|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
Petraeus Gets Tactical About AfghanistanPosted on Jun 29, 2010
On Tuesday, Gen. David Petraeus succeeded in convincing the Senate Armed Services Committee that he’s fit to take over for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, and he hinted that strategic shifts may be on the way in that war once his expected Senate confirmation has come to pass. —KA
Advertisement Previous item: Accused Russian Spies Rekindle Cold War Passions Next item: House Shoots Down Unemployment Bill New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Blackspeare, June 29, 2010 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment
If I were civilians, not to mention combatants, in Kandahar province I would be afraid, very afraid——here come the Marines. Strategic military science says the enemy must be vanquished and, in that effort, all collateral damage is acceptable.
Report thisBy gerard, June 29, 2010 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
One part of the definition of “terrorist” is “non-State actor”. When more than 50% of the citizenry of a democracy disapprove of a military action, does that make the military forces, non-state actors?
Report thisAnother part of the definition is “their intention is to intimidate and create widespread panic.” Is there any military force that does not intend to intimidate and create widespread panic?
“Their targets are often ordinary civilians.” the definition continues. (“Terrorism Studies” by Nicholas Lehmann in The New Yorker 4/26/10,p.73)
Do hi-tech weapons not target ordinary civilians to such a degree that it is necessary to mask the incidents as “collateral damage”?
Boiling the above NYer article down, it would seem that the only “terrorism” different from ordinary war is the attacks of “suicide bombers” that “don’t take place on the field of battle.” (We haven’t quite sunk that low yet, but we’re working on it as war itself becomes morally less and less “winnable” and more and more suicidal and destructive.)
On the other hand, Petraeus is said to have “absorbed the theory” that terrorist and insurgent groups are sustained by “their provision of social services.” (p76)
A-ha! As I keep saying: Make peace, not war. Provide social services, at home and abroad, for ten years and see what happens. I dare you!
Perhaps the most shocking conclusion of this studied article is: Since force is not the way to get the upper hand on terrorism, “the implication is that somewhere in the world there might be a politician with the skill to get people to calm down about terrorists in their midst so that a rational policy could be pursued. That’s hard to imagine.”
No, it’s not hard to imagine at all. Fear of terrorism is deliberately hyped. The missing ingredient? Good old plain common sense. Think. Don’t panic.
The myth that peace is “hard to imagine” is what keeps it from being discovered, recognized and practiced.