Saturday, February 28, 2009

David Sanger - Who Actually Runs The Show in the U.S.?

I do like how David Sanger's new book sounds; "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power"

In a few words: Obama has inherited a disaster in the making.

The world's currently in a mess because too many impressionable minds gave Bush more credit than he was due, and so allowed the Bush & Cheney regime to operate far too long with impunity.

Under their rule, just as with other dictators in many parts of the developing world, the military has become a multiple-interest business. The American Military Industrial Complex has become more than bloated, it has become a contagious disease infecting the minds of otherwise intelligent people, including members of Congress who are happy to report they have landed needless, but outrageously expensive, military contracts for their constituents back home.

Along the path of this particular job growth however, the goal to increased militarization only fosters new, and unpredictable paranoia to the American culture as a whole, including a new McCarthyism in which voicing an alternate opinion has been perverted by the Republican-right's media influence as being unpatriotic.

The reverse is actually true, since it is freedom of speech which is being attacked, and is unpatriotic to the original American Constitution.

4 comments:

Ruth said...

I just lost a long comment, bleh. My fault not your blog's. I'll try to remember what I wrote.

I feel that Obama is the right person for the task, even though I don't agree with his stated policy in Afghanistan. Hope that is changing. I like that last week he made a BIG point about the military budget in the past having -0- on the books even though we know it's 1/3 of the entire budget (or something like that). The ship will take a while to change course, but he is trying hard to turn it. I don't know how much he can change in his tenure. I'm trying to be patient.

The book title is interesting. It reminds me of the HBO John Adams series we're watching. Even though it's told at a fast pace, to see how the choices that were made in our baby nation would affect the world stage, and how that rested on the shoulders of men, makes today's mess even more remarkable.

John Ackerson said...

Sorry about your lost comment Ruth. Small consolation, but I know how it feels.

Its times like those when cartoon imagery enters your head with you smashing your computer with a sledgehammer!

I agree with you about Afghanistan, and am sad to understand that David Sanger actually believes in that mission.

As you may already know, our Canadian troops have been there since 2001. We've lost our soldiers there too, and spent a good portion of our much smaller economy's GDP value supporting the effort there.

There are many good reasons why I would not refer to Afghanistan as a 'winnable situation', especially with regards to how the political strategy to use old-style military tactics to confront the enemy head-on, and on their own turf is simply ill conceived.

The example of World War II was different in that most of the combined economies of the Western nations were required to achieve a military victory in such a fashion.

Yes I agree Ruth, we should not be prepared to do all that again. And of course, most of our attentions directed there allows all the other hot spots in the world to fester in which out of each of those specific situations more disenfranchised young boys and girls whop are suffering today, can easily become the terrorists of tomorrow.

Poor, unthoughtful policies overall...

The John Adams series sounds interesting.

Ruth said...

It's not that I think we can, or should, negotiate diplomatically with the Taliban. But to keep moving forward with military tactics, as you say, seems ludicrous. It is an overwhelmingly complex situation in that region, so we shouldn't approach it with less than complex strategies.

I remember reading something a journalist wrote after living in the Mideast. Hope I haven't told you before. When an American journalist spends a week in the Middle East, he comes home and writes a book. When an American journalist spends a month in the Middle East, he comes home and writes an article. When an American journalist spends a year in the Middle East, he realizes he has nothing to say.

John Ackerson said...

Not that I'm dismissing faults on both sides of the Mid-East equation Ruth, since certain segments of the Muslim world must also share in the blame for what has been transpiring now for decades, even centuries there, but living outside the borders of the U.S. can give one a slightly different world perspective.

Unfortunately, 20th century history shows us that U.S. involvement in Mid-East affairs has not been overwhelmingly benevolent to the region. This may be unpatriotic words to some, but such a statement is actually on the polite end of the truth scale.

For instance; any competent, and unbiased American journalist who wishes to reveal the true nature of mid-east politics today is simply shut out of all western controlled, mainstream news services, and this ongoing policy is tragically led by American news services because of the U.S./ Israeli connection.

Maybe these journalists have nothing to say, because the longer they have stayed in the mid-east, the more they have learned it would be the utmost height of folly and futility in going up against pro-Israel interests, especially in light of the fact successive U.S. administrations have publicly announced the importance of the future of Israel.

One can only imagine how such a journalist's name will be mud back home - state side, or worse - having their name added to an ever growing list of 'enemy sympathizers', 'suspicious individuals to watch', or simply a media 'blacklist',etc.

And lastly, if the journalist ever decides to return to the mid-east,let's not forget the amount of U.S./ Israeli covert ops in such an arena.

If in his book, the journalist has offended too many people revealing 'the truth' than his own physical survival will obviously be in grave jeopardy, and can inevitably look forward to meeting with an 'accident'.

I know this all sounds a bit macabre, but we would be naive to think these thoughts have not entered the minds of many journalists who have already previously decided not to write that 'tell-all' book.

I can only surmise however, the books that are published on Mid-east politics, and have attained anywhere close to best-seller status, must in some way already been edited in several places in a co-operative effort between the authors and publishers to bury any details which are too specific for the reasons above, as well as others.

Then again Ruth, maybe I'm being paranoid, and the journalist does simply realize the futility of writing a book in the hopes of changing the overly complicated nature of Mid-East politics...