MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 6 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 9 months 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 6 days ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 11 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 11 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 11 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 23 hours ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
Hits of the Day
Bacevich's Credulous Take on Iraq War
By NCD on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 12:23pm |...instead of promoting stability...Washington's penchant for armed intervention since the end of the Cold War, and especially since 9/11, has tended to encourage just the opposite. In effect, despite spilling much blood and expending vast amounts of treasure, U.S. military exertions have played into the hands of our adversaries, misleadingly lumped together under the rubric of "terrorists." How can we explain this yawning gap between intention and outcomes? ....
You can explain the 'yawning gap' by recognizing that the intention of 'armed intervention' may, primarily, be profits for the military industrial complex, not 'promoting stability'.
URL:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/13-1
- Add new comment
- 2333 reads
Comments
There are many ways to describe Bacevich's take on the Iraq War, credulous is not one of them.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 3:05pm
I suppose it is credulous if you agree with the commenters who feel he can't get past his military background.
by Donal on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 4:24pm
As if he (or anyone else) could or should get past what he gave his life and son to. Talk about credulity!
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 11:03am
Was that supposed to convince me of something?
by Donal on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 2:22pm
Was I supposed to? Were you?
How does someone get past who they are?
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 3:17pm
They learn new things.
by Donal on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 3:39pm
And that could go either way. It could change or reinforce ones' outlook.
I reread the article and the main criticism which seems to be that Bacevich does not get that sowing chaos is a feature and not a bug for some of the powers that be who make the decisions to use military force. I think he does get it based on this article that specifically argues against doing that plus others I have read by him; however, unlike his critics he does not believe it of all the powers that be. Given that he has more access to some of those in the military, I tend to think he is right about that. It is they and others in Washington who may share his doubts who are his target audience. His own criticisms of what is happening would lose influence if he joined the chorus of his critics in damning all ptbs.
There, how's that?
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 5:55pm
I think Bacevich is very bright, but he does write about misapplication of military force as if the ptb are simply making lots of boo-boos.
by Donal on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 6:17pm
I know his son died in Iraq.
I also know Bush didn't inflict the 'shock and awe' invasion of Iraq with the 'intention' to create 'stability'. Far from it.
Iraq was a good old fashion case of US war profiteering, with visions of a Dallas on the Euphrates oil bonanza. It was a war of aggression, the supreme international crime.
by NCD on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 5:26pm
I myself think that oil was at most a minor motive for the invasion, perhaps not a motive at all. Wouldn't the first Bush have conquered Iraq, if they wanted the oil so badly? I don't think his son loved oil more than he did.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 7:36pm
You could make a case denying that Iraqi oil was a reason for the tactical move to take over Iraq and instead say that it was almost entirely about our countries greater Mid-East strategy, [as decided and directed by people who still have high paying jobs] but that ME strategy was only what it was because of oil.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 8:11pm
The 'first Bush' had a lot more real world experience (CIA, actual combat in WW2 etc).
Junior was a draft dodging drunk, who had failed at everything he had ever done (Harken and Arbusto Energy, later called 'El Busto') with sociopathic delusions of War President grandeur.
In addition he was putty in the hands of American war profiteers and big oil. Shades of Texan LBJ and the Vietnam war, although the war profiteers didn't have to off Gore to get their war, the Supreme Court did it for them.
Cheney, Rummy and the neo-cons went so far as to think they could take over Iraq and then put their guy Chalabi in charge.
by NCD on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 2:21pm
Bacevich opposed going into Iraq before, during and after the fact, as did others with military background both active and inactive. Remember Shinseki saying it would require half a million troops to accomplish the public rationale for invading?
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 11:08am
I think the war with Al Qaeda has achieved the intended outcome. Al Qaeda is less able to kill us; they haven't killed another 3000 people. I'm betting they would have killed more than 3000 if they had been left unchecked. There is still the question of whether it was worse the cost; in 2001 no one knew the war would drag on for over twelve years, with a huge number of Afghan civilians killed, not to mention 2500 American soldiers.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 5:01pm
Wow, uh, of course no one knew - Bush had done such a bangup wonderful job at everything up through August 2001 - who knew we'd approach the war in a completely incompetent and unfocused fashion except for contracts for Halliburton and a springboard for Iraq? Completely unprecedented.
But you know we didn't need to occupy the country for 12 years to keep Al Qaeda in check at a cost of $8 billion a month. Think if we spent that much on Muslim education and helping create industry we might get more good will and fewer killed then sending them a steady message of drones and bombing Iran into a glass parking lot and Axis of Evil?
You know I invited someone over for dinner and they ended up sleeping on my couch - for the next 12 years. Guess it was worth it, we had a nice conversation once or twice, and I couldn't really ask him to leave - once I issued the invite, well, inch'allah... unavoidable.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 4:40pm
If you kick him out now, then all of that money you spent over the last 12 years will have been in vain.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 4:49pm
We can only win the goodwill of the jihadists by doing things I don't think we should do--in fact, I suspect that if we gave them everything they are demanding, they would come up with a new list of demands.
Well, I still don't think it is likely that Bush II was more beholden to the oil industry than his father was. Dick Cheney, who some think was the real president from 2001-2008, was in the first Bush administration, but he wasn't advocating an occupation of Iraq back in 1991.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 6:19pm