. . . is actually trivialized and even contradicted in the administration's opposition position to Assad and their wariness of the 'rebels' who would assume power in Assad's absence.
It reminds me so much of George Orwell (such an easy reference, but such a prophetic one).
Our nation is not merely threatening war. Our government is busy warring, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in that region, using its subjects as fodder for the machine which gives it the most relevance. Its war machine. Before 9-11 our nation spent a full 60% of our annual budget on 'Defense', the military. Now, although most of the off-budget in the form of emergency appropriations has ended, the percentage of the budget that we toil for is still so overwhelmingly weighted toward the perpetual militarism that countless future generations will suffer from the debt alone. We are as removed from our own centers of authority over this militarism as the chemical attackers are from whoever they regard as their leader. Our nation's defenders and those who find themselves at the point of their weapons abroad are being cast against each other to effect a perpetual industry of aggression for the leaders to lord over.
We are blessed with the cynicism of Orwell to, at least, reassure us of our plight:
"The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.
Justifying War; 'Just' Wars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023568932
= new reply since forum marked as read