Failed Justifications/Strategies in US Mideast Policy Give Ground For Concern
IMHO as of now--
The war hawks have been coming up with relatively unheard of or new justifications and strategies for US military conquest/attacks in the mideast: boosting the US dollar by forcing oil producers to sell their oil for dollars and strengthening the US for a future war with China as justifications; an alliance with Sunni Muslims against non-Iraqi Shiites as a strategy.
It reminds you of a bullyish boy who tells his father his excuses for beating up the neighbor boy. When the first excuse fails to impress the father, the bully-boy comes up with a second excuse--as if this second excuse should distract attention from the fact that the bully has a history of coming up with excuses that do not hold water.
The bully-boy's track record of failed argument is grounds for scepticism re any future argument he may present. The fact the bully-boy shows a pattern of presenting an argument, and then resorting to another argument when the first one fails, and then to a third when the second one fails, indicates the bully is interested in justifying the unjustifiable as opposed to objectively in good faith determining whether his proposed actions are in the interest of this or that group.
Similarly the way the war-hawks come up with a first strategy for military conquest/attacks in the mideast, and then come up with a second one when the first one fails, and then a third new strategy when the second one fails, gives ground for pessimism with regards to the war-hawk level of strategic skill. By the time they come up with strategy number three, one is left wondering, if this new strategy number three is as good as they say it is, then why did'nt they implement strategy number three five years ago when they failed with strategy number one?
The way the war-hawks skip from failed strategy to failed strategy leads one to suspect that certain elements do not actually intend to achieve their proclaimed goals through these strategies; one wonders if it is actually even possible to attain the proclaimed goals. The fact of the matter is that even when a nation mis-allocates resources and fails to achieve its goals through the strategies implemented, certain significant elements both within and without the nation benefit from the mere attempt to achieve toe goals that are not attained.
A wise government when confronted by elements within itself that jump from one failed argument to another failed argument, from one failed strategy to another failed strategy, will ask itself: is the point of all this merely to enrich and empower those who benefit from the nation attempting to do something that it fails to do? Are these people achieving some hidden goal by way of their failed attempts to achieve their proclaimed goals? War-hawks talk of the dangers of not being hawkish--but the fact remains that there is at least as much danger involved in continued failed attempts to achieve goals, which however despite the failure and waste of resources enrich and empower special interests.
A government would not be unwise in the context of failed arguments/strategies to take note of how disconcerting it is, to hear the mouthpieces of individuals who are enriched and empowered even when the nation mistakenly goes to war and fails, enthusiastically discuss the "exciting" possibility that the US will soon be immersed in some gigantic war against a huge enemy, asi if such monstrous environment-destroying wars were an exciting sports event like the Super Bowl or the Olympics.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
The war hawks have been coming up with relatively unheard of or new justifications and strategies for US military conquest/attacks in the mideast: boosting the US dollar by forcing oil producers to sell their oil for dollars and strengthening the US for a future war with China as justifications; an alliance with Sunni Muslims against non-Iraqi Shiites as a strategy.
It reminds you of a bullyish boy who tells his father his excuses for beating up the neighbor boy. When the first excuse fails to impress the father, the bully-boy comes up with a second excuse--as if this second excuse should distract attention from the fact that the bully has a history of coming up with excuses that do not hold water.
The bully-boy's track record of failed argument is grounds for scepticism re any future argument he may present. The fact the bully-boy shows a pattern of presenting an argument, and then resorting to another argument when the first one fails, and then to a third when the second one fails, indicates the bully is interested in justifying the unjustifiable as opposed to objectively in good faith determining whether his proposed actions are in the interest of this or that group.
Similarly the way the war-hawks come up with a first strategy for military conquest/attacks in the mideast, and then come up with a second one when the first one fails, and then a third new strategy when the second one fails, gives ground for pessimism with regards to the war-hawk level of strategic skill. By the time they come up with strategy number three, one is left wondering, if this new strategy number three is as good as they say it is, then why did'nt they implement strategy number three five years ago when they failed with strategy number one?
The way the war-hawks skip from failed strategy to failed strategy leads one to suspect that certain elements do not actually intend to achieve their proclaimed goals through these strategies; one wonders if it is actually even possible to attain the proclaimed goals. The fact of the matter is that even when a nation mis-allocates resources and fails to achieve its goals through the strategies implemented, certain significant elements both within and without the nation benefit from the mere attempt to achieve toe goals that are not attained.
A wise government when confronted by elements within itself that jump from one failed argument to another failed argument, from one failed strategy to another failed strategy, will ask itself: is the point of all this merely to enrich and empower those who benefit from the nation attempting to do something that it fails to do? Are these people achieving some hidden goal by way of their failed attempts to achieve their proclaimed goals? War-hawks talk of the dangers of not being hawkish--but the fact remains that there is at least as much danger involved in continued failed attempts to achieve goals, which however despite the failure and waste of resources enrich and empower special interests.
A government would not be unwise in the context of failed arguments/strategies to take note of how disconcerting it is, to hear the mouthpieces of individuals who are enriched and empowered even when the nation mistakenly goes to war and fails, enthusiastically discuss the "exciting" possibility that the US will soon be immersed in some gigantic war against a huge enemy, asi if such monstrous environment-destroying wars were an exciting sports event like the Super Bowl or the Olympics.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home