Sunday, May 13, 2012

But this cuts across the presumed narrative

Conservatives have worked hard to have the media accept the military as being reflexively pro-Republican and Rovian talking points:
...when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk. In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars." Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.
Which is why Obama leads Romney in military donations. But something needs to be bombed.


StonyPillow said...

RMoney will tackle those Russkie femmes and cut their hair with nukes.

Anonymous said...

Headline, yesterday's Washington Post:

Gen. Allen hastily transforming Afghan mission

After almost 11-years, proof you're not winning.

Any reader of Clausewitz and his principles of war could tell you that you could never have won because there was nothing to win.

Ebon Krieg said...

Winning isn't the objective; playing is. Vietnam was the modern test case for the "never ending wars" of profit.

Follow the money. The financial sector is the big winner, followed by those sectors that produce the consumables needed to wage war and to provide the infrastructure and support to sustain it.

War is very, very profitable. Winning would be a damper on that.

pansypoo said...

war is a waste.