Who Will Save (the) US?

[xchrom]

http://www.nationofchange.org/who-will-save-us-1347629741

A recent article in Nation of Change (Tom Engelhardt, "Monopolizing War", September 13, 2012) starts with a multiple choice question about Marines carrying out combat operations in a certain foreign country. The article goes on to list nine possible answers (that's right, boys and girls, not the usual four) – and one of the choices wasn't "all of the above.” It turns out it was a trick question. In fact, the correct answer was all of the countries on the list, to include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Central Africa, Northern Mali, the Philippines, and Guatemala.

Only a tiny percentage of voters in November will have read the article or will have any idea that the US military is so, um, active in so many places around the world some two decades after the end of the Cold War. Okay, okay. Let's not forget that the shocking events of 9-11 changed the game 11 years ago (as we are all gravely reminded every year at this very time with a barrage of hair-raising, heart-breaking images, look-backs, documentaries, op-eds, flags, and bumper-stickers).

We're in a war. On terror. It's different from all other wars. Even the Cold War. Different from all the wars that have ever been fought. Anywhere. Anytime. It's a war without end. Against a fanatical, hate-filled enemy that is also invisible, amorphous, and relentless. An enemy that has no state and no army, navy, or air force. An enemy that cannot be defeated by conventional or unconventional military means. Or nuclear weapons. Ever.

Got it? That's why we need a bigger and better army, navy, and air force. Not to mention more and better missiles.

[tama]

1. Who else?

[longship]

2. Invites the question: How do we know when we've won?

Does anybody really think this has a rational answer? Or, might it be that the concept of war on terror itself is horribly flawed.

[Citizen Worker]

3. When Little Boots boldly announed the "global war on terror" in 2001 I wondered then who would sign

the peace agreement for the terror side.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Nobody is who.

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

And if they tried we'd kill 'em.

That country you speak of is gone and rapidly fading from the memories of those unfortunate enough to have outlived it.

It's funny and not a little pathetic, too, that the author of this piece thinks Obama has not been the President that he wished to be. The Obama of the past four years - the obedient servant of the banksters, the Slayer of Constitutional freedoms, the Undertaker of the middle class, the Generalissimo so terrified of showing weakness before his junior officers, that he orders them to march on into the Little Big Horn instead of prudently withdrawing - is EXACTLY who he is. Win or lose, he will wake on Nov. 7 2012 as the same spineless Muppet of the 1% that he was before, unchanged by a single atom.

[sad sally]

5. With less than 1% of Americans serving in the military, the other 99% care very

little what these men and women are doing or where they are or what they're there for. Apathy rules. Salute the flag, feign sadness at the appropriate moments, on to the next country.

The ones who are concerned are the corporations that profit from the death and destruction goods they build, but they know how to buy congress, so no problem; just grease the right palms and all is well.

[xchrom]

6. Sad but a good observation. Nt

[rickyhall]

7. A Contradiction

The first replyer contradicts himself. If conventional or unconventional or nukes won't how could building a bigger military help. Many nations do a fine job of keeping out terrorism with a hundredth of our military budget. So how does 700 Billion Dollars a year help? I doesn't. It took this monster decades to get one man.