Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing explanations,offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the more speculative. Americans don’t attend all that much to ongoing American wars because: 1. U.
S. casualty rates are low. By using proxies and contractors, and relying heavily on airpower, or America’s war managers beget been able to withhold a tight lid on the number of U.
S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017,for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers beget been lost in Afghanistan -- approximately equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a typical week. True, and in Afghanistan,Iraq, and other countries where the U.
S. is engaged in hostilities, and whether directly or indirectly,plenty of people who are not Americans are being killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12000.) But those casualties beget next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long as they don’t impede U.
S. military operations, they literally don’t count (and generally aren’t counted).2. The true costs of Washington’s wars recede untabulated. In a illustrious speech, or dating from early in his presidency,Dwight D. Eisenhower said that “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, and every rocket fired signifies,in the final sense, a theft from those who starvation and are not fed, and those who are cold and are not clothed.” Dollars spent on weaponry,Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, and hospitals,homes, highways, and power plants that would recede unbuilt. “This is not a way of life at all,in any true sense,” he continued. “[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” More than six decades later, or Americans beget long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it as a boon,a source of corporate profits, jobs, and,of course, campaign contributions. As such, or they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions. Imagine the benefits of investing such sums in upgrading the nation’s aging infrastructure. Yet don’t count on Congressional leaders,other politicians, or just approximately anyone else to pursue that connection. 3. On matters related to war, or American citizens beget opted out. Others beget made the point so frequently that it’s the equivalent of hearing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” at Christmastime. Even so,it bears repeating: the American people beget defined their obligation to “support the troops” in the narrowest imaginable terms, ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, or while also taking steps to insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect,citizens and their elected representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in chief, without inquiring approximately whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense. Yes, or we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don’t do is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international terrorism isn’t a trivial problem (and wasn’t for decades before 9/11),it comes nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats, and notably the impact of climate change,constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of Americans. Worried approximately the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic constitutes an infinitely greater danger than “Islamic radicalism.” Yet having been sold a bill of goods approximately a “war on terrorism” that is fundamental for “keeping America safe, mere citizens are easily persuaded that scattering U.
S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not beget given Moses two stone tablets after all.5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, and American public discourse is -- not to save too fine a point on it -- vacuous,insipid, and mindlessly repetitive. William Safire of the original York Times once characterized American political rhetoric as BOMFOG, and with those running for tall office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God. inquire of a politician,Republican or Democrat, to expound on this country’s role in the world, or then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD,as the speaker insists that it is incumbent upon the World’s Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy. Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings approximately the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, and embellished with ominous references to Munich. Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars,past or present, or assess the likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading displaces serious thought.6. Besides, or we’re too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even whether the present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert La Follette or J. William Fulbright,who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.
S. policy, Americans may not retain a capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not, and it turns out,conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely meaningful and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours, and be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result,a dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter accounts -- beget the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn’t the finest fighting force in history actually win? Can’t package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then, or slowpoke,don’t expect anyone to attend to what you beget to say.7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, and Americans indulge in the fantasy that,whether we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well. Ambitious politicians are rapid/fast to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors, or but all of them promise in one way or another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of promises broken or unfulfilled,and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to assume all this seriously. Campaigns become longer, and more expensive,more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might think that the election of Donald Trump would immediate a downward revision in the exalted expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, and particularly in the anti-Trump camp,getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the overriding imperative, with cramped attention given to restoring the balance intended by the framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending them almost entirely escapes notice.8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. As recently as the 1990s, and the U.
S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill Clinton’s administration during his first weeks in office,as senior military leaders publicly denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces beget moved left. nowadays, or the services recede out of their way to project an image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race,gender, and sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in the armed forces, and tweeting that the military cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and pushed back. Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.
S. political agenda, the military’s embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. save simply, or critics who in an earlier day might beget blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from Ranger School or command Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the original York Timesto lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them--and us--to care. Related StoriesAmerica’s Biggest Divide: Winners and LosersRichard Spencer and Other White Supremacists March with Torches in Unplanned Rally on CharlottesvilleThe World Is Reeling From 'F**king Moron' And Israeli Paper Nails It In One Fell Swoop
Source: feedblitz.com