Greenwald:
Advocates of escalation in Afghanistan chose Bob Woodward to "reprise his role as warmonger hagiographer" by publishing Gen. Stanley McChrystal's "confidential" memo to the President arguing for increased troops. As Digby notes, the vague case for continuing to occupy that country is virtually identical to every instance where America's war-loving Foreign Policy Community advocates the need for new and continued wars. It's nothing more than America's standard, generic "war-is-necessary" rationale.
It's just the same old "experts" and "wise men" pursuing the same old failed policies.
What is needed is not more war, endless war, but, in Afghanistan at least, a justifiable rationale for the war to continue -- a purpose, a goal, a definition of what would constitute victory.
But what if there isn't, as there does not seem to be, such a rationale? Is it right to escalate a war without one? And is it right to send yet more men and women into such a war to risk their lives in purposeless battle?
No comments:
Post a Comment