Good god. These wars have been slaughtering people by the hundreds of thousands for 16 years, and only U.S. deaths are tragedies? And a Congressional authorization of a crime will make them less tragic?
"Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who lost a son in Iraq and is a critic of military operations, says that 'a collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.' The idea that Americans could be inured to war and all its horrors is chilling, and it's a recipe for dangerous decisions with far-reaching ramifications. There are many factors contributing to this trend:
During earlier wars, including Vietnam, the draft put most families at risk of having a loved one go to war, but now America has all-volunteer armed forces. Less than 1 percent of the population now serves in the military, compared with more than 12 percent in World War II. Most people simply do not have a family member in harm's way."
In any other enterprise labeled "volunteer" the supposed volunteers would be allowed to quit.
"American casualty rates have been relatively low, especially in more recent years after the bulk of American troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the United States has shifted to a strategy in which Americans provide air power and intelligence, and train and assist local troops who then do most of the fighting and most of the dying. This year, for instance, 11 American service members died in Afghanistan and 14 in Iraq. By comparison, 6,785 Afghan security force members died in 2016 and 2,531 died in the first five months this year, according to the United States and Afghan governments. Tens of thousands of civilians also perished at the hands of various combatants, including in 2017, but the figures get little publicity. Most Americans tend not to think about them."
Wow. If only there were -- oh, I don't know -- a newspaper that could report things. And what if it reported those figures, and then reported something beyond those figures? What if the New York Times, which does not technically serve the U.S. government, were to give each war death the same significance as U.S. war deaths? What if people discovered that these wars were one-sided slaughters, and that all the deaths they'd been hearing about made up only a few percent of the total? What if the dead and injured and those made homeless and those crushed by disease epidemics and famine and anarchy were each, by the millions, given the attention that's given to a U.S. war death?
"Since 9/11, American leaders have defined the fight against terrorism as a permanent struggle against a permanent threat. Mr. Obama withdrew significant forces from Afghanistan and Iraq. But the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan led to renewed engagement, though at lower troop levels. Terror attacks here and in Europe, and Mr. Trump's scaremongering, have reinforced the public's sense of siege."
What if the New York Times were to counter the counter terrorism with the well-established fact that the counter terrorism produces more terrorism? What if war crimes were not simply "led to" by external events, but were the concrete choices of the criminals who made them, and were written about as such?
"The military is essential to national security, but it is not the only thing keeping America safe."
This is a central lie. When it falls, the military-industrial-journalistic complex falls.
"So do robust diplomacy and America's engagement in multilateral institutions, both of which we have faulted Mr. Trump for ignoring or undercutting. The Pentagon, by contrast, thrives. After some belt-tightening during the financial crisis, it has a receptive audience in Congress and the White House as it pushes for more money to improve readiness and modernize weapons."
Well who the hell wouldn't accept that quite passively as long as it's described, contrary to fact, as improving readiness? What does dumping trillions of dollars on stealth nuclear bombers that can barely fly make one ready for?
"Senators who balk at paying for health care and the basic diplomatic missions of the State Department approved a $700 billion defense budget for 2017-18, far more than Mr. Trump even requested."
The bulk of it goes to things that nobody can seriously argue are "defensive." This is not a case of using the formal name of the former War Department. The New York Times is choosing to advance the pretense that militarism is all defensive.
"Whether this largess will continue is unclear. But the larger question involves the American public and how many new military adventures, if any, it is prepared to tolerate."
Plus the questions not asked: How many of the current ones must be ended, how many bases closed, how many weapons decommissioned, how many conflicts resolved diplomatically, before a reverse arms race is created and all the tired talk of U.S. leadership is actually given some substance.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
