This Financial Times essay by Michael Lind argues that the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have damaged not just the neoconservative cause of establishing military hegemony democracy in the Middle East but also the neoliberal (or "liberal hawk") mission of using the US military to intervene wherever there is injustice in the world. Lind is writing as one who supported our bombing in the Balkans and now worries that Abu Ghraib and other revelations have damaged the US's "moral authority," upon which the neoliberal project is dependent. But was raining destruction on Belgrade--a kind of test run for "shock and awe"--really the "moral" way to resolve the Balkan conflict(s)? A large commitment of US ground forces might have prevented loss of life in Bosnia and Kosovo, but the American public would never have stood for it. Bombing was do-gooding on the cheap, except it wasn't that cheap. Pessimistically, I'd say it'll take more than losing our moral authority in the eyes of the world to break our bombing addiction. After all, we've bombed 21 countries since Nagasaki! (Warning: new age music on that last link.) Is it useful to go through that list and say, "this one was OK, this was a humanitarian bombing"? It's the same military industrial complex doing the work and reaping the profit.
Tom, it's great that you have such a passion and put your words with others to slay them forth. Yes, here, people on the street are less in the trust mode as far as The US government goes. Though it should be mentioned that the US (‘”) is not alone. I FEAR that the veneer between lie and truth is so thin that instead of exposing the collusions and dealings working day in day out, the night is secure; information and opinion often do the opposite of what is expected, and only help to confuse―at least this is the case here. I would gather that these powers have estimated the ineffectual free flow of information, and have agreed that because there exists so much of it; from the bazaar to outright contradiction; amidst confabulation; mixed with a clarity and insight, the weight of information actually works to secure an advantage―creating ‘on-mass’ a confused people wanting simple answers, thus nations of people revert to even simpler questions in the hope of--instead of the constant barrage of information and acerbating fear--not the truth (even if there is one) instead for something that will offer comfort and offer, at least, rest.
Perhaps this sense of longing is the real enemy.
B
news
|
This Financial Times essay by Michael Lind argues that the US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have damaged not just the neoconservative cause of establishing
military hegemonydemocracy in the Middle East but also the neoliberal (or "liberal hawk") mission of using the US military to intervene wherever there is injustice in the world. Lind is writing as one who supported our bombing in the Balkans and now worries that Abu Ghraib and other revelations have damaged the US's "moral authority," upon which the neoliberal project is dependent. But was raining destruction on Belgrade--a kind of test run for "shock and awe"--really the "moral" way to resolve the Balkan conflict(s)? A large commitment of US ground forces might have prevented loss of life in Bosnia and Kosovo, but the American public would never have stood for it. Bombing was do-gooding on the cheap, except it wasn't that cheap. Pessimistically, I'd say it'll take more than losing our moral authority in the eyes of the world to break our bombing addiction. After all, we've bombed 21 countries since Nagasaki! (Warning: new age music on that last link.) Is it useful to go through that list and say, "this one was OK, this was a humanitarian bombing"? It's the same military industrial complex doing the work and reaping the profit.- tom moody 6-05-2004 10:08 pm
Tom, it's great that you have such a passion and put your words with others to slay them forth. Yes, here, people on the street are less in the trust mode as far as The US government goes. Though it should be mentioned that the US (‘”) is not alone. I FEAR that the veneer between lie and truth is so thin that instead of exposing the collusions and dealings working day in day out, the night is secure; information and opinion often do the opposite of what is expected, and only help to confuse―at least this is the case here. I would gather that these powers have estimated the ineffectual free flow of information, and have agreed that because there exists so much of it; from the bazaar to outright contradiction; amidst confabulation; mixed with a clarity and insight, the weight of information actually works to secure an advantage―creating ‘on-mass’ a confused people wanting simple answers, thus nations of people revert to even simpler questions in the hope of--instead of the constant barrage of information and acerbating fear--not the truth (even if there is one) instead for something that will offer comfort and offer, at least, rest.
Perhaps this sense of longing is the real enemy.
B
- brent tokyo (guest) 6-06-2004 5:20 pm
news
- news- (guest) 8-09-2004 11:22 am