|
It may as well be a war on cubism or postmodernity. Guns and bombs can't kill an idea no matter how big they are. Even if every adherent dies either the writings will survive, or someone will reinvent the idea.
This is intentional. There is a need for control over ideological territory as there is now a threat of disinformation and ideological promotion campaigns in retaliation for the ones they've waged elsewhere with all their espionage. Yet ultimately all it amounts to is the state engaging in such a campaign against its own people in conjunction with Orwellian surveillance and psychologist-designed physical tortures.
True to Orwellian form, this "war on terror" is waged specifically in order to create terror. True terrorist incidents are seldom and minor, and don't really get hyped enough to scare anyone because there's no useful purpose for them: they happen suddenly and are over, if you're hurt, you cry, but it's too rare to be more afraid of than being struck by lightning. The ones of consequence are false flag propaganda events. Then "right wing" pundits hype retaliation to false flag operations, but they aren't even right wing anymore. They're paid cheerleaders of the Two Minutes' Hate, driving those deluded by their nonsense into frenzies against the precise ideologies which the state covertly holds. The stated enemy is some long-gone collaborator who can never be allowed to be found, but who described the foundation of this arrangement better than anyone within the sphere of influence of the perpetual mass hysteria could.
This is all a diversion. The actual substance of it all is a competition for wealth, particularly in the form of natural resources and money. If an oil producer moves to the Euro then it's ruined. If a narcotics producer bans growing opium poppies, it's ruined. Rational states, just like individuals, attempt to act in their own interest, and must routinely be coerced into compliance. There is no need for direct conquest, merely Pavlovian conditioning: if you move to Euros or stop shipping heroin then we'll bomb you and your beloved people to smithereens. Intimidating tactics are necessary, but not to punish the offenders. Rather, they are meant to intimidate those who would compete for control over the little heroin and oil factories otherwise called client states. The nuclear bomb was to intimidate Russia; Japan had offered to surrender long before.
But this is all a failure. The occupation can't even hold its ground against those who would sacrifice themselves for their national identity without excessive casualties. There are no shocking new weapons, but merely trivially reciprocated medieval torture tactics and "dirty bullets" that everyone else with nuclear reactors can make from their waste products anyway. The multimillion dollar tanks and attack helicopters and smart bombs are pure junk in the face of a shambling horde of paupers with rusty old guns and homemade bombs and enough will to resist. The massive arsenal can never be big enough to carry its own weight, and grows progressively staler in the face of numerous less organized opponents and a few better-educated adversaries advancing technology while they stagnate. The mass imprisonment within its own borders is an utter failure to curb violent discontent within its own populace, and even if they could lock up 20 million as some say they intend to they would still have war zone ghettos where cops are shot on sight with fully-automatic weapons from every window in every house on the street. The mass surveillance will fare no better in discovering dissent of any consequence earlier; those who mean to do harm are stealthy in anticipation of surveillance.
It's all a failure because their tactics are grossly naive and poorly tailored to the individual issues they're trying to address, whether their purpose be good or evil. The overtly adversarial and coercive behavior and Manichean judgmentality incurs the further cost of overextension, regardless of the spin the local media puts on it.
And if they're going to be Machiavellian, they should at least do it competently. If they're going to deceive they should not leave such obvious indications of untruth. If they're going to claim their cause as righteous they should not visibly commit reprehensible acts in pursuit of said cause. If they're going to exploit, they should at least give the appearance of mutual benefit. If they're going to intimidate and coerce, they should not leave themselves open to such trivial retaliation. Their military tactics are crude and ineffective micromanagement. Their diplomacy consists of insulting blunders. Their economics consists of paper trails of corruption and easily refutable fabricated statistics. Their stewardship consists of overt negligence. Their incompetence is legendary in its own time.
Superior still would be mutual benefit, equal partnership, and caretaking of the populace ultimately responsible for carrying out their commands. But this is beyond their capacity for both statesmanship and personal conduct.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
