Tweet
I read this "Our military power can only be effective if it is explicitly expeditionary, not imperial. We must say that, and prove it, at every opportunity." and thought how very accurate such a statement is. And how such clarity never makes it into the CMM. And how Obama’s foreign policy evades the real issues in various countries(such as not recognizing that the coup in Honduras is much more about a Constitution change than Zelaya vs. entrenched interests.)
So if Afghanistan is a concern to you ,let me suggest these links:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/corey-what-afghanistan-should-mean-to.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/a_woman_among_warlords_afghan_democracy
And then let Obama and Clinton and your Congress critters know your thoughts.
5 Comments
What do you mean by “effective”? Do you mean in a narrow totally immoral, imperial sense?
http://www.juancole.com
http://www.democracynow.org
Going to check ‘em out now, ubetchaiam. Thanks.
Thought the sentence indicate re “effective” ;”if it is explicitly expeditionary, not imperial.”
@ubetchaiam,
Who said that little gem? Source. Come on, Man. You gotta know better.
Next, can you elaborate upon just exactly what this marvellous piece of nonsense might mean?
Expeditionary but nor imperial(istic). What’s that, shock and awe with moving apologies for collateral atrocities? Just exactly how the fuck are US Army, Marines and Navy Seals and NATO forces (the Royal Marines and the Canadian Black Watch, etc.), not to even mention Air Force aircraft and drones, going to prove the difference? Only shoot enemy combatants to death with exquisite concern for their suffering?
Man, I gotta know who said this silly shit!
If Our Military was used to do it’s sworn job of protecting us, we wouldn’t be worrying about that.
If all those million troops stationed all over the world were here in the US, protecting us. Would the terrorists been able to commit 9-11, maybe not. Then there would be 3000 not dead, the towers still standing, and no reason to be in those wars.