The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Are we still at war?


Shortly after September 11, 2001, the right wing noise machine began years of blaring in all our ears that we are engaged in a global war on terror that is a generational conflict equivalent to the world wars and the Cold War, but apt to go on for a much longer time.

9/11, again and again, was equated with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Congressional resolutions actually put us into a state of war – only fringy purists think anything so old hat as a declaration of war is or should be required for that – against al-Qaeda and its affiliates and any nation or others providing them aid or support.

Relying on that, two presidents have conducted extensive military operations including the invasions and then a decade-long occupation of each of Afghanistan and Iraq, incursions and attacks into Pakistan, and drone warfare there, in Yemen, and in other places.

In addition, intelligence and security services were thoroughly reorganized and exceptional, terrorism related procedures and operations have been on-going both in the US and elsewhere ever since “everything changed on 9/11.”

And federal and state laws were heavily modified to create new crimes, specifically addressing terrorism and allied activities.

As the Republican leaders most closely associated with all this know quite well, in war one is sometimes successfully attacked and the loss of a diplomat – even a CIA employee – in wartime, here and there, ordinarily strikes no one as more than a minor, even routine blow.

And it is also completely routine not only that much to do with a war effort be secret but that the efforts in question be protected with “a bodyguard of lies” told shamelessly by the government and even the US president in person to the entire world, most definitely including the American public.

Too, those same leaders know that in wartime American politicians are expected to loyally support the administration and the war effort, and not publicly attack the president with a buzz saw over successful but minor, and even routine, enemy actions.

Certainly not for weeks at a time and certainly not for partisan gain.

And certainly not the politicians and party that actually started the war in the first place.

Why, anything of the sort would be universally regarded among the classe politique, in the media, and among the people at large as the most stupid, vicious, and unforgivably treasonous recklessness.

Hence the spectacle of the continuing Republican attacks on President Obama and his administration over the events in Benghazi makes one wonder.

Is the war over?

Back to politics as usual, are we?

That is, “usual” as understood since the Republicans utterly paralyzed the presidency of Bill Clinton with ludicrous investigations and even an absurd impeachment process, for no purpose but partisan political warfare.

Back to that?

Game on?

No comments:

Post a Comment