The proposal for a Global War on Terrorism Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, to honor the country’s post-9/11 war dead, described in Sunday’s Globe, may seem like a no-brainer. It is, in fact, premature. Before proceeding further, Americans would do well to reflect further on exactly what they propose to memorialize.
If half as much effort was put into not getting into war in the first place, as was spent on building memorials to soldiers the politicians really don’t give a rat’s ass about and to giving speeches that pretend that the innocent victims of war don’t exist, we’d be much further along, my friends.
An excellent article by Andrew Bacevich! His writing has always been good.
I’ve never been big on memorials in the first place, but especially in this GWOT case. GWOT is a bright and shining lie, and I hope the effort to end the AUMF will have some positive effect on ending the lie.
“1838 - 1842: First Anglo-Afghan war. British invade to thwart Russian influence. Retreating British force massacred.”
from National Geographic supplementary map, October 2001.
The Great Game is still being played, as it always has been, and perhaps as it always will be.
On October 27, 2014, the British formally terminated their fourth Anglo-Afghan war. Four hundred and fifty three deaths on their part, most from Helmand Province, where the formal ‘termination’ took place at Camp Bastion.
Does anyone realistically see an end to power politics ?
GWOT was the US Govt Informing the World that they had just knocked the Chip of Off of “Our” Shoulder.
All soldiers are terrorists.
Would that memorials were for all people who died during the conflict, and all sides expressed sincere remorse together.
The US coalition used white phosphorus in Raqqa last week , according to RT’s journalist reporting shortly before his own death. All buildings have been shelled, farmland burned, water resources destroyed.