find ourselves - all over again.
=========
Rebuilding, compare the rebuilding of the WTC, now 11 years, to the rebuilding of entire countries, Japan and Germany after ww2. If their rebuilding progress were as pitiful and anemic as the rebuilding of the WTC they would still be living in tents and eating from soup lines. The WTC site is used as a memorial for the purpose of perpetuating fear and imagined fears USRAEL propaganda, recited by the MSM and the pretend christian televangelists. Just imagine if Germany and Japan had sulked over their destruction's for 10 years memorializing their destruction rather than applauding their successful reconstruction feeling sorry for themselves like USAn's do. The WTC should be a reminder of failure by the USG and the USA society to accept responsibility for what happened, but instead the USAn society is propagandized to sit on the pity pot provided by the USG, whining poor US, why US god?
"...compare the rebuilding of the WTC, now 11 years..."
Immediately, I thought of another comparison to that one: the Empire State Building, which was built from start to finish in thirteen and a half months.
I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe in the thirties there were a higher percentage of people who were used to hard work. Today, Americans have become lazier and more sedentary with each passing year. I would wager that the men who built the Empire State would not have bought the fake 9/11 story for an instant.
Andrew I applaud your current viewpoints, I sorry that it took the murder of your son, by his own government as those whom have died in the M.E. wars USAn troops and the populations of the invaded countries are all murder victims of the USG. Your shocking admission of your Berlin revelation about the conditions you realized that the troops of the USSR were not 9 feet tall with AK47's in each hand and teeth of steel is most admirable. The fact that you, a relative high ranking field grade officer, were duped by the USG propaganda about the USSR. You are a victim of the USA exceptionlism with the most heinous results imaginable, actually beyond imagination, a loss of your own child, murdered under false pretenses by the government you honorably served for decades. AS for me I went to the USSR in 1984 and it took me 1 week to realize, what I had suspected, that the USSR was incapable ot doing what the USG propaganda claimed it was capable of doing to the world. It could protect itself however which was its real crime according to the actual USG strategy. Your heroism is beyond the call of duty thank you.
While their politics are far different, Andrew Bacevich reminds me of Noam Chomsky with the excellent ability to analyze, interpret, and lay out the facts and logic with concise accuracy. My guess is that the "American people have (moved) on to other concerns and entertainments" because they like the present policy of offense as compared to reacting defensively after we are hit by bombings of our embassies, ships, skyscrapers, etc. While the occasional missile blows up teenage shepherds and assorted children living in the 'wrong' neighborhood, Americans are well conditioned to 'collateral damage.' I guess it's mostly up to the rest of the world to decide what is the best policy. My second guess is that the clamor against this will be subdued and mainly off the radar. Sometime in future years misuse will cause a ruckus.
- ” the war formerly known as the global war on terrorism (unofficial acronym WFKATGWOT) -
That's cute, Mr. Author, but we have better.
I suggest yet again that we name this insanity --> DAFT.
Defense against Future Terrorism war
Occupy language!
At least this author didn't call it the 'Afghan War'. I am grateful for such small favors.
mr b provides a description of the wars in an odd way
it's an odd perspective and simplistic as well
its like trying to describe a plane crash by profiling the pilot(s).
the global war on terror - gwot - is not a scenario of amerika fighting the bad guys, perceived or imagined or simply made up over there in arab land. its not that at all
the gwot is the bald faced and fascistic war of aggression that is carried out by amerika on the world
that's the gwot and its bigger than rumsfeld, petreus or mccrystal mr b - much bigger
it is not about amerika establishing hegemony throughout the world - we have already proven that we cannot do that - we tried and failed miserably
it is, oddly, not about amerika itself even
the gwot is actually the cwoh - the corporate war on humanity
the roles of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, etc is that of bit players. they are the bit players in the cop movie, who's names we don't know, and who get shot or blown up in the first few moments of the movie, never to be heard from again
the cwoh is one arm of a four-armed strategy
1. the military arm - wars and more wars...
