Peers for a Day
“History doesn’t repeat itself but rhymes” is a line with a lot of mileage these days. The editors running the division of poetic vehicles don’t get it. They revoke all the wrong licenses and grant reckless sonneteers the open road.
The latest historic victim in verse should be collected into a series of volumes titled “Alas, Afghanistan.” Media has its most mendacious bards cranking out cantos in reams. How should the lit profs classify it? Will it be un-heroic couplets, a rap ballad or elitist doggerel? One lame line pops up in the refrain of every odious ode the punditry pelts us with. Whenever the 4th estate is repeating itself ad nauseam fake news alarms should be clanging in every brain.
The good news is that defeat is no longer an abandoned child. The bad news is the most chaste among us are now being placed in the DC cat-house during the grisly tryst at the moment of conception. When the swells who contribute to policy making decisions refer to where “Americans” went wrong a scarlet letter is sewn on three hundred and thirty million people as “birthing persons.” Suddenly, this summer, the culprits no longer choose to tower over the vassalage being rescued by the military-incestuous complex. Once the enemy started piloting our war machines we all became comrades-disarmed.
Clumsily mangling Peele the WSJ waxed out “A Farewell To Nation Building.” The message is pontificated between bursts of drivel and semi-substance:
“’Overall, Americans think Americans need to play a global role,” said Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to NATO who now leads the Chicago Council. ‘What they don’t think is that the U.S. needs to be the world’s superpower. They want shared leadership and work with other countries.’”
“They” do? It’s convenient to learn how much alike we all think from people guaranteed a monologue on broadsheets. What’s inconvenient is the uniformity of opinion from the loudest quarters. They lead the worldly to suspect we aren’t changing course in the long run. There might be a solid fourth of the country that’s always ready to plant a swift boot in certain foreign backsides. Only a tiny minority of them stays lavishly in the chips selling the notion of turning Outdoor-plumbing-istan into woke Mayberry.
In this otherwise prolix piece we are curiously spared three vital words. Most readers never heard of the “Chicago Council,” knowing that its full name includes “on Global Affairs” fills in a blank or two. Where global affairs are concerned keeping American pants up and zippered is in teeming demand. That camp doesn’t have much pull with editors in charge of placing lofty double-think pieces before the masses.
Authors David Luhnow and Gerald F. Seib don’t just let Daalder tell you what you think; they will too:
“Americans mainly seem to be expressing a new wariness of military interventions with vaguely defined objectives and open ended commitments, such as those that became almost routine in the last half-century.”
“[N]ew” to who? “W” said that himself running in 2000. The idea was old before Nixon got run out of the Whitehouse on a rail. Washington’s kicking and screaming submission to popular will isn’t even new. DC’s worldwide “democracy” industry was already counting their chickens when polls queered the hatch in Syria a decade ago. They are still smarting about how few eggs the hen laid for them there.
“Many feel that their country has spent a fortune in taxpayer money in Iraq and Afghanistan without much to show for it, said John Arquilla, professor emeritus at the Naval Postgraduate Institute.”
“Many”? Rubbing elbows with blobsters who don’t feel that way generally places a toff as in on the score. And to say taxpayers outside the loop got anything, much less “much,” could stand some elaboration. When we hear “we were all in it together” – and it all went wrong — who is counting the pelf just might be the story.
Speaking of “wariness,” shouldn’t a daily news provider whose raison d’être purports to be devoted to fiscal matters devote a lot more words to where those trillions went? The fact they helped keep the DJIA buoyant may explain the distraction. Portfolio-less people who erect Mc-mansions are expendable once the paint begins to dry. Anyone who swung a wrecking ball, unintentionally or not, at foreign policy or the economy from an Ivory Tower is still indispensable.
Carlos Lozada in the September 5th Washington Post is all over the page – well, 5 pages – in “9/11 was a test. We failed.” [Emphasis added]
“The problem to responding only to calamity is that underestimation is usually replaced by overreaction. And we tell ourselves it is the right thing,
Article from LewRockwell