Andrew Bacevich is somebody I respect a great deal. A Catholic conservative and a principled opponent of our policy of Permanent War, he served honorably in the Army for decades and sacrificed a son to our disastrous and wrong-headed war in Iraq. He was respectful, yet unstinting in his criticism of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration that have embroiled us in our imperial adventures (and of the policies pre-dating Bush 43 by decades, which are embraced by both sides of the aisle as conventional wisdom). His book, Washington Rules, chronicles the way in which our present wrong-headed policies abroad evolved, flourished, and are now rapidly becoming outdated as we try to maintain an empire abroad while embracing folly at home.
Bacevich points out something that those drunk on Hopenchange have not wanted to face concerning our Nobel Peace Prize Winning President.
In an article titled “Non Believer” that ran in the 7 July 2010 issue of The New Republic, Bacevich compared President George W. Bush, whom he regards as wrong-headed but sincere, with President Obama, whom he says has no belief in the Afghanistan war but pursues it for his own politically cynical reasons and asks the musical question: “Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?”
One of the many reasons Obama is sinking in the polls is that the base that once sincerely believed that he was going to change things in Washington are only now figuring out that he is a Chicago pol who never had any intention of doing anything beyond the cosmetic. Remember all that rubbish during the Bush Years about how our imperial adventures abroad were only to last until the countries we destroyed could get back on their own two feet? Remember the lying mantra, “When they stand up, we’ll stand down”? Obama recently announced the “end” (yet again) of the combat phase in Iraq—and we sttill have 50,000 troops there with more of them getting blown up every day (that’s not including the civilian contractors). And the plan for Afghanistan? The hype is that troops will be “drawn down” in 2011. But Sec’y of Defense Robert Gates doesn’t even bother to lie any more: “We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely,” Gates insisted during comments at the dinner. “In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.”
“When they stand up, we’ll stand down.” 2011 draw down. New boss, same old lies. Bush, at any rate, was a sincere believer in the messianic mission to save the world at American gunpoint. But Obama’s excuse is what?
Comments
Post a Comment
Dear Mark (might I call you by your first name), first of all, thank you for this blog. Not only because it is really interesting, but also because it is thought-provoking.
I don’t know this Bacevich, but I don’t think I agree with his analysis. He says that Obama doesn’t believe in his cause (Afghanistan) but Bush did believe in his (Afghanistan and Irak). Obama has always stood by the first war and never by the second. You talk about the fact he said he would change Washington. Indeed, but during all his political campaign he kept on saying that he would stop the war in Irak (which he did) and would continue the war in Afghanistan (which he’s done). So, where are the lies? If the war goes on beyond 2011, then I’ll stand by you. But up to now, on this policy, he’s done what he said he would do. You can be against the way he’s led the war (like drone attacks in Pakistan), but he said it all.
That was my first point (Obama is not that cynic). My second is the one regarding Bush as a true believer in his cause. If it’s true, he doesn’t have any merit for that. I guess Pol Pot believed in what he was doing (I’m not comparing those two, I’m just saying that believing in a messianic cause doesn’t give you any merit). Maybe he believed in his cause, but people surrounding him didn’t in my opinion. In fact, I think Bush was manipulated because this war made economic and strategic sense for some hawks inside the Republican Party.
So, I’ll go with the same type of question as him. What’s worse, someone who ends an unjust war, continues the just war and keeps on doing what he said he would do or an administration who lies to the world to get into an unjust war that will in the end benefit a small minority and will bring a country to his knees? I guess this is another way to see the question.
That said, I definitely don’t agree with the way this Afghanistan war is waged and I think most credit is due to Gen. McChrystal (though I’m not an insider and I admit he’s done some mistakes too), not Obama for what’s going right (and what’s going wrong). But I’ll not go as far as to say that Bush was less worse because he «believed» in his Irak war.
Thank you again for this blog,
Dominic
Mark,
Good article. The only thing I would argue is your contention that President Obama ” is a Chicago pol who never had any intention of doing anything beyond the cosmetic”. If you are only referring to Afghanistan, I would agree with you on that statement. But since you started the paragraph about changing things in Washington, I took it in a more general sense. In that regard, based on his history and the people he surrounds himself with and his actions, he is an idealistic socialist who had/has grand intentions of radically changing this country and the world. This is also something he constantly lies about.
Hi Mark! I nearly always appreciate your insights regarding our Catholic spirituality, and you base those insights on such solid Catholic teaching. But you seem bent on analyzing, then slamming our foreign policy. I don’t know if the words “imperial adventures” and “permanent wars” are yours or Andrew Bacevich’s, but you must see how politically charged they are. Seems to me you are venting your opinion without the benefit of seeing or stating the entire picture. You are a gifted teacher and writer, but the political stuff is way more involved than you acknowledge.
Mark, you’re right that his changes in U.S. foreign policy have been largely cosmetic. However, his health care bill—like it or loathe it—was probably the largest domestic policy legislation in decades. That’s not exactly cosmetic. I wish Obama would follow the example of David Cameron in the UK and cut our empire spending dramatically, and I wish Obama would stop appointing Supreme Court justices who think sacrificing the unborn to Moloch is a vital right, and I wish he’d do something about the torture-state that you’ve argued against so eloquently.
But I don’t think his domestic policy agenda (health care, the stimulus, the GM bailout, the financial regulation bill, the pending EPA carbon-emission regs) has been “merely cosmetic.” It might be a socialist nightmare, it might be run-of-the-mill Democratic Party liberalism, it might be a decent agenda, it might be an awful agenda. But it’s more than cosmetic. It’s the biggest legislative/administrative agency regulatory policy shift in a generation.
Now, compared to the U.S. getting some Wendell-Berry-style sense in its head, that is still cosmetic. But compared to the last two decades (which is a fairer comparison) of politicians, it’s huge.
That said, so glad to read someone who’s a Catholic first, an American second, and a party hack not at all. Keep railing on both sides of the partisan duopoly!
A lot more people will die under the Obama foreign polices than under Bush 43’s policies. Bush saw evil and took steps to contain or eliminate it based on the best information at the time. He did that for America’s protection. And he was not alone in understanding what that information indicated. Obama doesn’t see evil unless it is a U.S. corporation; or someone who invented something and now makes a lot of money; or someone who has built up a business and now is earning the fruit of his labor; or maybe a medical surgeon; or a god “punishing” pregnancy, etc. He has no problem living the life (on taxpayers money) of people he villainies; or confiscating people’s money to give it to others who haven’t worked for it. And he has no problem lying in almost everything he says.
I’d take Bush 43 any day over a guy who can’t give a talk anyplace without a teleprompter and is a megalomaniac like Obama.
I think he has intentions of changin our foreign policy as well. But he needs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the radar screen to be able to do that. Hence the draw-down next year
There will be no serious draw down. That was Gates’ point. We’re there forever, as we are in Iraq forever. The Imperium has expanded and will only shrink when our domestic economic folly forces it to do so.
“We’re there forever, as we are in Iraq forever.”
Mark, ...as we are in Japan, and in Germany, and in South Korea - where ever evil raised up and attacked free people and the free world. That is called NATIONAL DEFENSE. It is also known in other circles as – no greater love doth man have than to lay down his life for another.
No. It’s called “empire”. There is no good reason for us to still be in Germany 20 years after the Cold War and 60 years after WWII. Same with Japan and Korea. It is the job of sovereign nations to take care of themselves, not for us to do it for them. It is not the task of our sons to police the world for other countries. And it’s a perverse and blasphemous misuse of Scripture to support our projection of imperial power across the globe by appeal to Jesus’ self-sacrifice.
To me the word “empire” implies that that those under the rule of the so called “empire” would be beholding to our laws, taxes and leadership. Such as the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Are Germany, Japan and South Korea under this kind of emperial rule? Just asking.
No. Which makes it all the sillier that we are spending untold billions to maintain troops on their soil when they should be defending themselves. We are 13 trillion dollars in debt. One place to reduce that is to let these countries defend themselves.
Could it be to some mutual benefit for our fine men and women to be these countries? I haven’t heard of any of them asking us to leave. North Korea does seem pretty scarey these days. And last I heard Japan isn’t allowed to have its own military. Now, Germany, on the other hand may have no use for us. But, their history for starting wars is pretty good. And it may sound cliche but, freedom isn’t free.
Mark is right about the American global empire. It is an albatross around our necks, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.
@mmpauly: South Koreans have protested repeatedly about U.S. troop presence. So have the residents of Okinawa, our largest base in Japan. Our bases are none too popular among the social democratic peackeniks of Europe, either.
@stillbelieve: Our global empire is not national defense. It is corporate welfare for defense contractors and oil companies. The only “national defense” forces we have are the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and (when not deployed abroad) the National Guard. The standing military branches of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, are primarily in charge of bombing and occupying places that are none of our business. The best defenses this country has are the weakness and amicability of Canada and Mexico, the Atlantic, and the Pacific.
Our empire is an excuse for an endless “war on terror” that is in turn, like the “war on drugs,” or any other “war” on some noun, an excuse to chip away at our constitutional liberties. As the anti-federalists knew, a standing army is incompatible with the liberty of a Republic.
Caesar is no friend of Christ, and no friend of Christians. ‘Twas ever thus, and so shall it ever be.
It’s to somebody’s benefit that we are there, but not particularly to the benefit of the American taxpayer. South Korea is quite well off. Let them defend themselves. Japan as well (and yes, there have been protests against our presence there, particularly on Okinawa). The outmoded forbiddance of a military is a relic of WWII. Time to get into the present. And please, the notion that we need to maintain our imperial forces in Germany to prevent a new Hitler? Come on.
We’re going bankrupt. And the irony is that the very people who shout that the federal government is squandering our money on pointless projects that it cannot do well domestically are the very same people who insist that we should go on squandering money on the federal government when it promises to deliver the Great Society abroad. It can’t deliver the mail at home, but it *can* create a thriving democracy in a failed narco-state like Afghanistan, so we should never ever leave.
That is a phenomenal waste of money.
Did I say anything about Hitler? Please, don’t put words in my mouth. I was hoping to keep this a friendly conversation. Sorry I asked.
One more very good reason not to read anything more that you write.
Until you understand National Defense, you will not be able to explain it.
Already clicked off the “notify me of follow-up comments.”
Did I say anything about Hitler?
You said, “Now, Germany, on the other hand may have no use for us. But, their history for starting wars is pretty good. And it may sound cliche but, freedom isn’t free.”
If that’s not a reference to Hitler, what is it? WWI wasn’t started by Germany, but by a couple of Serbian assassins. So that pretty much leaves WWII. If our troops are in Germany keeping us free, who are they keeping us free from?
One more very good reason not to read anything more that you write.
Until you understand National Defense, you will not be able to explain it.
Offhand, I’d say national defense means defending our nation, not defending the Japanese or the Germans or the Koreans. That’s pretty obviously what it meant to George Washington, who warned against foreign entanglements, John Adams (who cautioned against our going abroad and seeking monsters to slay) and most Americans for most of our history.
So, Mark, you pretty much agree with Obama on “national defense?”
And, Tom, you forgot Johnson’s War on Poverty (that has wiped out our social security - not poverty; but of course, Jesus did say that we will always have the poor among us, didn’t he).
So, Mark, you pretty much agree with Obama on “national defense?”
?!
@stillbelieve:
A few points:
1. I agree with your “greater love hath no man” point: our men and women in uniform deserve our gratitude & respect.
2. The whole point of this column is that Mark does NOT agree with Obama on defense: Obama promised he’d get out us out of Afghanistan; Obama is breaking his promise and Mark is unhappy about it.
3. Johnson’s welfare programs were inefficient, but it was Vietnam that broke the back of his budgets. He could have a war on communism or poverty, but not both nouns at once.
Also, the most expensive items in U.S. federal budget are so-called “Defense,” Social Security, and Medicare. Welfare, unemployment, and Medicaid are up there too, but not nearly as expensive as those three.
Besides, doesn’t Catholic social teaching frown on spending money on armies and welfare-for-defense-contractors-and-oil-companies instead of the poor? The poor may always be with us, but that doesn’t change our duty to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. There is no comparable duty to blow up Pakistani children with robot drones. Better the money were spent on the poor.
A few years ago the press released a comment from the Bush Administration that basically said the reason for invading Iraq was to regain control of the largest untapped light sweet crude reserves left in the world. The other reasons WMD, neutralizing Sadam, freedom,etc. were political cover for the real goal of controlling light sweet crude.
Walter Mondale said the very same thing while he was Vice President.
And it has been the prevailing doctrine of both parties going back to Truman at least.
The corporate capitalist state of America isn’t so much interested in free markets as it is in controlling the resources of weaker nations.
This thing will never end under the corporate regime that controls the banks, the media, the military, and of course the Presidency whether it’s Barak Obama Clinton, John Kennedy or Bush. They are all part of it because it is impossible to get where they are unless they become part of it. The great capitalist fascist system that controls this country.
Our rulers truly have no shame.
“The whole point of this column is that Mark does NOT agree with Obama on defense: Obama promised he’d get out us out of Afghanistan; Obama is breaking his promise and Mark is unhappy about it.”
Tom, other than that, Mark seems to agree with Obama’s “national defense” policies.
“The poor may always be with us, but that doesn’t change our duty to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.”
Tom, you may have a point if you can show where Jesus directed his disciples and followers to get governments to do that. I can’t find that in the Gospels. He directed us to do that, not governments. Now, we may want to do so out of humanitarian sentiments, but not as a directive from God. Where does Jesus teach that we are to create governments to take care of the sick and feed the hungry?
I am glad that you do agree that our armed services do care enough for their fellow man to lay down their lives to protect them. It is sad that Mark will not allow himself to at least admit that.
“A few years ago the press released a comment from the Bush Administration that basically said the reason for invading Iraq was to regain control of the largest untapped light sweet crude reserves left in the world.”
Tom Mauel, where is the evidence for your claim? That is pure bull. Real life facts prove that is a lie. Come up with the evidence.
Tom, other than that, Mark seems to agree with Obama’s “national defense” policies.
*Mark shakes his head in wordless amazement*
I am glad that you do agree that our armed services do care enough for their fellow man to lay down their lives to protect them. It is sad that Mark will not allow himself to at least admit that.
Unbelievable. Of *course* I admit it. I do more than that: I honor and reverence it. Indeed, I reverence it so much THAT I DON’T WANT THESE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN DYING WITHOUT BLOODY GOOD REASON. Sending exhausted troops back on to their sixth tour of duty in order to do a nation-building experiment in a failed narco-state that has destroyed empires since the time of Alexander is not “honoring the troops”. It is wasting and destroying them. Keeping troops on German, Japanese and Korean soil when these nations should be defending themselves and we are going broke maintaining them there is not patriotism. It’s folly.
OK, here goes:
American soldiers please leave Germany!
If we have to defend our country we will do it ourself!
Hermann
German
I suppose I’d prefer that, if we were to be an empire, we’d at least consistently act like one. This on/off pussyfooting is simply annoying. Of course, I’d prefer to be always off, but if we’re to be one, let’s be honest about it.
Obama has done NOTHING he promised. It’s all just smoke and mirrors. He has not ended the war in Iraq, he has continued and intensified the war in Afghan (now includes Pakistan). Barbarous killings of civilians by renegade US troops continues, as well as torture and hi-tech (drone, etc.) murders. The military spending is outrageous, they pull Obama around like a waterdog on a rope.
There are no real changes in healthcare for Americans, no ‘public option’, no real limitations on private insurance companies - only a confusing swamp of new regulations that harm more than help.
The economy is tanking, collapsing. In the middle of a real depression there is no new WPA, nowhere for laid-off Americans to find work except the military. Employment statistics are ‘cooked’, pulled out of a hat.
‘Change’ - BS.
Catholics care about abortion and the unborn but less about the killing of the born. America’s serial and unprovoked wars of aggression are unjust and illegal. If there is an axis of evil it is now the US and Israel. More than 1 million Iraqis civilians are dead due to our war based on lies. Drones regularly murder thousands throughout the Middle East.
You laud Bacevich for “respectful” criticism. There is nothing to be respectful about when it comes to US Foreign policy.