2. the financial component - the fc. the fc is one of flooding the world with hundreds of trillions of dollars of worthless derivatives which are used to undermine one economy after another in a very serious attempt to usurp total control over the world economy. this again is not an amerikan enterprise it is a corporate enterprise. some of the players in that enterprise would be entities like the fed - which is a private banking cartel owned mainly by the rothschilds, the city of london which is the rothschild's tax free banking center and home to the hundreds of quadrillions of dollars in worthless derivatives, otherwise known as financial products
the third arm of the cwoh (corporate war on humanity) is
3. the political arena where we see the faces of some of the folks named in the article by mr b but there are many more than just those clowns
one of its core principles is to destroy democracy any and everywhere
Noam Chomsky:
Ultimately he drives the point home, suggesting the U.S. has an “extreme contempt for democracy” at home and around the world, and is not above resorting to violence to protect its interests"
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/chomsky-u-s-has-extreme-contempt-for-democracy/
chomsky is referring to the cwoh when he makes this claim to a large extent. it is not the policy of amerikans but it is the policy of their bought and paid for body politic - otherwise know as foreign policy. and the body politic works for the corporations not you or i
as george carlin said: its a big club and you amd i aint in it
the fourth arm of the cwoh (corporate war on humanity) is the
4. scientific dictatorship - the debt prison we all live in.
“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”
Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
the scientific war on humanity is the one we see everyday slowly choking us to death like a lazy python
this is where we see the tactics: vaccines, chemicals in the drinking water, gmo's, chemtrails, agenda 21, the wilding of amerika, the green movement, climate change, carbon taxes, surveillance and the conditioning of fear relentlessly into the dumbed down populace
the science war is realized through legislation from the bought and paid for body politic, the total control of the education system, the media and the medical establishment
"a psychiatrist in Ireland has suggested that we deliberately introduce it into the water supply. (Lithium)"
"If earlier research is borne out, and doses of lithium far lower than what was previously considered clinically relevant prove to lower suicide rates in a population, and there are no detectable side effects, why, other than paranoia and psychological exceptionalism, wouldn’t we put the stuff in the water?"
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/why-putting-anti-depressants-in-our-water-supply-is-perfectly-reasonable/11613
"Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."
http://www.amazon.ca/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298
so there you have it - an overview not of WFKATGWOT as described by mr b but rather the cwoh as described by me
for your consideration
Uf da. When you got to point 4 the ideas started to rather take on a life of their own. Please do not get lost.
its not about me getting lost - its about you getting found
the scientific dictatorship is about total control so i have outlined a few of the attack mechanisms
that's all
its about debt servitude, chemical assault both in medications and the environment, toxins in the food, water and the air
eugenics and population control
"One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”14
Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.
Spermicides hidden in GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity of the Gates’ foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan’s AGRA or vaccines that contain undisclosed sterilization agents are just two documented cases of using vaccines or GMO seeds to “reduce population.” "
http://oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Gates_Vaccines/gates_vaccines.html
huxley's main thesis was it is cheaper and more effective to enslave the planet using science
gates, the modern psychopath poster boy is obsessed with vaccines, gmo's and population reduction
i say if he thinks there are too many people in the world he should set a good example and kill himself and his entire family for starters
too bad you can't follow it...i did try to keep it simple
Great post. I don't know if you coined it or someone else did, but I will start using the Corporate War on Humanity. Thanks.
thanks - glad to see i didn't lose you as i did the other responder
gwoh - global war on humanity is mine - i coined it today while writing this post
feel free to use and dispense far and wide
Thanks for the links related to John Holdren. I knew nothing about this person. Along with all of the things that you noted, I went to Wikipedia as well. Here was an interesting quote: "President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]" And in the research that I did, it seems that he never did support or recommend forced population control.
No it's not progress. Considering our past exploits it's not even a rational action. But there was a time when there was no hope of the Vietnam War ending, and we know how that eventually turned out. It'll take longer to end this one because it's fought by volunteers. But eventually it will become obvious even to rabid volunteers as well as the reluctant ones that it's pointless for most of us to continue the insanity. That only a minority are reaping any benefits, and that the rest of us cannot continue to enable their addiction.
What Mr. Bacevich failed to say:
That the Taliban had offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party country for trial upon the presentation of evidence of guilt for 9/11.
That plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were in motion prior to 9/11.
That the invasion of Iraq was planned before Bush even took office, and well before 9/11 Cheney was hosting Energy meetings where maps dividing up the Iraqi oilfields were proffered.
That the chimera of WMD in Iraq was a deliberate charade.
And that all of the above constitute the Supreme Crime Against Humanity, the aggression of War against countries which did not attack us first.
