Home | About | Donate

'Tell Me How This Ends?': David Petraeus Finally Answers His Own Question


'Tell Me How This Ends?': David Petraeus Finally Answers His Own Question

Tom Engelhardt

Endless war and the children of Nixon


The worst decision in a generation was the declaration of a war on terror following 9/11, when we should have gone after the culprits and rectifiable causes. Israel, within hours, jumped on 9/11 as an opportunity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAueLjdKh1s), and with it’s neocon Israeli loyalists, lead us into wars on its behalf. It continues now with Netanyahu pushing us to act against Iran.

Israel is a destructive, potentially ruinous, parasite that seeks to control its host, and pervasive Israeli loyalists are here to help.


Mention of Petraeus’ involvement in the Counterinsurgency Manual begs attention to the publication 2 years later of the Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual published by the NETWORK OF CONCERNED ANTHROPOLOGISTS. Petraeus and the other contributors drew from Anthropology and as documented in the C-CM, distort/militarize academic research and ethics to fit the domineering distortion of military mission on behalf of veiled corporate overlords “to win hearts and minds” - enough to make you vomit. It so skews decades of research as to ultimately be travesty of a boondoggle of a veiled coup - agency by agency, discipline by discipline, generation by generation. Parasites self-motivate to constantly seek the living and leaving only the dead.

a snippet from a REVIEW of the Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual:

" … just as the military has a code of conduct, so too do the social science disciplines. As numerous contributors to the volume make clear, the two are not compatible, and their combination in counter-insurgency has resulted in what Roberto González estimates to be a $190 million corporate boondoggle.

González, Andrew Bickford, and Hugh Gusterson draw attention to how the militarization of knowledge about human behavior, beliefs, and social interactions can only distort any notion of knowledge as social scientists understand the term. More importantly, because insurgencies by their very nature are intimately linked to the ordinary population of the “host nation,” the “people” become as much of a problem and a target as the insurgents. Rather than being a resource for furthering human understanding, militarized social science produces the “people” and their practices as objects to be worked on and manipulated. Disturbingly, as Gusterson adds, none of this is particularly new. The current configuration is reminiscent of the Cold War era, when the physical and social sciences were enrolled into “national security” projects, and thick networks of social relations were made between the military, universities, and private enterprise. In Vietnam, for example, the social sciences were used as applied, instrumental knowledge, the purpose of which was to break the National Liberation Front’s underground network. Social scientists were part of teams producing “actionable intelligence” in a program with the cumbersome title “Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support.”

It should come as no surprise, therefore, to see a reductive and distorted view of social scientific theory and methodology evident in the intelligence chapter of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual. As David Price points out, these sections are a hodge-podge of plagiarized passages from the writings of numerous well-known anthropologists and social-cultural theorists. Moreover, the dubious ethics in the construction of the intelligence chapter is paralleled by the tortured logic of Sarah Sewell’s defense of counterinsurgency in her introduction to the University of Chicago Press’s publication of the manual. Greg Fledman points out that Sewell, the Director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, seems less concerned with rights and more with counterinsurgency’s promise to provide stability in “ungoverned space.” Here she is one with Pentagon planners who worry about the “non-integrating gap,” the two-thirds or more of the world that the US military monitors, intervenes in and occupies through its thousand or more bases and through its combat commands, the most recent of which is AFRICOM. As Catherine Bestman explains, countering terrorism is the ostensible purpose of AFRICOM. The more plausible reason for its existence, Bestman argues, however, has to do with oil and China’s growing presence throughout Africa. (…)

emphasis added


We need to have the same respect for our heroes of peace as we have for our heroes of war.

If someone took part in anti-war demonstrations in the VietNam era … thank them for their service. If someone came out early against the Patriot Act and took action against it … thank them for their service. If someone saw the false “weapons-of-mass-destruction” argument for what it was and worked to inform the citizenry … thank them for their service.

Tom Englehardt wrote a great piece here. I thank him for his service.


But . . .  but . . .  think of all the JOBS that are being created in our “defense” industries, and how their yuge profits are boosting the Dow!!


Also, I thank Daniel Ellsberg for his service.


The higher it climbs, the harder the fall!


Worth a read: the last link in Tom’s article, to an excellent essay by Andrew Bacevich on why Americans couldn’t care less about endless war:

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don’t expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them – and us – to care.


Please shorten that phrase to parasite that controls its host, and it will be closer to the truth.