Give some credit to Obama. ask yourelves why the Jewish zionist state hates him and is about to dump him for Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton 2012.
August 23 2010 a deadline was given—attack Iran. now you know why alot of his Israel Firsters (Rat Pack) are jumping ship. Ever read up on Rahm Emmanual’s family history?
Sept 11 2001 attacks were not done by Muslims. 9 years has passed and fools abound in USA. Brace yourselves for millions to die—if Obama leaves office. Yes he lies, because he does not want to buried next to JFK :^/
Obama is not Chicagoan, and not a “Chicago pol.”
Emanuel, on the other hand, is both.
That the rest of the country may not understand the distinction is understandable enough.
On the other hand, it is an important distinction in Chicago.
No “Chicago pol” would have botched the opportunity to consign Bush and Cheney and all their works, including two unnecessary, brutal, and losing wars and Paulson’s 700 billion bailout of the banks and financials to the perdition they deserve.
The idea that Bush “sincerely believed” in what he was up to, or indeed in his supposed “religion”, is a joke on its face. You might want to review the relevant passages of the New Testament on hypocrisy.
More importantly, idea that “sincere belief” is somehow exculpatory is also nonsensical. Not only Hitler, but most of his closer entourage surely “believed sincerely” in their program as well.
All of what the candidate Obama said were platitudes with the exception of what he would do to Afghanistan, ruin it an use it for weapons testing.
CP3o: Sorry. Mr. Obama is hardly a social Democrat but calling him a Socialist is an intolerable insult to Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and the others who framed and issued the Zimmerwald manifesto.
Sorry, I just can’t believe that Bush was ‘wrong-headed but sincere’. That man has been fooling everybody since his Yale years. Bush is sinister and devious and aware of the injustices he perpetrated upon the entire world. Even as governor of Texas he allowed a prisoner to be executed when there was very strong evidence of his innocence. This for political gain. But the worst was to come in his presidency where millions suffered a fate worse than death or death itself under his unjust wars. Obama has proved that all our presidents are now prisoners of the ‘National Security State’ which has basically usurped our freedom. Elections are for show only. The Media is owned by the forces of war and they can indoctrinate us to believe whatever they want. They can even convince us to believe one thing and in less than 3 months convince us again of its very opposite. This is what we call the famous ‘American amnesia’. Propaganda through entertainment.
Sept 11 2001 attacks were not done by Muslims.
Oh, good grief. More people I can do without, who never will be missed.
General point on Mark’s awesomeness and those who deride it:
Like any Catholic loyal first to the Magisterium, Mark tends to criticize Democrats from the left on their failures w/r/t just war, and criticize
Republicans from the right on their failures to stand up for the unborn. Since most partisan brickbat-throwers are used to countering criticisms from the other directions, the rhetoric can get confused.
Just remember: Christ’s call is so radical, that it manages to be both more left AND more right than either of our sorry political parties.
@Mark: I think even “good grief” might be too much troll-feeding.
@stillbelieve:
1. Mark defends himself better than I could—of course—so I’ll ignore that part of your comment.
2. As for where Jesus commands us to have government feed the poor: I agree with you 100% that he never does.
Although the Church’s Social Teaching offers some broad guidelines about subsidiarity and solidarity in this area, the question of the best ratio of government aid to private charity in any society’s aid to the poor is a prudential question which all of us lay voters, lay economists, and lay policy-wonks are going to have to figure out for ourselves. You seem to lean toward either all or mostly private charity as the preferred ratio. I differ a bit in my estimate, but our disagreement on this doesn’t stop me from respecting your private prudential judgment on the matter.
3. On the spectrum from lots of room for private prudential judgment (e.g., the economic stuff we just talked about) to essentially no room for doubting a moral absolute (e.g., the intrinsic evil of abortion), just war is somewhere in the middle. However, I think Benedict XVI and John Paul the Great were on the right track in their criticisms of the Iraq War (no surprise that the Magisterium should be right), and in my own prudential judgment (and Mark’s, I suspect) the whole torture-ridden apparatus of American global military and socioeconomic hegemony (“empire,” colloquially if inexactly) fails any fairly applied Augustinian just war test also. That’s why Mark (I think) and I are against it. While I respect your prudential judgments here, too, I caution you that the case that Mark is right and you are wrong about this is a lot less tied up in economic theory and a lot more obvious, so you’re on shakier ground. Still, nice chatting with you.
