[lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:57:07 -0600
Eric: Is there a doctrine in the house?
Powell: Me.
Eric: Who are you?
Powell: Adam Clayton Powell, I used to be in the House.
Eric: Ah, please, Doctrine Powell, tell us how to keep from getting into
wars that our antiwar groups will ensure that we lose.
Powell: Kill the anti-war people.
Eric: Brilliant!
Powell: I think so. It's always best to avoid Rangels. Had I known that
in 1970, I'd have had him done away with.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade
>>Change from "pacifists are responsible for nations
losing wars" to, "lack of popular support is
responsible for (liberal-democratic) nations losing
wars.
I already agreed that "antiwar" is a better term than "pacifist."
Okay, let me unpack it, and excuse me if I sound like Bin Laden while
doing so.
People in the post-WW2 West have short attention spans and little stomach
for privation, sacrifice, or extended warfare. This both good and bad.
Good because it makes most military adventures "unsellable" in the short
term and untenable in the long term. Bad because truly important conflicts
may be beyond the political will of governments that must enter them.
The Powell Doctrine addresses the cynical, self-concerned, and impatient
aspects of our populations by mandating war only for national security
reasons, only with broad initial public support, and only with clearly
defined exit strategies. That's good, IMHO.
In my experience, when the US enters the war, there is always a ready-made
antiwar group ready to protest it. This group includes pacifists,
isolationists, idealists, radical leftists, and kids who go along for the
ride in any protest group. They are mobilized primarily by mistrust of the
power elite's intentions, highly emotional propaganda, and a basic spirit
of rebellion. This is also good, IMHO, because it exemplifies freedom.
The longer a war lasts, the more complex the justification for it, the
more sacrifice involved in its prosecution, the easier it is for this
ready-made group to attract followers and converts.
The default position for antiwar converts is suburban nihilism, i.e.,
people surrounded by comfort, who see no immediate threat to their
comfort, do not believe the propaganda advanced by the pro-war groups.
"Bush lied, thousands died" ... yadda-yadda.
The Powell Doctrine curbs our warmongers by precluding military
adventurism. If a conflict meets the criteria of the Powell Doctrine, it
will also be very difficult for the readymade anti-war groups to attract
converts and new followers because: 1. the reasons for the war will be
clear and simple, 2. the use of overwhelming force will make it short, and
3. the clearly-defined exit strategy will undercut the formulaic cries of
"another Vietnam" or "quagmire" (which you may recall was voiced in the
Afghan campaign).
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
