themcglynn.com

03 Sep

The looming political war over Afghanistan

History will have no choice but to view the U.S. — particularly in its late imperial stages — as a war-fighting state.

Glenn Greenwald, Thursday Sept. 3, 2009

Article

There was a time, not all that long ago, when the U.S. pretended that it viewed war only as a “last resort,” something to be used only when absolutely necessary to defend the country against imminent threats.  In reality, at least since the creation of the National Security State in the wake of World War II, war for the U.S. has been everything but a “last resort.”  Constant war has been the normal state of affairs.  In the 64 years since the end of WWII, we have started and fought far more wars and invaded and bombed more countries than any other nation in the world — not even counting the numerous wars fought by our clients and proxies.  Those are just facts.  History will have no choice but to view the U.S. — particularly in its late imperial stages — as a war-fighting state.

But at least we paid lip service to (even while often violating) the notion that wars should be waged only when absolutely imperative to defending the nation against imminent threats.  We largely don’t even bother to do that any more.  Consider today’s defense of the war in Afghanistan from the war-loving Washington Post Editorial Page.  Here’s their argument for why we should continue to wage war there:

Yet if Mr. Obama provides adequate military and civilian resources, there’s a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency approach will yield something better than stalemate, as it did in Iraq.

Does that sound like a stirring appeal to urgent national security interests?  Why should we continue to kill both Afghan civilians and our own troops and pour billions of dollars into that country indefinitely?  Because “there’s a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency approach will yield something better than stalemate.”  One can almost hear the yawning as the Post Editors call for more war.  We don’t need to pretend any more that war, bombing and occupation of other countries is indispensable to protecting ourselves; as long as “there’s a reasonable chance it will yield something better than stalemate,” it should continue into its tenth, eleventh, twelfth year and beyond.

Of course, the reason the Post editors and their war-loving comrades can so blithely advocate more war is because it doesn’t affect them in any way.  They’re not the ones whose homes are being air-bombed and whose limbs are being blown off.  That’s nothing new; here’s George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, describing (without knowing) Fred Hiatt in 1938:……………………………………………………………………………

Comments are closed.

© 2020 themcglynn.com | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo