Naive Question

[poliphilo]

If you say you're going to have a surge but afterwards you'll withdraw aren't you effectively telling the enemy to hang on in there?

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

No need to apologise, that's a fascinating view of the situation. The time seems to have passed when a US President could simply sack an overwheening general- the way Truman sacked McArthur.

Afghanistan will almost certainly defeat the allies, as it has defeated every other foreign army- and US prestige will suffer accordingly. One view of the matter is that what we're seeing here is the decline and fall of the American Empire.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Eisenhower tried to warn us about the unholy alliance between industry and the military, a monster he helped create. If a MacArthur were fired today, the general would subsequently be found on every news and opinion show, day in and day out, braying about how the president hates America and we're all going to die. And such a general would enjoy unflinching support in the media and among "serious" punditry, too, and on both sides of the political aisle. Such are the consequences of unchecked militarism.

The American Empire is toast. The only remaining questions are how soon and whether we have a hard or a soft landing. I think - hope - Obama is smart enough to choose the latter. If I squint just right, his actions seem to support my hopes, but I've been fooled before.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm torn. I don't like empires- and if this one is coming to an end I can't be sorry. On the other hand I don't fancy the prospect of China becoming top nation.

The US has frittered away its power and prestige on a succession of unwinnable foreign wars. There's a certain irony about a great nation being brought down by its super-patriotic military types.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

There's a certain irony about a great nation being brought down by its super-patriotic military types.

It may always be thus.