1. Re: Bush
Since when is stupidity a mark of sincerity? Since when does being stupid preclude being cynical and even sly?
Bush was/is as cynical as they come. Has anyone peered into his soul (as he did in Putin’s) and saw “sincerity” there? Let’s not be silly.
2. Re: “just” wars. There seems to be an axiom flying about loose that there is a difference between the war on Iraq and the war on Afghanistan. It seems to be somehow related to our “defense.” Come again? Has Coolaid been served?
The differences between Bush and Obama are unimportant for most of the American people—one is a moron, the other is a bit more sleek, one has a certain set of special interest to pander to, the other has some overlap with him in that regard (especially as far as the grand financiers, and Israel are concerned) but also has his own separate special interests to genuflect to.
Neither worked/works or ever would for what they both call with smarmy and lying affection “the American people.” Both are war criminals.
The idea that “our” troops deserve our gratitude is obsolete. They may be poor !@#$% that don’t have any other opportunties than to join the “corporate mercenary service” that we call the military, but other than pitying them as poor !@#$%, we should resent that they are busy generating blowback for America all over the world. Our real job is to get rid of a corrupt elite that uses them as cannon fodder for their own profit and power.
Wow! This one is really bring out the crazy Left. 9/11 truthers. Contempt for our troops and their immense sacrifices. The notion that there was no difference between retaliation against the people who launched 9/11 and a stupid war of choice in Iraq. Pretty soon we should be getting the Bushitler stuff. A refreshing change from the kooks who think Obama is plotting to exterminate 25 million Americans.
Roger L:
Ah! Bush was “devious” but poor Obama is just a prisoner of the National Security state. Bush had choices, but Obama has none. Bush was an actor, Obama merely a patient. A good man victimized by the system, not a sinner in need of repentance. The system is *driving* him to assume powers that even Bush did not dare arrogate to himself, such as the summary execution of American citizens without arrest, evidence, trial or sentencing. Poor Obama. How helpless he is compared to Evil Bush.
Funny how one’s ideological commitments so easily tempt us to make excuses for those on our end of the spectrum, ain’t it?
@Ariadna:
1. No one but God has seen Bush’s soul, or knows his motivations. Judge not. Disagree with his policies if you think that’s best, but drop the ad hominem; it benefits no one and lowers the debate.
2. While I think Afghanistan was ill-conceived strategically and has long since passed the point of diminishing returns (bin Laden is now in Pakistan, after all), I think a just war argument here is far more defensible. Al Qaeda operatives attacked U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The U.S., in self-defense, hit back. Whether we should *still* be in Afghanistan *now* is a different question. Whether the U.S. hit back in a strategically or tactically deft way, or whether the U.S. has done enough to limit civilian casualties in theater, are also different questions than whether the very *idea* of hitting back at the Taliban regime sheltering al-Qaeda passes muster with just war theory, which I think it does, at least prima facie.
(N.B., the Pentagon hasn’t done as much as it should have to limit civilian casualties in its recent “shock and awe” and drone wars, but in fairness, the U.S. has done more than any other imperial power in all of history to precisely target its munitions and train its troops to think before shooting. As Christians, we can and should keep pressuring the Pentagon to do better while fairly praising it for having already done well.)
@diogenes: You are indeed a “cynic.” :) I am as opposed to American empire as you, but the troops manning its front lines *are* worthy of our respect. They are courageous, self-sacrificing, disciplined, bright, hard-working, athletic young people. That they have become all that *despite* often coming from disadvantaged socioeconomic strata is just another testament to their exemplary character. One of the best reasons to oppose empire is to bring these wonderful young people home, out of harm’s way.
“2. Re: “just” wars. There seems to be an axiom flying about loose that there is a difference between the war on Iraq and the war on Afghanistan. It seems to be somehow related to our “defense.” Come again? Has Coolaid been served?”
So what should we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks?