These facts have been written out of USA history not coincidentally I'm sure. Its all part of the USG propaganda for perpetual war without having to accept responsibility which is the lure of the pretend christians which is a false doctrine to provide peer group pressure to not be responsible because "god made me and or Satan made me do it but I'm not responsible".This false christian doctrine is wholeheartedly embraced by politicians, the clergy's, and businesses so they can declare their christianity;
Thank you, Zero. I never find myself favorably influenced by Bacevich's articles. This one reads like a sport-cast, telling us who was in what position for which field play during which year. There is NO attempt to question the U.S. military's "right" to be in these places at all, nor any attempt to consider the pre-fabricated conditions papered over with this idea of needing to fight enemies abroad. Anyone who could give their lifetime to the military, and march lock-step with others without questioning authority, as Bacevich has done, might be expected to deliver a tepid review of each General's moral and tactical failings.
It would seem that anyone with enough stripes, who can drum up the excuse for a military campaign is allowed to do so. The effort itself is what's profitable to the dark interests committed to militarism. Thus no outcome is required, neither "success." The press isn't allowed in, for the most part, unless it's embedded; and thus no source exists to counter the narrative sent home to the Amerikan public.
There's no compassion for the body counts, for the nations left in wreckage... to Bacevich, the entire debacle is viewed through the sickening prism of: "Did we win?"
Win what?
What does winning mean when so many lay dead, bloody and battered (our own troops, included)?
Since oil, gas, and geo-political advantages on the global chess-board never show up in Bacevich's superficial analyses, one must reason that he actually believes the bovine excrement about winning hearts, spreading democracy, and ridding the world of all those bad people. Not an iota of analysis is projected towards determining WHY some people, a handful of terrorists, intend destruction to our land... as if it's not about the brutally imperialistic policies of empire that have run these Arab nations roughshod for decades.
I'm sorry he lost his son, but he also appears to have lost his soul.
Not just any sportscast, either, but specifically a boxing match. I can't think of any other sport that measures its progression in "rounds." There is so much left out of the current discourse, but the idea that America can win an aggression is so totally repugnant to me that I find myself wondering if I'm of the same species as so many citizens here.
There is, it seems to me, a sort of forced amnesia which is propagated by the media. This is evidenced by the marking of history only back to a convenient point for the oligarchy. So we never hear mentioned that Saddam was an assasin for the CIA before he came to power, that those he targeted on behalf of his CIA masters were the Iraqi Communists and Socialists (and certainly never mentioned on US tv was that the folks we saw waving the red banners at Saddam's downfall were the Iraqi Communists...)
Similarly, US - Iranian affairs these days seem to date only back to the hostage taking at the US Embassy, not the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah and his SAVAK.
any other sport that measures its progression in "rounds."?
golf and wrestling.
Well there you go... Just because I couldn't think of any, was no proof that there weren't any...
" What the Pentagon has styled " an era of persistent conflict ". Translation: An era of persistent CON- flicts, for consistent war profits!
Damn.
Round three is: Assassination.
And the number one assassin in the world is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
When I try to ask the Obama apologists how it is that they can support,
let alone respect and vote for, a man who "chose to" look the other way
concerning war crimes committed by the previous admin., and the domestic
crimes which brought down our economy, their only response is---it would
have been even worse with a Republican in the White House.
That (in my opinion) is the crux of what we'll be hearing until the next election
is over.
"Obama apologists"
0-pologists.
or ho-pologists.
zupan,
Of course that is what you will be hearing until the next election. And, you will also be hearing people screaming,"lesser of two evils!!!" You know, all the stuff we are getting weary of hearing.
Everybody has the right to support who they chose. Republican, Democratic, independent ...whatever. The next President of the United States will be a Republican or a Democrat. ( My opinion is that the current President will be re-elected for a second term.)
All I know at this time is that I will not be voting Democratic or Republican (At the top of the ticket) in the upcoming election.
I think I will avoid all discussions involving electoral politics this cycle. Now, back to the Springsteen article...
Take care
Thomas Gilbert-
"How round three will end is difficult to forecast. "
I easily forecast a dead end.
Maybe its simpler: damaged individuals in Washington and the military enjoy the opportunity to be "BIG SWINGING DICKS," to wreak havoc. The American system and myth enables them, saner people are cowed. Think Rumsfeld, Cheney, McChrystal, W......
You are much too kind: these are not big swining dicks, they are delusional wrinkly old vermin - necrophagist parasites who ought to be crushed underfoot like cockroaches.
Just as Johnson escalated the Vietnam War knowing full well that strategically it was a lost cause from the beginning, in order to protect himself politically from the right wing at the time, and charges of being "soft on communism," we pursue this WFKATGWOT. A war with, as Bacevich points out, neither purpose nor expectations. What a waste.
