The war, already the longest in American history, has spread to different theaters in different nations besides Afghanistan, most notably Iraq, and most Americans, unfortunately, pay little attention to it. It is something that's just there in the national conscious, but day-by-day or week-by-week coverage in the media is hardly noticeable. Though, we weren't around at the time, you get the feeling that World Wars I & II were covered comprehensively by the media of that time, and every citizen on the home front was paying attention to the reports of the battles. The problem with these amorphous wars of the 21st century that are being waged in several countries around the world is that the U.S. political and military elite have decided on warring against a broader enemy as opposed to focusing on a narrower enemy as in the aforementioned world wars. In other words, going to war against practically any militant who detests the U.S. rather than focusing on actual 9/11-type terrorists and their organizations.
Forgoing the narrower option for a broader one doesn't make sense, because there will always be militants that detest our nation, and of course the broader war option, with the indiscriminate drones and tactical procedures that don't exactly win the sympathy of the general population, pretty much ensures that. There's also the question of moral judgment about going to war against ideological militants that may or may not be armed and pose no real threat to our nation. This is different, of course, than militarily opposing operational terrorists who are actually threatening our nation, as thankfully our servicemen and servicewomen are bravely confronting this threat. So why this broader war and the thousand-or-so military bases all over the world, with the political elite following the military commanders, instead of the more sensible narrower one? Perhaps, borrowing from a different era, the answer lies somewhere in the late Marine Corps General Smedley Butler's summation of events in his military career, "war is a racket."
[revised on 1/2/14]
Copyright 2009 - 2013, Party of Commons TM
Forgoing the narrower option for a broader one doesn't make sense, because there will always be militants that detest our nation, and of course the broader war option, with the indiscriminate drones and tactical procedures that don't exactly win the sympathy of the general population, pretty much ensures that. There's also the question of moral judgment about going to war against ideological militants that may or may not be armed and pose no real threat to our nation. This is different, of course, than militarily opposing operational terrorists who are actually threatening our nation, as thankfully our servicemen and servicewomen are bravely confronting this threat. So why this broader war and the thousand-or-so military bases all over the world, with the political elite following the military commanders, instead of the more sensible narrower one? Perhaps, borrowing from a different era, the answer lies somewhere in the late Marine Corps General Smedley Butler's summation of events in his military career, "war is a racket."
[revised on 1/2/14]
Copyright 2009 - 2013, Party of Commons TM
Comments
Post a Comment