Our Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years

[Echo In Light]

Anyone Got a Problem with That?

Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War.
By Tom Hayden

April 01, 2010 "LA Times" - March 31, 2010 -- Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one."

Consider the audacity of such an idea. An 80-year undeclared war would entangle 20 future presidential terms stretching far into the future of voters not yet born. The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches 5,000, with the number of wounded a multiple many times greater. Including the American dead from 9/11, that's 8,000 dead so far in the first decade of the Long War. And if the American armed forces are stretched thin today, try to conceive of seven more decades of combat.

The costs are unimaginable too. According to economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Iraq alone will be a $3-trillion war. Those costs, and the other deficit spending of recent years, yield "virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors," according to a New York Times budget analysis in February. Continued deficit financing for the Long War will rob today's younger generation of resources for their future.

<snip>

It's time the Long War strategy was put under a microscope and made the focus of congressional hearings and media scrutiny. The American people deserve a voice in the strategizing that will affect their future and that of their grandchildren. There are at least three important questions to address in public forums:

Continued:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25126.htm

[kentuck]

1. In times of economic stress, it is necessary to have an outside enemy...

to distract from the inside follies.

[ixion]

2. Yep, and they intend to take us all along on the Ride to Hell

I want none of it. :argh:

This destructive and evil folly will enrich a small group of people, and bankrupt a nation.

[BeFree]

3. Yippee!!

We have our very own "Hundred Year War".

We'll make history!! And each of gets to live it. Well, not us, really, but the countries we invade get to live it. We here in the US just finance it, we don't really have to live it like those poor schmucks who live 'over there'.

We really do believe that we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? Is this what America will be known as in the history books --- as the country that had it all but it wasn't enough?

[Echo In Light]

5. Well, the easily duped, & authoritarian minded believe that - nobody else

The 'fight them over there' meme, that is

[BeFree]

6. Well, then

Why do the majority of people support financing the 100 year war?

Are the majority easily duped? If they are what does that tell you?

[Echo In Light]

8. I'd have to see reliable data showing a majority favors it

As for easily duped...that's a long, long topic that usually gets covered incrementally over various threads re the hows/whys of thought control within democratic societies

[BeFree]

11. Reliable data?

You see the majority rising up and talking about what a waste the pentagon budget is?

Sorry, Echo, but we are the minority here. A small minority.

[Echo In Light]

13. I'd still disagree a majority of three-hundred million agree

And it's not as though this data is really broken down and given its place of national importance in the corporate media, obviously ...so many are simply unwary. Shit I know people who think HC 'reform' actually means something along the lines of Universal HC...they haven't a clue that it's basically a pro-corporate/pro-ins bill

[BeFree]

16. well

Clinton did reduce the pentagon budget. And there were a few people who were made happy. But for the majority 'Dems are weak on defense'.

[Wapsie B]

4. Iraq was a $3 trillion war early on so by this time the true cost of that conflict is several times

that number. Call me a grass-knoller if you will but if this indeed the long-term strategy of the military-industrial complex in this country any President opposing such an idea could be putting their life in grave danger.

[stray cat]

7. The people in the military are the ones risking their lifes not the government or public

most of us get to sit around and live our lifes in relative comfort while we pay others to take the risks and make sacrifices

[Echo In Light]

9. In a rep democracy the actions of govt & its military are carried out in all of our names

... and w/our tax $

[Bigmack]

38. That's the point...

I don't want them to risk their lives for nothing.... or lose their lives for nothing.

Some people need to understand that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted... in Afghanistan, too.

We need politicians to develop the testicular material to tell the country that.

We can't afford these wars, and we sure as hell shouldn't waste some of our best citizens fighting them.

[KG]

10. hopefully, one day poor folk will stop signing up to fight rich folks wars.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

12. We've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.....

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

[valerief]

23. Life imitates art, for sure. nt

[Tace]

30. Wow, Michael Ruppert Is Running Things!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://wweek.com/editorial/3604/13425/&usg=__JYoJxYuSmPMVkHsxdgClo4rmDZ0=&h=338&w=600&sz=37&hl=en&start=34&sig2=irVS2TGnsxLnKSNIgF8ksA&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=46C1VeGPaX_fBM:&tbnh=76&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmichael%2Bc.%2Bruppert%26start%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26ndsp%3D21%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=C0q3S9-lIcGBlAf4-bWWCg

[klook]

14. Not exactly a new policy

Check the timeline in Gore Vidal's Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

[Echo In Light]

15. Thanks for the link

[Echo In Light]

17. Bump for the un-rec'ers

;)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Why won't the dems defund the war?

I'd wager the GOP would defund healthcare given half the chance.

[valerief]

22. Why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces. Obviously they benefit from war funds. nt

[Individualist]

39. DLC loves the military industrial complex.

[arbusto_baboso]

19. And has anyone questioned WHY the "arc of instability" caused by insurgents?

Is it maybe because of our bellicose, militaristic foreign policy?

Jesus, the utter stupidity amazes me.

[2Design]

20. 'war' jobs are the main stay of usa economy right now and government jobs too

the war mongers like war for the hired mercenaries and all the other outsourced jobs the war machine creates. this is the only industry we have left - I hate it but that is it.

[valerief]

21. It's not about war. It's about the war chest. nt

[JackRiddler]

24. Yes, but if they have their way it will be over in less than 30...

as they will lose the empire.

For now it's still in our hands to stop this.

[Overseas]

25. K&R . //nt

[Echo In Light]

26. Bump

[amborin]

27. K&R

[DaveinJapan]

28. We are living out 1984 at this point. Who were we at war with again? nt

[Subdivisions]

29. It's all about the oil. With world crude oil production in near terminal decline, it

becomes necessary to conduct resource wars in order to control oil and maintain our way of life for a while longer. After all, the American way of life is non-negotiable.

[WilliamPitt]

31. That would be nice.

I was under the impression the plan was to be at war permanently, either through open conflict, proxy interventions and/or massive arms sales.

Good to know it'll only be 80 years instead.

:sarcasm:

[merh]

32. Think about it a minute.

If they ended the wars today, what would they do with the troops?

Wouldn't they be forced to let folks out of the military, out of their contracts? Where would those folks go? What jobs could they get?

Think of the private contractors who work for the military in theater. If they end they war, where do those folks go? Where will they work?

With the unemployment problem we have today, with the lack of jobs, they cannot afford to end wars.

If the war machine is not needed then neither are the uniforms and the ammo and arms, so those US corps providing those services will be out of work and that will make more unemployed.

Wars gives folks jobs, something not available to them should they be brought home.

[area51]

33. People have thought about this.

How about we start a transition to single-payer? Bring home the troops, offer them training in the health care professions. We need more nurses, for instance. People need to see doctors. If everyone had a right to basic care, there will be a call for more medical professionals.

[G_j]

34. nothing to see

it's all good

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

35. Bump

[omega minimo]

36. It's a racket

[Robb]

37. "They will try to trap Obama"

:rofl:

I'm sorry, I'm torn. On the one hand, yes, long war. This guy's about ten years late to the party, but there it is. On the other, he's so completely missed the boat on what most people mean when they talk about long war, it's laughable.

But this is exactly the sort of stuff DU likes at the moment, so enjoy it I guess.