Remember when war *was* a crime? Me neither, I guess.

[Mechatanketra]

Warning: I think my capacity for disillusionment has peaked out, so the following message may be irrationally negative.

Scott Adams once defined the difference between an optimist and a pessimist that, upon finding that a given disaster has occurred very rarely, the one thinks "we're safe forever!" and the other "We're due." I think about that, in light of the popular principle that anyone who makes a comparison to Nazi Germany in an argument can be assumed de facto to have descended into irrationality; underlying that principle would be a believe that the Nazis, and that sort of horrible inhumane regime in general, were something so bad, that they had to be a very rare disaster. So once we took care of the bad guys ... we're safe forever.

You think we would have noticed that, at the very least, Germany found two other countries with equally brutal regimes to ally with, and that we'd end up allying with a fourth for the duration of the war. Brutal, warlike regimes have never been rare in history. We're not safe forever.

We're due. :-(

In a LBN thread, I read that the RNC is planning to bet the farm with regards to the Bush Doctrine of military force -- to make the charge, as an integral part of their campaigning, that America needs to fight preemptive wars (read: start wars as the aggressor) to defend ourselves, and that anyone who disagrees is either too weak or too unpatriotic to be allowed to run things.

At first, my idealist's instinct responded. I felt outraged at the very notion -- that anyone who would call themselves a real American would be so pleased with the idea of endorsing rampant belligerence, of insisting on a policy that is not merely 'unwise' or 'ineffective', but outright murderous.

Then came the pragmatist's considerations. I felt disgusted that the Republicans apparently now feel bold enough to discuss such monstrous ambitions in the open. It's like the KKK throwing away their hoods -- part of you wonders how impotent their opposition must be, that they feel safe without even the pretense of decency. Just to restate: the majority party of our government plans to make trashing the fundamental basis of international law, the Nuremberg principle that the guy who starts a war is always the bad guy, a cornerstone of their 2004 campaign. Now it's not just that there are monsters in Washington, but they think being monstrous is "in"?

Then came the realist's despair. I feel depressed because I know it will work -- after all, even the Democratic Party agrees with this sentiment. At least, significant segments of the Party (such as the NDOL newsletter which derided war protesters for their inability to embrace "muscular internationalism") agree, segments which if I dared to imply were somehow not 'really' Democrats would draw down a hail of verbal abuse such that I'd be sick of reading the Internet for a week. Ultimately, the lion's share of the much-touted "spinelessness" of Democratic officials in the face of the Iraq war is nothing of the sort. It's not that they're afraid to criticize Bush's warmongering, or at least, that they fear some sort of direct retribution from his administration -- it's that they think (or maybe just suspect) he's right. Maybe not even that he's right about America needing to become an aggressor nation for its own defense, but just that Americans want to be, that no one could win an election if voters aren't convinced they're ready to conquer a nation or three for Old Glory.

And so, in the end, I just feel sick. And once again, I curse the right wing not for impugning my honor by asking why I hate America, but by testing that honor by giving me a workable answer: because we've become monsters, and we like it.

Damn it, it shouldn't be this way. It shouldn't be possible to effortless propose a need for a "Homeland Security" department without any official ever publicly questioning what that says about the purpose of our "Defense" department (just what are they there to do, if it's not to keep the homeland secure?) It shouldn't be a fringe, "extremist" belief to be mortified when your country starts a war with no threat of attack, nor to expect proof of that threat to be provided promptly without any arm-twisting or waffling when the nation does go to war (we signed the UN charter which attests to these beliefs, after all -- hell, we pretty damn much wrote the charter). It shouldn't be taken as a sign of some ivory-tower elitist perfectionism to demand that a candidate asking for your vote recognize "war without cause is evil", regardless of how well or badly it's fought, regardless of how popular or unpopular it seems to be, regardless of how otherwise unpleasant a nation that does not threaten us is. It shouldn't be possible for a government (a pair of governments, including Britain) to even continue with day-to-day business while real evidence of real criminal activities commited by those governments' officials exists in any given day's issue of any given newspaper of record.

It shouldn't be, but of course, it is.

I want to end this on some kind of upbeat, "let's go get 'em" note ... but the problem defies any practical, hands-on solution. I've read dozens of essays and articles about the forces that go into creating the monster-culture ... but I've never seen any practical advice on how to stop the trend once it's gotten rolling. If you've reached the point where you can't count on your fellow man to be horrified by the horrible, where you can say "See here! These people are doing bad things in your name and I can prove it!" and the majority response is "So what?", what's there left to do?

I guess, at least for the moment, I can go to bed and cry, for a long long time.

[La_Serpiente]

1. It is all disgusting

and very unfair. I find it crazy that people are so willing to engage in acts of violence and war. I couldn't believe that people could actually go along with this new strategy but be so ignorant as to how this would affect the rest of the world. This new strategy WILL run over entire civilizations and take away their dignity and humanlike qualities.

Honestly, I don't think that this new strategy will really affect Americans (except for the poor). I mean, we have a huge defense budget and other things as well. However, it will undoubtly hurt those around the world that do not want it. It will cause a pain and suffereing and allow dictators to flourish and grow. I mean, Central Asia is already a human rights nightmare, but we are supporting the King of Abejikstan who abuses his own people. And why? for oil and that is it.

This nation just baffles me.

[tkmorris]

2. Outstanding

Really, that was a well put together statement of what has been going on. I too wonder what hope there is when these things can be done right in front of mainstream Americans who merely yawn in reply.

I can't improve upon what you wrote. I shant try. I can only offer that I usually try to convince myself that the prevailing attitude here in the United States is only the vestiges of the long 9/11 hangover, that there is hope that we will "wake up".

In my heart though, I doubt it. I doubt it quite a lot.

[Mechatanketra]

3. Trying to stay optimistic, but ...

... I don't think it's really 9/11, at the core. I think the World Trade Center attacks just create a convenient safety net for people to openly say what they've always kept to themselves. At this late a date, I'm finding it very hard to continue believing that the relative lack of public outrage over all the 'drip drip' issues can really be due to simple ignorance (by which I mean lack of information, not lack of brainpower). A far more parsimonious explanation is that Americans by and large just don't see these things as wrong.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Notice that they never ever actually declare war?

Congress hasn't declared war since when? Korea? WWII. The British are the same.