Steve Woodward
Your user name is reminiscent of the musician from the 1960s and 70s named Steve Winwood and like the name of one of his classic albums, most of the American people will have Blind Faith that either Obama or the Republican challenger will be the right person for the job while ignoring the fact that they can actually vote for a candidate who is neither a Democrat or a Republican such as a Stewart Alexander or a Rocky Anderson.
Duh ! It would nice of the writer to mention that the failed "war on terror" is essentially over-extended global corporate imperialism.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2886
An Empire Can Be Terribly Expensive
excerpt:
"Forget the spin about WMD's or "Iraqi Freedom" or the "War On Terror." The White House is lying, Congress is lying, and the media stopped asking questions. What we are not told is that Iraq is about oil, war profiteering and a larger plan to control energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia. This scheme goes beyond our domestic energy needs and seeks to give multinational corporations dominance over global markets while feeding a hungry American war machine."
"As a decorated combat hero, General Smedley Butler said at the end of his career, "War is a racket. It always has been. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." He adds, "Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few, the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." He concluded, "We must take the profit out of war."
Mr Bacevich, any chance you could catch up on some history with Donald Bartlett and James Steele? I think they have a better handle on this global thing. You're scratching the asses of the last round of clowns. Go back further and ferret out the rest of the story, the one set up to let Cheney/Rummy/Clints/et al, run free and easy.
On The Rhetorical Ending
1. Operationally: the dark side was always the dark side and the implication is as you suggest in round 3 about 5 years each round, another 12 rounds of about 60 years
2. Strategically: the objective is clear.. to follow where the oil flows
3. Politically: Globalism goes on, the unions are crushed, American workers follow in line and like being pandered to in carnivalesque elections
4 Progress? In terms of American military might fostering global market expansion progress has been made
Not one mention that the whole War of Terror grossly violates the UN Charter which renders it one of the world's greatest War Crimes and its designers War Criminals.
that would be looking back.
My comment above harkened back to the Nurnberg Tribunals and I imagine yours references the ICC which the US is not a member of. Perhaps of interest would be the following webpage:
http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm
From the above link:
The crime of aggression
"There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other."
Since the issue resides within the UN Security Council and therein the US holds a veto, we are confronted with a seemingly insurmountable conundrum to holding the US to account in the ICC. American Exceptionalism extends to an exception to prosecution for what appear to be clear violations of international law. Then again, when the US was called to account for the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor the US ignored the verdict anyway...
Thanks, Zero G, for your reply. IMO, the UNSC ought to be dissolved. I have other issues with the UN, but that's #1 by far.
The UN, as I see it, is by nature a chaotic structure. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Add on to that the blatant arm-twisting that US diplomacy wields in that endeavor and on all international fronts and we are confronted with American Exceptionalism to the rule of law. Even the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon who attempted to look into the torture of Spanish citizens by the Americans, as well as Franco era human rights abuses under the premise of universal jurisdiction has been charged and convicted of acceeding his authority.
I don't know that abolishing the Security Council itself or just the veto and the idea of permanant membership would be a better solution. I am in favor of strict adherence to the principle that the UN exists to prevent conflict, as mentioned in the preamble of its charter, and not as a vehicle to sanction it, as too often we see these days.
Garzon is a bold man. Certainly you've noticed the rising number of non-Western Blocs over the past two decades in response to the UN becoming a US Imperial tool. Iran is in the vanguard of the drive to negate US hegemony, and global opinion backs Iran--the "megaphone" exists for a reason. The UNSC veto does have some merit, and the UN will always be imperfect because it was designed by humans. When I was a kid, I was attracted to its implicite message of cooperative effort for the betterment of all. Despite its imperfections, I think we'll need it even more at we confront the onslaught of Overshoot.
What great input on policy options we have as an "electorate" eh? This "election" we can "choose" between the incumbent who is on track to raise (in the voice of Dr. Evil) ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
The incumbent has comitted acts of treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. He has advocated making taxpyayers pay for banks crimes, he has signed NDAA 2012 which not only makes swiss cheese out of the Bill of Rights it nullifies most of the Magna Carta of 1215.
The other "choice" we are presented with is a billionaire, who advocates the same exact things Obama is, with different rhetoric and diversions.
So US Democracy Inc. gives you a choice:
A corrupt, kleptocratic war criminal or
A corrupt kleptocratic wannabe war criminal.
All options to take out Iran are "on the table" including tactical nuclear weapons.
