or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
November 01, 2008
New Tomdispatch
Expanding War, Contracting Meaning
The Next President and the Global War on Terror
By Andrew J. BacevichA week ago, I had a long conversation with a four-star U.S. military officer who, until his recent retirement, had played a central role in directing the global war on terror. I asked him: what exactly is the strategy that guides the Bush administration's conduct of this war? His dismaying, if not exactly surprising, answer: there is none.
President Bush will bequeath to his successor the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. To defense contractors, lobbyists, think-tankers, ambitious military officers, the hosts of Sunday morning talk shows, and the Douglas Feith-like creatures who maneuver to become players in the ultimate power game, the Global War on Terror is a boon, an enterprise redolent with opportunity and promising to extend decades into the future.
Yet, to a considerable extent, that very enterprise has become a fiction, a gimmicky phrase employed to lend an appearance of cohesion to a panoply of activities that, in reality, are contradictory, counterproductive, or at the very least beside the point. In this sense, the global war on terror relates to terrorism precisely as the war on drugs relates to drug abuse and dependence: declaring a state of permanent "war" sustains the pretense of actually dealing with a serious problem, even as policymakers pay lip-service to the problem's actual sources. The war on drugs is a very expensive fraud. So, too, is the Global War on Terror.
Anyone intent on identifying some unifying idea that explains U.S. actions, military and otherwise, across the Greater Middle East is in for a disappointment...
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at November 1, 2008 06:45 AMTo fix this, you have to break the frame. Tinkering is not going to get you anywhere useful. Here are my suggestions :
- Go after the billions of stolen money. This seems like a "nice but not essential" piece, but it should be done first as it will discredit the architects of this mess more thoroughly than anything else. Once you send the architects to jail for theft, it will also be much easier to start the necessary war crimes investigations.
- Apologize to the Iraqi people, and offer our assistance to the extent possible. Publicly announce that we will leave as soon as they want, and follow through with it when they take us up on it and say, immediately.
- Encourage our Afghan government to negotiate with the Taliban. Begin a real program of Afghan assistance, preferably under international control.
- Publicly announce that there are no fundamental American conflicts with Iran, and ask for their help in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. Base American policy thereafter on their reaction to this. This could be timed to appeal to the winner of the next Iranian Presidential election (12 June, 2009) but I am not sure I would wait that long.
- Shift our relationship with Pakistan from military to civilian assistance. There is no fundamental reason why Pakistan should not be booming as much as India, and we should do what we can to make that happen.
We as a nation have got to get out of the mode where no policy, once started, can ever be stopped or, really, even discussed on a a national basis. (See the war on drugs, which drags on even though it is unpopular and widely seen as a failure.) This is a fatal attribute in a great power, and I fear that this will require change from the top down.
To fix this, you have to break the frame. Tinkering is not going to get you anywhere useful. Here are my suggestions :
- Go after the billions of stolen money. This seems like a "nice but not essential" piece, but it should be done first as it will discredit the architects of this mess more thoroughly than anything else. Once you send the architects to jail for theft, it will also be much easier to start the necessary war crimes investigations.
- Apologize to the Iraqi people, and offer our assistance to the extent possible. Publicly announce that we will leave as soon as they want, and follow through with it when they take us up on it and say, immediately.
- Encourage our Afghan government to negotiate with the Taliban. Begin a real program of Afghan assistance, preferably under international control.
- Publicly announce that there are no fundamental American conflicts with Iran, and ask for their help in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. Base American policy thereafter on their reaction to this. This could be timed to appeal to the winner of the next Iranian Presidential election (12 June, 2009) but I am not sure I would wait that long.
- Shift our relationship with Pakistan from military to civilian assistance. There is no fundamental reason why Pakistan should not be booming as much as India, and we should do what we can to make that happen.
We as a nation have got to get out of the mode where no policy, once started, can ever be stopped or, really, even discussed on a a national basis. (See the war on drugs, which drags on even though it is unpopular and widely seen as a failure.) This is a fatal attribute in a great power, and I fear that this will require change from the top down.
P.S. I would swear I only pushed "post" once. Sorry for the duplicate.
Posted by: Marshall at November 1, 2008 10:14 AMA "change from the top down?"
But why would those on top change anything? They're on top. Nice life, up there.
We need a change from the bottom up. Get the rabble into the streets. Build the barricades. Bring plenty of water and granola bars.
Of course, ain't gonna happen. Sheep don't turn into tigers. Hell, not even into goats.
donescobar: True, but they can get rabies.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 1, 2008 12:51 PMRabies we already have. So, you must mean rabbits.
Not bad-- let five-hundred thousand rabbits run loose in DC and cover our institutions with those little rabbit turds. After that, a second invasion. When the National Guard starts shooting the cute little bunnies, Americans will laugh, cry, throw up. We'll have our first modern national catharsis.
Then, of course, back to business as usual. Ordnung muss sein.
"The War on Terror" is an outrcopping of an out of control bureaucracy intent on giving itself a duty. Once the element of profit is added, few can become part of it while still being opposed.
Posted by: tim at November 1, 2008 05:00 PM...out of control bureaucracy intent on giving itself a duty
Yeah, sure. Or, alternatively, it's an absolutely vital component providing the raison d'etre; something to define yourself against; The Big Other, like The Evil Empire in The Cold War. The most important thing in the world; without it everything falls apart.
Posted by: abb1 at November 1, 2008 06:11 PMThis administration and others like may not need GOD but they gotta have that devil. Its the ols
d saw about the clash of good and evil, they're good, of course, and ???(pick a name) is evil. But in reality they're just helping U with that ole nasty money.
abb1: war as a fashion statement. How sophisticated they must feel!
Posted by: tim at November 2, 2008 08:32 PM
