Monday, July 11, 2005

The war on what, again?

This is interesting. I hadn't really thought of it this way.

In the aftermath of 9/11, writer Joan Didion critiqued "the wearying enthusiasm for excoriating anyone who suggested that it could be useful to bring at least a minimal degree of historical reference to bear on the event." Overwhelmingly, politicians and pundits were quick to get in a groove of condemning any sensible assertions "that events have histories, political life has consequences, and the people who led this country and the people who wrote and spoke about the way this country was led were guilty of trying to infantilize its citizens if they continued to pretend otherwise."

Voices of reason, even when they've come from within the country's military establishment, have been shunted aside. In late November 2002, a retired U.S. Army general, William Odom, told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few."
...Read the rest here at CounterPunch.

1 comment:

G said...

Yep, and when they tire of the war on terror, they'll turn their attention to the war on overeating.

Because Ronald MacDonald is real.

Can't you just see him, perpetrated as the next Osama, with videos released of him and the Hamburgler hatching evil plans in a dark, dusty fry kitchen somewhere?

;-) G