As the war on terror nears its 14th anniversary -- a war we seem to be losing, given jihadist advances in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen -- the U.S. sticks stolidly to its strategy of “high-value targeting,” our preferred euphemism for assassination. Secretary of State John Kerry has proudly cited the elimination of “fifty percent” of the Islamic State’s “top commanders” as a recent indication of progress. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself, “Caliph” of the Islamic State, was reportedly seriously wounded in a March airstrike and thereby removed from day-to-day control of the organization.
"As the war on terror nears its 14th anniversary -- a war we seem to be losing, given jihadist advances in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen -- the U.S. sticks stolidly to its strategy of “high-value targeting,” our preferred euphemism for assassination."
While the article will undoubtedly raise some critical points, it begins with a We-frame that lends to militarism the unquestioned imprimatur of the whole of the American people.
Now this type of passive context may well be natural for males, particularly those for whom there have been past military allegiances; but I will continue to point out just how dangerous such a frame is.
Its very context suggests a seamlessness between the citizenry--which increasingly has ZERO voice in foreign as well as domestic policy--with that of the 1% assisted in their tragic (apart from profit-mongering) efforts by an exceptionally well-funded military apparatus so pervasive as to make questioning its raison d'etre all the more necessary.
WE are not doing squat. And amidst that amorphous WE-context are MILLIONS of people who oppose war and millions who realize that Power now acts nakedly with the consent of the governed a post-script.
One more thing: In a recent interview on R.T.V, Roseanne Barr made the point that is MEN who think in terms of narrow, linear winner-loser frames almost exclusively. That same limited context is not now, nor has it ever been true for women apart from those token females who seek and find a measure of power and status within the system that militant patriarchy built.
On a roll today. Good post.
Just as policing has nothing intrinsically to do with "crime control", and "The War on Drugs" © is unrelated to stemming their use, so "The Global War on Terror" ® is unconcerned with its proclaimed subject, other than to "manage" it for the benefit of political and corporate elites.
You can't boogie on these dance floors without a boogeyman as your partner
So why would you want to stop the music?
Another suggested title of this brilliant, simple and clear article: "Why/How US Institutional Stupidity is concentrated in the US Presidency."
Don't tell the NSA.
They will classify the truth and make it terrorism to ever utter it again.