Many opponents of a nuclear deal with Iran simply won’t come out and say what they seem to be constantly getting at: that the United States should go to war. Well, kudos to the hawkish opinion pages of The Washington Post and the neoconservative scholar Joshua Muravchik for making just that argument in Sunday’s paper.
"Just keep mowing lawn." Just what instruments will we use to mow the lawn? It 's pretty clear that for well hardened sites, buried under thousands of feet of mountain bunker busters are not enough and even nuclear weapons might be ineffective. So if we can't prevent the hardened sites from operating what can we mow? Well we can mow down, nuke populations in cities. We can Inflict millions of deaths on civilian populations. The USA has never renounced first use of nuclear weapons. The USA has at times had 5 nuclear aircraft carriers off the Iranian coast threatening Iran.
The neocons who itch for war would love the slaughter. But before we go off into our blood lust frenzy we might want to engage in a few war games to see the harm we might suffer in mowing the lawn. Missle attacks on aircraft carriers are a certainty and certainly some of them will go down taking 5000 US lives at a pop. Normal shipping of oil will stop. Iran will almost certainly proceed to develop its nuclear weapon and angry and wounded might just be willing to use it. Expect at least a few US cities to be made unlivable after being contaminated by dirty bombs. Expect thousands of US causualties, trillions of dollars wasted and expect us to be a pariah nation which few be willing to support in our barbarity. Well. Maybe I could be wrong on that last point.
There was a man that found a dog wandering the streets and took it home, chained it to a stake, kept it half-starved, and occasionally beat it for barking at the squirrels. One day the dog bit the man on the hand. "I knew that damn dog was no good."
No, I can assure you that you are not wrong!
Now, now. Those dollars aren't wasted. They make the lives of our war profiteers richer and more meaningful.
“War with Iran is probably our best option.” Probably? So we—with Muravchik, it’s always “we,” the collected national mass to be dragged along into his follies—ought to go down this path again because he’s pretty sure it’s best for us! War is supposed to be a last resort; that doesn’t mean it’s “probably our best option,” but that it’s our only one."
VERY gratifying to see other writers & thinkers dissecting the use of the WE meme to indicate consensus and/or uniform opinion where there is none... making it all the easier to manufacture consent (as Noam Chomsky defined the process).
It's not a secret that NSA funds find their way to writers who use screenplays (Hollywood) and novel formats to push ideas that happen to be amenable with the Make War (MIC) State.
A poster asked if 2 writers might not be CIA funded (in another article on the subject of Iran and how War Hawks are inflaming the issue in order to foment conflict where there need not be one). That question applies to writers who say insane things like "War is our best option."
Who is war good for? Answer: those who have profited handsomely since 911 and the Stock Market collapse--2 shock doctrine events that had MUCH to do with the findings (and planned direction) of wealth aggregation as documented by The Piketty Study.
You USE the We-meme to create a disinformation-style seamlessness between peace-loving, decent, law-abiding citizens and the MIC. You're clueless to the FACT that a Deep State runs things, and that it uses copious quantities of disinformation--including the premeditated use of the all-inclusive WE frame; or else you're paid to posit this form of forced consent to wholly martial (and M.A.D.) policies.
No, tammons, WE don't all agree with this, go along with this, do this, or would consider doing this.
If indeed War is the best option why should that matter? This nation has a long tradition of ignoring the best option and following the one that is most appealing to the 1%.
"Mowing the lawn." I guess that is Israeli for what drone "pilots" call making "bugsplats"
* I am always a bit mystified by all this "hardened sites" stuff. Iran hasn't attacked anyone since around the time of the American Revolution. They are pretty good at defending themselves.
* They abandoned researching nuclear weapons quite a few years ago. They are members of the NPT and allow inspections of their nuclear sites and research. They have a fatwa prohibiting anything dealing with nuclear weaponry. They are hosting nuclear disarmament conferences, They are trying for a non-nuclear Middle East.
* No intelligence agency, including US and Mossad, can find any evidence of any nuclear weapons research in Iran.
* So, according to Bibi and similar nutcases in the US, Iran must be destroyed or starved out. US has thousands of nuclear armed missiles, Israel has several hundred and is not a member of the NPT or anything else. It refuses any inspections of its facilities and has the reputation of being a mad dog by its neighbors who have been frequently bitten.
* None-the-less, all attention stays riveted upon Iran, historically a peaceful country. The nations with enough weaponry to destroy the earth a hundred times over quiver in fear of a nation that doesn't want anything to do with nuclear weapons and would like all of them to be dismantled and the nuclear horror removed from the earth.
The "we" I use is a bit careless so I accept your criticism but Idon't believe that "deep state" is the complete answer either. The American public that I encounter in my life, suburban Republican are though lyrics on board and will readily, in the name of patriotism, go along with whatever the war mongers in our Congress proscribe. There is a collective guilt which we, the US citizenry, take on because we as a nation, despite failure after failure, of war as foreign policy readily rally to the war mongers. We destroy their countries and then innocently ask why they hate us. I am ashamed to be a US citizen.
It is interesting that you mention Noam Chomsky. He was on Democracy Now recently, and several times used "we" when speaking of the actions of the US government. I thought of you when I heard him do it.
"We" and "our" as subject is standard neocon grammar for its fundamental strategy. cutting across all agenda items, to confound the interests of the American people with the interests of Israeli Ashkenazim elite.