“So what should we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks?”
1. Investigate who perpetrated them. Isn’t it odd that the FBI to this day refuses to finger Osama for the job?
And isn’t it odd that after 4 or 5 of the alleged terrorists turned out to be alive and well we are still shown the same pictures?
2. If you truly believe it was the incredibly sophisticated operation directed by Osama from his cave, do you believe invading and bombing that sorry country to smithereens ostensibly in search of him was the answer?
I am sorry to say but it is a question that stuns me in its ramifications about the power and success of propaganda.
“contempt for our troops and their sacrifices”
That’s another silly one. One cannot point to our war crimes and unprovoked aggression wars without being accused of disrespect for the troops. As if it’s the troops who run the empire. Put a bag over it, will you?
“2. If you truly believe it was the incredibly sophisticated operation directed by Osama from his cave, do you believe invading and bombing that sorry country to smithereens ostensibly in search of him was the answer?”
We most certainly did not bomb the country to smithereens. And I ask again, what do you think we should have done?
““contempt for our troops and their sacrifices”
That’s another silly one. One cannot point to our war crimes and unprovoked aggression wars without being accused of disrespect for the troops. As if it’s the troops who run the empire. Put a bag over it, will you?”
Since Bush and Cheney did not do any fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, if there were war crimes committed, our troops were the ones who committed them. Consequently, if you are accusing our troops of committing large numbers of war crimes, then you are disresepecting them, and you are the one who should put a bag over it (whatever that means).
“Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?” Is there, in the end, a difference? The world’s way of violence never brings anything but more violence. Only Jesus Christ’s way of peace can bring us salvation.
As long as there are people ignorant enough to join the military,there will be presidents,(who take their orders from GOD’S “Chosen People”)stupid enough to continue having WAR. Alexander the Great said, “If my men were to start thinking, all of them would quit.”
Brian, maybe you should start reading history. Or anything at all… When you say “Since Bush and Cheney did not do any fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, if there were war crimes committed, our troops were the ones who committed them” you do give one pause…. Neither Hitler nor Stalin “did any fighting.” You really bought the bit about “disrespecting the troops” lock, stock and barrel, didn’t you? You don’t play at being naive, you really are.
Mikie and Brodajo—I agree with you.
It is a strange proposition that Bush’s putative “sincere belief” is considered somehow palliative as compared to Obama’s supposed “cynicism”.
The German Roman Catholic Pope was once a member of the Hitlerjugend, and is excused, among other ways, by the argument that he was young, and also “not sincere”, that is, never really believed.
What that establishes, if not anything else, is that said Pope as young fellow was neither saint nor martyr.
It also establishes that the arguments being used above in relation to the Bush and Cheney administrations smell of acrobats and rats.
One really should consult the Greek in reading the New Testament, for after all that is the language in which it was written.
However you translate it, “The poor are always with you” is neither prediction nor the indication of an insolvable social problem, as those whose religion is used mainly to evangelize property rights and their own hyper-Capitalism seem to think.
In fact if one wanted to take it very closely one might even suggest that those with whom the “poor” are always are the Judases of the world, whether Calvinist Protestants or “evangelical” Catholics.
“Neither Hitler nor Stalin “did any fighting.” You really bought the bit about “disrespecting the troops” lock, stock and barrel, didn’t you?”
If you are saying a large number of war crimes were committed, the troops had to be the ones committing them. Since large numbers of war crimes were not committed, you are lying about the troops, which is obviously disrespect.
“As long as there are people ignorant enough to join the military,there will be presidents,(who take their orders from GOD’S “Chosen People”)stupid enough to continue having WAR. Alexander the Great said, “If my men were to start thinking, all of them would quit.”
An elitist and an anti-Semite. An unfortunate combination that is becoming far too common. (And yes Adriana, this is also disrespecting the troops). And do you have a source for your Alexander quote. It does not sound like anything he ever would have said.
Christ turns water into fine wine, but Judas keeps the accounts and guards the money box?
One of these things does not go with the other.
