"In May, 2013, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether it should revise the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). A committee member asked a senior Pentagon official, Assistant Secretary Michael Sheehan, how long the war on terror would last; his reply: “At least 10 to 20 years.” At least. A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed afterward “that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today — atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted.” "
From The Intercept:
The claim is that permanent ongoing low level war is the new norm and will continue with no geographical limits for at likely 20 years more.
I can’t find any fault with the claim and its one of the most depressing things I’ve ever read to think its likely that in my entire life remaining I’ll never be free of the bullshit security theatre, the endless war on an abstract concept. I can only be reminded of the old sixties slogan “bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity”.
I can’t see any way out of this, there is too much entrenched self interest in keeping the war machine going forever.
can anyone see a way out? or is anyone going to defend this as justifiable and “good” policy? does anyone actually believe that there can ever be an end to the “war on terror” given the current path?
I’m not sure of you age, but unfortunately this is not new. Bush II declared war on “terrorism”, which is in effect a war with no end. Obama’s solution has not been to end the war, but mostly to make it more economically sustainable – hence the drone strikes.
It not new but Greenwald’s article is a very succinct statement of the fact that BOTH parties have this as official policy. I’ve never seen that explicitly stated so clearly.
Did you read the article? Its unthinkable under the current two party political system. Give me a realistic path for how a candidate can be elected on a platform to end the war on terror and then ACTUALLY DO IT, once the lobbyists from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northup Grumman explain the facts of life to the new Mr President.
I seem to recall that W always called it the war on “terror”. A war on an emotion itself. I’ve made a point of concealing my fear of spiders lest some drone bomb my ass.
I think this illustrates why we shouldn’t be using war as a metaphor. It’s fine to have a ongoing government program directed against poverty or crime or terrorism but I think it’s a bad idea to call these programs wars.
You would prefer what… that we just ignore the continued threat of international terrorism for the sake of “bringing the boys home”? Is “ending the war” a goal in and of itself that trumps actually achieving our purposes for engaging the enemy?
ISIS isn’t going to pack up and go home just because we don’t feel like lifting a finger to fight them.
We have no purpose besides killing for the sake of killing. It’s just another Christian/Muslim crusade, another round of meaningless killing. Nor is what we are doing going to do anything but create more enemies, both terrorist and otherwise.
Let me use an analogy. Your body’s immune system is always 24/7 in “endless war” against pathogens. Why? Because germs are always present.
Your immune response isn’t the problem. The germs are.
And what happens if ISIS manages to legitimately take control of Iraq or Syria or both? What happens to Kuwait? What happens to Saudi Arabia? What happens to Lebanon? What happens to Israel? What happens to the international economy? Do you think America exists in a vacuum and that nothing that happens there affects anything that happens here unless we stick our nose in it?
Let me use another analogy. Law enforcement is always 24/7 in “endless war” against crime. Why? Because crime always present.
The police presence isn’t the problem. The criminals are.
“International terrorism” is not that big of a threat. A nuisance, at best. The whole goddamn “war” is a distraction. We are at war with the Oceania. We have always been at war with the Oceania.
What purposes are those?
People who bomb buildings and hijack planes are criminals. The police and justice system were made for people like that. It’s giving them entirely too much legitimacy to call them soldiers in a “war”.
ISIS is a paramilitary force. Not really terrorists at all. It might be worth waging a war against them if Syrian or Iraqi politics had anything to do with our country or citizens, and we could suss out who the good guys are, and how exactly we would benefit from fighting the bad guys. It might be worth fighting them if they were committing some kind of genocide. But sending a bunch of soldiers into Iraq to blow shit up in order stop a bunch of other soldiers in Iraq from blowing shit up won’t help anyone at all and serves no purpose.
I’m sure the families of the 9/11 victims will be comforted to know that what they went through was a nuisance at best.
To destroy those organizations that intend to harm America, Americans or the allies of America, to disrupt international commerce, or to foster an environment that is harmful to peaceful international cooperation.
So we should… knock on ISIS’ door and serve them a bench warrant?
A “paramilitary force” that executes journalists, practices slavery, crucifies people, and has conquered a large swath of territory belonging to a US ally. What is the difference between ISIS and the Taliban? Or the Viet Cong? Or the Army of Northern Virginia?
Which it does, since we created the current Iraqi government, they’re our allies, and we’re responsible for the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise up. They’re our mess and we have an obligation to clean it up.
The good guys are us. The bad guys are anyone who has a problem with us being the good guys.
Which they are - against Yazidis, Kurds, Arab Christians, Shiites, and pretty much everyone else who doesn’t fall into line with their fanatical line of thought.
Tell all the people ISIS has killed that saving their lives would have served no purpose.
Right you are. Of course, I meant “bring the boys home” as in “end the war(s).”
Yes, I read the article. It’s really good, I think - as an analysis of American policy at this specific moment in time, when both parties do indeed seem committed to the idea of “endless wars.” But here’s the thing: Politicians have been known to change their mind about this sort of thing. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon. Clinton pulled out of Somalia. Obama pulled out of Iraq, at least partly (before getting pulled in again). Which is why I don’t think it entirely unthinkable that a future President, within a decade or less, might decide to pull the plug and bring the boys (and drones!) home, for real this time.