"...[There is a] disconnect between the United States' officially declared commitment to waging an all-out 'War on Terror' and Americans' reluctance to sacrifice in support of that war...'Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice,' this officer says, 'except us.' By 'us,' he means the armed forces...'It's almost,' says a retired U.S. military official, 'as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and at the same time maintain a sense of normalcy.'"
Paul Street, Znet, July 30
Paul Street, Znet, July 30
I can think of any number of Australian armchair generals, pontificating and encouraging an even more bellicose foreign policy. Perhaps they'd like to volunteer for the armed services. What? Busy, otherwise engaged or unfit? Thought so.
7 Comments:
"What needs to be done" is for Australia to stop fighting other people's wars and employ a foreign policy more conducive to world peace.
Our current subservience to White House overseas aims has underlined the embarrassing nature of Australia's lack of a self-determining line of diplomacy and resulted in an almost gleeful participation in military ventures to countries which pose no threat to Australia.
Antony's point is instructive, the men and women who place their lives at risk for these ventures are not politicians or top military brass. If this was the case, maybe our foreign policy would be better thought through and (the key word) independent.
'the nads to do what needs to be done' depends upon knowing who the enemy is.
The nasties who are now the enemies of the current junta in power in the US were once their friends.
The foot soldiers are sent to the front line as pawns in this great game that has nothing to do with the basic human virtues.
What this has to do with Australia's national interest is not self-evident.
Certainly the suck-arse that is our current PRime Minister knows what's in his self-interest.
Why one would put one's life on the line for a bunch of Strangeloves and little turds is a question for the psychologists.
Well, Howard, Bush and Blair all see themselves as Christians, many of them have even prayed together. I wonder what they're asking God for. "Please, God, don't let me ever stand before an international criminal court for the horrors I've created?"
What a heavyweight you are Paul. Why not get rid of some of those second hand ideas, that'll free you up.
Thank God fools like you aren't running the country. Hang on, they are.
I think that's right Vasco, but it really depends upon whom you are talking about. If you're talking about the average punter it's probably correct. If you're talking about powerful interests I'm afraid history teaches they will only stop doing what they are hell bent on doing when coerced by a greater source of power, for eg, mass opposition or greater military power. I suppose there are exceptions, Robert Mcnamara and Malcolm Fraser come to mind. But note even then the change in heart came well after they lost political relevance. It’s not enough to convince people with a more rational argument. Institutional reform is the most important thing. To give but one suggestion, something like making the Geneva Conventions applicable to weapons manufacturers would be a useful first step.
Re armchair generals, practically every modern 'general' fits into this category. Erich von Manstein, considered the Third Reich's finest military strategist, was an avid chess player. Churchill is well known for his interest in elaborate military excursions that failed more often than not. Theodore Roosevelt wrote approvingly of war, how it ennobled one's spirit and gave a person great character. It also helped the US conquer large parts of its hemisphere. I doubt General Musharraf ever slept in one of those frozen huts in Kashmir that routinely kill his soldiers.
Yes, getting them to abide by the Geneva Conventions as they stand would be a good idea too! :-)
I'll volunter to be a soldier the day you volunteer to be a Kurd in Iran.
Post a Comment
<< Home