Here, take a sip of this, brian english, although I know that you can be taken you to the water but you can’t be made you drink:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26671.htm
I think D’Souza has it right. Obama is an old fashioned anti-colonialist who sees America as the evil empire that must be humbled and tamed. He is a social democrat. He wants to lose the war in order to ensure that we never again fight abroad. He wants to redistribute our wealth which he views as stolen. He wants a multipolar world where China plays a major role (gee they aren’t imperialistic are they?). He sees no problem with Iran going nuclear, but has real problems with us being a nuclear power. He actually has much in common with Chavez. He hates the US military and wants it reduced to almost nothing. While D’Souza argues that he doesn’t “hate” America I would disagree. Most leftists of any stripe do hate America and see us as the enemy. All of this comes from Dinesh’s new book on Obama. He convinced me. For those though that deny 9/11 had anything to do with Bush’s response that is simply insane. Some of us have lived through appeasement and head in the sand thinking before. We paid for that far more then you can imagine now.
Reading the article and all of the comments makes my head spin - and my heart heavy. I think we jumped from the frying pan into the fire with Obama. Calling George Bush stupid is in itself stupid. He is not stupid. Apparently, neither is Obama. He is the consummate deceiver - and he got many people to vote for him, some of whom are still trying to defend that choice. Let’s start with his executive order to seal all of his personal records and go from there. THis man is not who he wants us to believe he is, he does not stand for hope or (good) change, and I believe he is doing more damage to our country than any “bad / incompetent” president we have ever had. He sure makes Jimmy Carter look good!!!!!
Regarding Therese’s Posted comments
With internet,most folks have history in their finger tips. I’m amazed when folks can’t see beyond their nose and have blinders on. If you don’t know the term blinders check it out—” Horse Blinders “. Reason your head spins is that it’s buried in the sand—low blood pressure—rise it and get educated lady. America/UK/Israel are the real terrorists.
Bush is stupid and a drunk and a WAR CRIMINAL lady. Obama is stupid,once in office he surrounded himself with Israel firsters and hacks of the old admin. When a person says one thing and then says /does the opposite—he is a stupid Moron.The reason folks voted for Demoos is because “nobody can be as bad or worse than Chenny and Bush” Not the most evil ,just below the devil.
Please don’t cut Jimmy Carter—he of all was the most religious true believer of Christianity. Only JFK came close and the rest were devil’s rejects—
I have history to tell U—USA over 300 years has caused millions to be killed and die needlessly , world wide lady!Before I go—read up on USA’s killings of King/Queen of Hawaii and get back to us :^/
JoJo, I agree with you, except for Obama having acted as he did because he is stupid. He was not stupid, he was just bought and paid for.
@Mark, so, if us being in all these countries is such a waste, why do we do it?
I’d like a serious answer here. I presume the decency and honesty of those making decisions in our gov’t. Do you think we really stay in those countries out of blind habit, or to satisfy the greed of defense contractors?
My point is that there is good reason why we are there. We are there to assure international stability, a responsibility we earned/had foisted on us after WWII. If we pull out of those places, can you be sure the political situation will not deteriorate?
To, to re-iterate, let’s FIRST understand really why we are there and then critique that, and avoid the silliness of so many of the statements above.
BTW, there is an example of a country asking us to leave: the Philippines. There maybe protests in Japan and SK, but until the GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, it’s not official. If 5% of the people protest, that doesn’t mean it’s the will of the people or gov’t.
That’s why I recommended Bacevich’s book. Herod didn’t ask Caesar to leave either. Client states seldom do.
Mark, that’s a rather silly example. Rome forced itself on its conquered lands and maintained a government that was superior to the local power. We don’t have that situation in Japan, Korea, or Germany, or even Iraq for that matter.
And I don’t get your usage of words like “imperium.” An empire is created by force and the subjugated countries are not allowed to leave or rule themselves. Our mere presence in a country doesn’t constitute an imperial occupation. I’m not sure what to call it since what the US is doing and has done with its military for the benefit of other countries is unprecedented in history. The blood we’ve spilled to secure peace, take down evil regimes, and foster democracy is truly unique and virtuous. For you to demean it by calling it an empire and compare it to forced empires like Rome is to insult the sacrifice and memory of those who have died in battle.
I don’t have time to read the book so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.