What's journalistically missing from this and similar discussions is whether the war all assume to be imminent, is winnable. Basically, the war of Haves vs Have Nots. Many scientists and scholars think it very likely is not winnable; that the likely outcome will be an unimaginably long state of chaos for all on the planet. This would suggest that those determined to wage this war besides being narrowly and extremely aggressive, may also be pathologically out of touch with reality. Over the years there have been a number of articles in respected journals like Wired and Scientific American suggesting this likelihood. More than a decade ago I attended a Historians Against the War conference at which this issue was discussed. All felt it to be an important discussion, but conference leaders rejected the suggestion that it be a major focus of the conference. The public was not yet ready to use such information productively. I gather from indirect sources that The Union of Concerned Scientists has felt similarly. Nor has journalism, mainstream or alternative, challenged this perspective. In his fairly recent book, Terror and Consent, Phillip Bobbitt lays out in more than 500 pages of excellent description and analysis why this downplayed concern is quite real, but concludes with utterly unsupported confidence that if U.S. citizens will not just allow, but embrace, a virtual police state their leaders will be able to protect them from what is to come.
Hail to the Warmongers
Maj. Danny Sjursen