Humint Events Online: Was 9/11 All About Perpetual War?

Friday, April 02, 2010

Was 9/11 All About Perpetual War?

Is this simple insanity or deeper evil?
Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one."

Consider the audacity of such an idea. An 80-year undeclared war would entangle 20 future presidential terms stretching far into the future of voters not yet born. The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches 5,000, with the number of wounded a multiple many times greater. Including the American dead from 9/11, that's 8,000 dead so far in the first decade of the Long War. And if the American armed forces are stretched thin today, try to conceive of seven more decades of combat.

The costs are unimaginable too. According to economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Iraq alone will be a $3-trillion war. Those costs, and the other deficit spending of recent years, yield "virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors," according to a New York Times budget analysis in February. Continued deficit financing for the Long War will rob today's younger generation of resources for their future.

The term "Long War" was first applied to America's post-9/11 conflicts in 2004 by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, and by the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Gen. Richard B. Myers, in 2005.
There are so many problems with the idea of Long War, it's hard to take this seriously. But clearly some evil fucks are promoting this idea anyway-- likely as disinfo, hiding a deeper uglier truth. One obvious problem of a Long War is that it is simply unsustainable-- such a prolonged, costly conflict is more likely to destroy the US than to result in any victory. Another major problem is that clearly there is a major conceptual flaw in a conflict that is projected to last so long-- if an enemy requires 50-80 years to defeat, perhaps it is the conflict that is the problem, not the enemy. Who is the enemy anyway? Whatever "extremist" or "terrorist" we decide is the enemy in whatever country we decide is a problem? Maybe the biggest problem is the sheer evil of contemplating essentially perpetual war-- a war which would lead to perpetual death, perpetual suffering, perpetual destruction of the planet and perpetual destruction of US society, sapping everything decent about this country. It is frightening to imagine what 80 years of war would reduce this country to-- a completely subservient, mindless, soulless, brainwashed population, a society of war slaves-- something far far worse than the current depressing state of affairs.

Who can honestly imagine that the US would survive such a war in any meaningful sense, and what sort of madmen would propose such nonsense? Isn't it more likely that this is all a ruse, meant to cover up a far deeper apocalyptic event? Even martial law, as horrible as it is-- what is the point? Martial law ultimately is not sustainable. So where's it all lead? To what end is all this suffering? Isn't there ultimately something deeper to all of this? The info here, gives some answers, I think--


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been reflecting on psychic, and material vampire-ism to explain what you are describing.

The oil companies suck up all the oil which really belongs to the people and use the money to buy off politicians.

The war machine has been privatized and these corps suck the treasury dry.

The banks steal trillions by sucking the taxpayer dry.

And the private war machine, the banks, and the oil companies go about the world sucking dry anything they can get their taxpayer supported teeth into.

More blood, more blood, we will live forever they say if we just have more blood.

Question is, where do you stick the stake?

11:28 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

good analogy!

Though I think it's not so much where to put the stake as how to get enough people to help drive the massive stake needed...

12:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger