BIPARTISAN EMASCULATIONS

Regardless of what US voters think they want, or what we've all been conditioned to accept, there is no constitutional authority for the kind of militaristic colonial adventurism that has been going on in this country since World War II and the "reign" of John Foster Dulles and his ilk over foreign policy. If taxpayers are forced to maintain a military force far greater than necessary to protect us, that military force must and will find stupid things to do at taxpayer expense. It's like firemen who go out and start fires to put out because they get bored just sitting around the firehouse--amazingly, much arson is committed by trained fire personnel!

Regardless of all the arguments about what a dangerous world we live in, etc., US colonial adventurism and our penchant for making deals with the wrong local devils (until they are shoved up our asses) has gotten the US into a lot of unnecessary conflict. We justify maintaining a huge standing army for the very reason that our "bipartisan" policies since World War II have been pretty much the same: meddling in the affairs of other cultures and nations and trying to jam their square pegs into our round holes. Our leaders and many voters routinely assume that because no other nation is willing to expend lives and treasure doing that sort of thing that we have no choice but to step into the breach, in mutually bipartisan lunacy. Any reluctance is belittled as cowardice and/or lack of "patriotism."

Notwithstanding the Taliban's perverted social views, they should not be confused nor conflated with Al-Qaida, as so many operatives in both parties and in the military have done. Had the US not been mucking around in Saudi Arabia, it is arguable that the disaster of 9/11/01 would not have occurred. Afghanistan is not a "country": it is a mostly anarchic geographic space between countries! It has no national identity, regardless of which stooge we put in power. The US and its military have no business whatsoever being in central Asia, arrogantly engaging in "nation-building." And, in a fit of hyperbolic patriotism on the part of most everyone, including most of the so-called "press," the US has embarked on an 11-year military exercise in central Asia that is utterly unauthorized by the Constitution, and almost nobody gives a damn because it makes us feel good to go out and kick some "towel-head" ass! Show 'em who's boss!

Tell that to the poor guy whose penis got shot off in Fallujah, fightin' for his country! How many medals will compensate for that?

The rest of us are almost totally disengaged from what has been going on over there, and that is no way to run a "war"! The "good" thing about a congressional declaration of war is that it won't pass unless the need is critical and support is broad, and IF it passes, the nation has no choice but to become engaged. Executive-Branch war-making is blatantly unconstitutional. But that is all we have had since World War II, and every such conflict has been utterly failed, futile nonsense. The US should immediately stop what its personnel are doing in central Asia and get the hell completely out of there--right now! Support the troops! Declare "victory" and bring 'em all home!

And as for 9/11/01, what happened in the US back then was a set of horrific crimes, not "acts of war." The entire mess should have been handled as civilian criminal prosecutions from the very beginning, with proper due process for all suspects. Instead, it was used as a deadly pretext for playing "soldier" with taxpayer dollars and conveniently suspending constitutional guarantees of due process, creating very bad legal precedents in the process. That was all done in "bipartisan" fashion and continues as such under Barack Obama, who campaigned quite to the contrary in 2008. To paraphrase a friend's father (discussing partnerships), "bipartisanship" is the sorriest ship that ever sailed the seas!

And as conservative humor-writer and commentator P. J. O'Rourke says, "bipartisanship" one of the most dangerous words in the English language!