One of Our Major Newspapers Says: What the Hell, Why Not Start Another Unwinnable War?

[babylonsister]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/one-of-our-major-newspapers-says-what-the-hell-why-not-start-another-unwinnable-war/387802/
One of Our Major Newspapers Says: What the Hell, Why Not Start Another Unwinnable War?
On the bright side, Tom Cotton now seems statesmanlike.
James Fallows Mar 14 2015, 12:26 AM ET


Slim Pickens, as Maj. 'King' Kong in Dr. Strangelove, likes this idea (Wikimedia commons)


When I published my "Tragedy of the American Military" article last month, some people said: No, it's an exaggeration to claim that war is an easy abstraction that people throw around without thinking through the consequences.

Maybe. But I give you the Op-Ed page of our capital city's main newspaper, which tells us:

Why not just roll the dice?

"Probably" the best? Grrr. No, almost certainly not. Or so people who had thought about the practicalities argued 11 years ago — when it would have been easier than now.

Of course, I had reckoned without the strong argumentative power of this article's author, one Joshua Muravchik. He assures us (emphasis added):

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.

Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

Right, repeated bombing raids "as necessary." What could possibly go wrong with that approach? Yes, "surely the United States could best Iran." Surely we could polish off those backward Viet Cong. Surely invading Iraq would work out great. (I haven't taken the time to see if the author was a fan of invading Iraq, but I have a guess.) Surely the operational details of these engagements are a concern only for the small-minded among us.

How would we think about a "scholar" in some other major-power capital who cavalierly recommended war? How would we think about some other capital-city newspaper that decided to publish it? The Post's owners (like those of the NYT and other majors papers) have traditionally had a free hand in choosing the paper's editorial-page policy and leaders, while maintaining some distance from too-direct involvement in news coverage. Jeff Bezos, behold your newspaper.

I see from his Twitter bio that the author of this op-ed has seven grandsons. I now have one. The idea that any of them would be involved in a "bomb as often as necessary" strategy??? Maybe the author feels differently, but for me this is appalling.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. War = Profit

[spanone]

2. when will we ever learn...

[Thinkingabout]

3. It is interesting how Netanyahu spoke to Congress pushing for the invasion of Iraq and he has been

Flapping his lips in the past few years complaining about Iran getting close to having a nuclear bomb when the result of invading Iraq and killing of Saddam set the stage for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb. Saddam would have never allowed Iran to get a nuclear bomb, Saddam was the defense system against Iran getting the bomb. Moral of this story, don't follow what Netanyahu wants us to do.

[Octafish]

4. Seems to be a popular idea among the monied class.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

[Inbetweendays]

5. There is madness occurring in the world right now.

And unfortunately, we, the USA, are a big part of that. Not a lot of people want to admit it to themselves. Thank you for this post.

[Rex]

6. It's always good to make money at the expense of other peoples children.

Hell, most of them have more than one child anyway! Selfish plebeians!


"Yachts just don't buy themselves! It takes wars and lots of other people making the ultimate sacrifice!"

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Have any of them bothered to look at a map?

Iran is huge compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we already know that we humiliated ourselves in those two countries.

Are we back to voodoo and wishful thinking? Third time's the charm?

[LittleBlue]

8. The WaPo has been absolute trash for a long time

Joined at the hip to the government and gleefully publishes neocon nonsense. The RT of the US.

I hope I get to see it go bankrupt in my lifetime. Can't wait to dance on its grave.

[CanonRay]

9. No potential blowback there!

They will never get it. We've already got blowback on top of blowback on top of more blowback.

[gratuitous]

10. Who's best option? "Our" best option?

Will the Post be putting their reporters into uniforms, handing them rifles, and getting their war on? Or, if they're too old, putting their kids in harm's way? No? Who is this implied "we" of "our" best option, then? How about Muravchik, the author of the op-ed? Any of his seven grandsons going to be on the front line? Yes?

Fuck you, you fucking war-mongering motherfuckers. Always ready to spend other people's money and sacrifice other people's children for your demented agenda. Eat shit. Die. Or otherwise just get off my planet.

Oh, and special thanks to the Post for providing this blood-gargling psychopath such a respectable platform for his obscenities.

[starroute]

11. Yeah, he was totally a fan of invading Iraq

I posted this earlier on another thread:

He's been a member of every Neocon organization you can imagine.

In 1995, he was a co-founder of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. And when Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran in 2001, he supported that too.

He was associated with PNAC.

In 1998, he was among the many Neocons who signed an open letter to President Clinton claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and demanding military action.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/neocons-to-clinton-launch-war-on-iraq.html

In 2006, he wrote in Foreign Policy, "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office" and added that his fellow Neocons "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."
http://washingtonnote.com/a_reminder_to_a/

[AngryAmish]

12. Thing is, we could totally win the war.

Destroy the oil fields, burn their cities, destroy every dam.

But why the fuck would we do that?

[CJCRANE]

13. Necrocons.

Necroconservatives.