Another thoughtful piece by Mr. Bacevich, though limited in scope and length by the obvious reason that it's an essay, not a book. It's awfully hard to lay out "alternative worldviews" in a short piece, though some posters do try.
Yes, we need to end the empire, but how do we get from here to there? Others have laid out the current problem of R's and D's, but I think we need to think more strategically.
One aspect of the idea of "American exceptionalism" that is true is that Americans have been relatively untouched as yet by the various crises confronting our world. The Great Recession has caused some limited pain in certain sectors, and globalization continues to darken the economic future for many Americans, but overall most Americans still have "hope" that their personal circumstances will improve if they only work harder, thus personalizing what is really a systemic downward trend. For those of us advocating "alternative worldviews," there is only one choice: to keep telling truth to power, advocating the true nature of the crisis, and hope that before it's too late that the American people come around. The odds are pretty long, though.
I would only request that we forsake the "circular firing squad" of nitpicking every writer in quest of an impossible ideological purity. It would be nice if we had a "party of the left" to challenge the R's and D's, but we don't. American history shows that it's hard to build third parties that last and grow. The good news is this: that sometimes circumstances can change very quickly, independent of any desires or plans. Be brave and be ready.
Georg Fuerstein:
"The technological 'progress'- the rational conquest of nature - has assumed irrational proportions....The world populations is continuing to grow exponentially, as is the tragedy of world hunger, and therefore the probability of political upheavals and oppression
"…Even the privileged suffer: from a fundamental disorientation…a marked decline of psychic health and physical fitness… a virulent consumer mentality - fed by 'hidden persuaders,' a stagnant morality, and free-for-all pluralism that governments seek to counter through totalitarian measures."
I believe we need to expand the scope of our analysis by starting to view our dilemmas from a species-wide perspective. That is, to begin to think in terms of planetary challenges effecting all of humanity...
~~~~~
In 1992, over 1600 senior scientists, including a majority of the living Nobel laureates in the sciences, signed and released a documented entitled Warning to Humanity. In it, they powerfully demonstrated the need for fresh approaches to thinking and living. They declared that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course . . . one that may so alter the living world, it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." They concluded by giving the following, simple warning to the human family:
"We, the undersigned senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated."
~~~~~
Duane Elgin has has sketched out some of the powerful "adversity trends" that are already emerging. These include global climate change, the rapid extinction of species, the depletion of critical natural resources, the continuing increase in world population, and the rapidly growing gap between the rich and the poor.
His analysis suggests that these trends are converging into a "whole-systems crisis," creating the possibility of a massive societal disintegration within one generation, if large portions of humanity do not quickly recognize the necessity of finding new, sustainable ways of living.
I urge everyone to read this writers excellent piece in the recent Harpers titled; "The Elusive American Century".
Faithful Americans can only hope that well thought out analysis by foreign policy people like him, will bring some coherence and sound direction to our international policy.
The lack of coherence within our foreign policy establishment and reliance on ad hoc response to world events within a context of no clear long term vision makes possible global corporate criminality. Our clumsy and doomed responses tied most often to a particular private interest hasten the extinguishing of what is left of international goodwill towards the United States. The current mish-mash makes America's international persona into the corporate flavor of the week. So, our great nation's foreign policy is simply a tool that is for sale or for rent to free spending Washington lobbyists
""""With the United States now well into the second decade of what the Pentagon has styled an “era of persistent conflict,” the war formerly known as the global war on terrorism (unofficial acronym WFKATGWOT) appears increasingly fragmented and diffuse.""""
Andrew Bacevich, you're one of my favorite sources of information. Your unofficial acronym is well put. I rather would like to call the 'era of persistent conflict' more like the 'persistent vegetative invasion of easy to invade countries and for worthless reasons' as which makes me think all of these invasions of sovereign nations are indiscriminately labeled as terrorist nations on the fly for seemingly no good reason but for the approval of the M$M's dumbstream garden to feel even more patriotic about bombing other countries for no real cause. Which brings me to: Just who is a terrorist? I find that w's ghost war on terror is an exercise in futility and robbery, here and abroad. There are still people committing crimes all over the globe and the real absurdity is here the u.s. with the most powerful, but possibly not an non-defeatable military, then why the mindless 'persistent conflict' other than the need or perpetual war? That walks arm in arm with the notion of insanity, doing the same thing over an over again expecting different results. And somewhere in there that will have to break. So what is worrying is what is on the other side of that break down this country and the world will have face? Only answer I can come up with is that the profits are absolutely incredible.