"When it comes to war, however, not so much. The “peace movement,” to the extent that it can be said to exist, is anemic and almost entirely devoid of clout. Our politics allows no room for anything approximating an antiwar party. Instead, the tacit acceptance of war has become a distinguishing feature of contemporary American scene."
"OUR" politics... what, as opposed to the politics of the 1% donor class who--through Citizens United--gets to write policy?
How much debate is there on Capitalism?
How much funding for genuine alternatives to the old fossil fuel empires?
I guess Bacevich also missed the Page and Gilens study that proved that the public's wishes have ZERO influence over policy.
The constant mantra of fighting terrorism with armed gendarmes on every street, added to the silent watchers that are part of the total surveillance state are also not mentioned.
They sure made the Occupy Wall Street encampments comfortable.
But ARMED response to citizen protest is what, just superficial and not worthy of mention?
Just make it seem that people WANT war because the "anti war movement" is anemic... while also subliminally mocking movements for social justice based on gender and race.
I absolutely DETEST this individual. If he lived during Allen Dulles' era he likely would have enjoyed getting to know the Nazis imported to the American Military Cause.
Shame on the Boston Globe for publishing this LONG homage to the Military!
"With The People opting out, the burden of actually conducting the various campaigns launched pursuant to the Carter Doctrine falls to those who willingly make themselves available to fight. We may compare these volunteers to fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain: They are the Few. The many have other options and act accordingly."
"Those who make themselves available to fight..."
Hey, Andrew, you mean like all those drone pilots who can't sleep nights for turning REAL human beings into eliminated blips on a computer screen? Wow... what a HIGH call of duty!
Just following orders...
"So a central task for field commanders has been to figure out how to fight wars that the political class deems necessary but to which the rest of us are largely indifferent. In 2007, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, neatly summarized the problem. “In Afghanistan, we do what we can,” he remarked. “In Iraq, we do what we must.” Implicit in Mullen’s can/must formulation was the fact that in neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were commanders able to do what they wished."
WHY would you do what you MUST in Iraq?
Unquestioning authoritarian drones... YOU make the world unsafe for human beings! In your delusion, you spread calamity and call it defense!
Shame on the Boston Globe for publishing this shaming pro-war tripe!
In this paragraph, after doing the "nasty" on all those arty, peace-loving types, Bacevich argues that the public LONG CONDITIONED to war is a FAN of the military (as if this outcome arrived by organic means):
"In some quarters, as a sort of hangover from Vietnam, the belief persists that American culture, at least in those quarters where professors and artsy types congregate, is intrinsically anti-military. Nothing could be further from the truth. American culture is decidedly pro-military. All it asks is that military institutions get in step with the culture’s core requirements."
NOTHING this jackass says is true! He's a propagandist, and the entire article is meant to SHAME readers into respecting the military and/or sending their sons and daughters to those oh, so holy (and equally justified) ever expanding Killing Fields.