AS THE CONCEPT OF WAR BECOMES FEMINIZED, EUPHEMIZED, LEADERLESS-IZED AND INCLUSIVIZED, we have only ourselves to blame. This kind of silliness has been coming on us for decades as many of our most basic words---with clear cut meanings--underpinning civilization have been whacked and confused by the elite thought-police almost beyond recognition. Take for instance mother, father, husband, wife for starters. Now it's just partner. Don't get me started.Then there's printing money with abandon. Today it's quantitative easing. Almost sounds like a day at the beach in a comfortable swim suit, doesn't it?
Now we've come to the word war which is now being redefined by the liberal elite, including our feckless president, as one-world kinetic military action. A 4th of July sparkler immediately comes to mind.
Say what?
Such a concept leaves great leeway for obfuscation, confused goals and generally an undertaking in leaderless disarray that can go nowhere fast. It will grind on against an enemy with one and only one goal in mind: to stay in power and hold on to the money and oil whatever the cost.
So is it any wonder that in such a time of android-making, we have a professorial buddy-in-chief who is the king of obfuscation and kinetic militarism? He's so good at it, he can even chew gum at the same time.
Two great pieces online today add depth and breadth to what I'm thinking:
Peggy Noonan @ WSJ writes about The speech that Obama hasn't given.
Keith Koffler at Politico writes Chicago Law Professor Attacks Libya.
Interesting to see how this kinetic vagary unfolds.
4 comments:
The next administration is going to need "a Romney" to sort out the domestic and economic mess, and "a Petraeus" to fix the ongoing foreign debacle, even if it is not actually those two individuals.
...yes and someone without an advanced college degree....with old fashioned common sense.
A long time ago (during the first Gulf War, I think), I saw an episode of "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" titled "The Language of War", in which retired U.S. Army Colonel Harry Summers (among others) attacked the use of euphemisms disguising the realities of war.
He went on...
One of the little vignettes I used to tell to a War College audience when I talked to them and a true story. When I used to work at the Pentagon here and I'd walk home from work, about a mile or so, in military uniform, invariably a little gaggle of kids would follow along, 'cause they were attracted to the uniform, and they'd invariably ask two questions.
And the first question is, "What are you in the Army," or whatever, and you'd say -- I'd say the Army.
The next question invariably was, "Have you ever killed anybody?"
And, as I'd say to a War College audience, "Those bloodthirsty little bastards know what the Army is for, you're the ones that have forgotten."
...
The reason we maintain an armed force is to kill people and destroy things in the name of the United States. If you don't want to do that, that's all well and good, but don't hide from yourself and don't kid yourself what the military is.
...
And that reality has to be kept in people's minds and, among other reasons, so that the armed forces are not committed lightly.
The idea, well, we can send the armed forces in for some sort of a -- a peaceful resolution to the crisis; that's not what they do. They -- They are not a scalpel, they're a meat ax or a battle ax, and when you need a battle ax, they're very good at that sort of thing. But the -- So, euphemisms are dangerous and we ought not to use them.
-
Thanks Paul.
Post a Comment