In an editorial in its Tuesday edition, the Murdoch paper takes an opportunity to knock the Obama administration's policy in Afghanistan. * The source of its wrath is US Vice President Joe Biden's comments about Afghanistan on Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press". What irks the Wall Street Journal is that Biden happened to say on the show that the US will be "Totally out of there, come hell or high water by 2014." The Wall Street Journal, whose editors believe that we should kill anyone that stands in the way of US capitalism's right to steal everything that isn't nailed down, is concerned that such a statement will, "Reinforce the view, widely held in Kabul and Pakistan, that Americans are shortimers." In other words, that we won't fight.
And here's the issue for me; the little detail that compels me to write this blog. "Mr. Biden's glib rhetoric," say the mouthpieces of the super rich, tends to imply that there is a "Lack of American staying power."
Now I want to cuss here but have taken a position that it is best not to cuss in this medium. But I will say WTF!
What do the likes of the editorial board of the WSJ or the children of the rich know about "American staying power?" We should be insulted by this. We should speak out about this. These bastards know nothing about war and misery and death of a child in combat. The children of the editors of the WSJ or the hedge fund managers and speculators that caused the present economic crisis will not be faced with the decisions that young working class men and women face in combat. They will not feel the pain that the parents of working class and poor youth feel when their children are taken from them or return here maimed and crippled. How many relatives did Kissinger lose in Vietnam? Or Bush, or Clinton or any of them? Sure there's the odd one. But these people have other, more lucrative options.
When the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal talks about "American staying power" they are talking about the ability of the children of working class Americans to stay alive in the face of the most horrific conditions; a situation where they will kill or be killed themselves for a cause they really do not understand and a situation they are forced in to mainly through economic necessity; we have an economic draft in this country. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is talking about something their kids will never face.
Caspar Weinberger, the Bechtel employee who, like so many of them went on to plunder the state through public service, once wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of the draft.**. The draft question was raised in particular by Charles Rangel and John Conyers. These politicians obviously weren't concerned enough to oppose the wars of US capitalism but, as African Americans, came under pressure from the black working class who, especially in the first Iraq war, were a considerable percentage of combatants way above the percentage of their group in the population as a whole; much like the prisons.
The war criminal Weinberger accused Conyers and Rangel of "Attempting to play both the race and class warfare cards." This is a no no in the US as there are no classes and racism is against the law, (LOL) . Weinberger was upset because Rangel and Conyers had hinted that the burden of defending the country was "Resting too heavily on the shoulders of the blacks and minorities." Weinberg countered saying that, "The burden of defending the country is resting on the shoulders, white, black, brown, etc., of those who want that "burden," and whose volunteering gives it to them."
Weinberger went on to say that if there is a disproportionate number of blacks and minorities in the armed services it is because, get this, "There is a higher degree of patriotism among black and Hispanic youths of draft age than among whites of draft age." I used to love reading that to the right wing white guys at work. "Sorry my white brothers, you're just not patriotic enough." So in Weinberger's world view, the youth in the military wanted the burden that it entailed and found inner peace through volunteering to go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or wherever else US capitalism might be spreading peace and joy around the world.
Weinberger went on to stress that, "Our military is what it is because it is made up of people who want to be there." Weinberger's views reveal the real difference between people, between how workers think and how the bourgeois, the capitalists or the super rich think, whatever you want to call them. In his WSJ piece he makes the argument that people of color are more "patriotic" than whites, that's why they join the military. He is not talking about the officers we should be clear. He is talking about the guys in the trenches.
But, as I said, we have an economic draft. The high unemployment rate will increase the number of "volunteers" for their predatory wars, and unemployment and lack of opportunity is greater among blacks than whites. It both sickens and angers me to read the Wall Street Journal editorial board talk about "American staying power"; these bastards of privilege who fight no one but send our youth to do it for them. How dare they insult our youth. I am opposed to their dirty wars. I do not support our troops being there to kill and more often to kill others in our name. That's why Bradley Manning is a hero to me. The people that send our young people to fight their battles are the real criminals, the majority that go are the victims.
Weinberger ended his lying prose with a reflection of his conversations with another bourgeois waster, Ronald Reagan. "Once, early in 1982", Weinberger writes, "President Reagan and I reviewed a force of young American soldiers newly enrolled. Afterwards he said to me, "You know, Cap, I would infinitely rather look each of these young people in the eye and know that each wants to be here."
"Let's keep it that way." Weinberger concludes. He wanted to keep it that way because if there was a draft these horrific adventures would be over. The reason there has not been an explosion of dissent in US society for these unpopular wars is because the burden of these wars fall on a small percentage of US families; wars are acceptable if the other side dies.
*Totally Out Of There: Wall Street Journal Editorial 12-21-10
** Dodgy Drafters: Wall Street Journal January 10, 2003
No comments:
Post a Comment