Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 31, 2009 6:16 PM ... they always have to bomb something.

Thank God they don't touch the ultimate button from Post #72751 though...

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 31, 2009 9:01 PM Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 31, 2009 6:16 PM ... they always have to bomb something. Thank God they don't touch the ultimate button from Post #72751 though...

"pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world"

Isn't it a relieving thought that not every country considers the U.S. as a role model?

I am reading that George Will calls for pullout from Afghanistan.

George doesn't get it. The United States cannot pull out from Afghanistan.

Why?

Because the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan now views "protecting the Afghan people against the Taliban as the top priority." (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/mcchrystal_success_in_afghanis.html)

No, you don't abandon people in need just like that. Not when you are American.

And here is why American troops are indispensable in Iraq:

Can dairy cows save lives in a war zone?

http://www.farmerandrancher.com/06%20JUNE%202009/Iraq.html

(Names of individuals, military units and specific locations have been purposely omitted for security reasons).

Following up on my last posts:

How George Will changes the Afghanistan debate: An overview of the major commentary.

* * *

McChrystal’s Report

Though his assessment does not state the cost, the proposed civil affairs plan will require thousands of troops. ...

President Obama now faces collapsing approval ratings of his own amidst his efforts to bring sweeping change to national economic policy. A massive, renewed commitment to an unpopular war has the potential to drag him down even deeper. The last president to make such a gambit was LBJ, a fact of which Obama is very well aware. ...

An excerpt from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175110

Here's what Cheryl Bartholomew, described as an "Omaha Early Childhood Parenting Examiner," wrote recently about an event happening at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, for the local affiliate of the national web portal Examiner.com:

"The Offutt Air Show, Defenders of Freedom '09 looks to be a great outing for the younger kids this year... Performers include the US Navy Blue Angels, US Army Golden Knights parachute team, an assortment of US Air Force aircraft, fake dog fights, and Tops in Blue will perform Saturday at 4pm. Static displays from the Air Force, Navy, and retired aircraft will be available to the public. There is even a B-2 Motorcycle crafted by Northrop Grumman to celebrate 20 years of the B-2 Stealth Bomber. Units from local organizations and military presenters will have booths set up around the flightline. The Fun Zone will be set up for children including 17 inflatables, glitter temporary tattoos, and photos in a[n] F-4 Phantom Cockpit are offered at the event. There will be food and drink vendors available throughout the event."

This little blurb catches something larger -- the way military displays of every sort have increasingly been woven into the interstices of our everyday lives as spectacle in movies, video games, ever more militarized ceremonies surrounding the country's honored dead, and in so many other ways. Americans largely prefer not to notice. On our own militarism, we are generally in denial. We seem to take it all in not as a reflection of a more militarized country with a Pentagon budget unparalleled in history, but as so much passing entertainment, in part because the militarized land we live in conforms to no notions we hold of militarism.

Abroad, the U.S. has developed a unique global presence in which our military is both everywhere and nowhere. This is the case because our version of imperialism is focused not on acquiring colonies, but on building scads of military outposts, what Chalmers Johnson calls "our empire of bases." We may literally garrison the planet (and patrol its seas and oceans), fighting constant wars in distant lands, and yet it all makes only a minimal impression on what is these days regularly referred to as "the homeland" (a word now inseparable from its companion "security").

Similarly, the creeping militarization of this society in these last decades has followed an unfamiliar route. No massed parades of troops, no vast, visible military presence in the streets, nothing we would recognize as typically militaristic is in evidence. And yet an in-your-face, militarized version of patriotism filled with threat, fear, and an almost tangible desperation has enveloped the society, a style of patriotism that would have made past generations of Americans deeply uncomfortable -- and does exactly that to TomDispatch regular retired Lieutenant Colonel William Astore. But let him explain why and what we should do about it. Tom

Whatever Happened to Gary Cooper?

A Seven-Step Program to Return America to a Quieter, Less Muscular, Patriotism
By William Astore

 

I have a few confessions to make: After almost eight years of off-and-on war in Afghanistan and after more than six years of mayhem and death since "Mission Accomplished" was declared in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I'm tired of seeing simpleminded magnetic ribbons on vehicles telling me, a 20-year military veteran, to support or pray for our troops. As a Christian, I find it presumptuous to see ribbons shaped like fish, with an American flag as a tail, informing me that God blesses our troops. I'm underwhelmed by gigantic American flags -- up to 100 feet by 300 feet -- repeatedly being unfurled in our sports arenas, as if our love of country is greater when our flags are bigger. I'm disturbed by nuclear-strike bombers soaring over stadiums filled with children, as one did in July just as the National Anthem ended during this year's Major League Baseball All Star game. Instead of oohing and aahing at our destructive might, I was quietly horrified at its looming presence during a family event.

[...]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/04/cole_taliban/index.html?source=newsletter

There has been a central and continuing debate about how the Taliban and other anti-government guerrilla groups in Afghanistan have been funded. Initially it was thought that they were involved in the drug trade, but it turns out that they probably don't manage to capture very much money from it (they are after all competing with corrupt government officials and criminal cartels). Then it was suggested that money is coming in from millionaire Muslim fundamentalists in the Gulf, from the United Arab Emirates, etc.

Now it turns out that we have met the enemy and he may well be us. Taliban are getting a cut of US government aid contracts in Afghanistan. Jean McKenzie of Global Post broke the story that the Taliban are getting a cut of US government aid contracts in Afghanistan. That story in turn prompted a congressional investigation that is generating more media on the question. The establishment of a substantial American press corps in Kabul and Islamabad is beginning to yield dividends for the US public in the form of investigative reporting that was infrequent earlier in the 2000s, in part because it is dangerous and in part because AfPak were not big emphases for the Bush administration.

">CBS reports on the congressional hearings to find out if Congress is authorizing money that goes to Taliban.

<embed allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="344" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_9D4XdnXpRo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
 

In turn, the State Department is now probing whether US Agency for International Development monies are making their way into guerrillas' hands.

From http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/03/afghanistan/index.html?source=newsletter:

There seems little doubt that a major political conflict over Afghanistan in imminent and inevitable.  A newly released CNN poll yesterday revealed that opposition to the war is at "an all-time high" -- with 57 percent opposing the war and only 42 percent supporting it.  ...

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. 

Originally written by Jacek K. on September 6, 2009 8:34 PM History will have no choice but to view the U.S. -- particularly in its late imperial stages -- as a war-fighting state.

Business is business:

Despite Slump, U.S. Role as Top Arms Supplier Grows

WASHINGTON — Despite a recession that knocked down global arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier, increasing its share to more than two-thirds of all foreign armaments deals, according to a new Congressional study.