The
reason why it is said that you should never leave the decision to go to war to
the generals, is that military people treat human life the way that a mechanic
treats spare parts.
Both
love to have all the parts they can get their hands on, and want them to
perform well. However, like mechanics, the military people are accustomed to
seeing their soldiers perform badly at times. They are also used to seeing them
perish once in a while like a disposable part. And when this happens, they call
for new recruits to replace the losses they just incurred.
As
a sign of our time, a new phenomenon began to gain prominence with regard to
the value that's associated with human life in America. Nearly ten thousand
veterans commit suicide every year. More than a hundred thousand young men and
women die from a drug overdose. Hundreds of mass shootings take place in the
land, year after year. And no one seems interested in doing much about any of
that. Instead, all these dead bodies are considered spare parts that were
disposed of.
But
what is it that has turned life in America into a combat where everyone is a
soldier that tries to stay alive lest he or she gets disposed of, with no one
mourning but the immediate family and perhaps a friend or two? It may be
impossible to find the answer to that question looking for it in one place. But
studying three recent articles may yield some useful hints.
One
article came under the title: “The devastating facts about veterans' suicides,”
and the subtitle: “America's all-volunteer force faces undue hardship and must
be supported.” It was written by retired US Army colonel Ken Allard, and
published on March 12, 2020 in The Washington Times. A second article came under
the title: “Despite the coronavirus uproar, Trump keeps the pressure on Iran,”
written by Andrea Widburg and published on March13, 2020 in The American
Thinker. A third article came under the title: “With Iran, saying 'deterrence'
and actually doing it are two different things,” written by Daniel DePetris and
published on March 13, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.
The
following––expressed in condensed form––is what you'll encounter in the Ken
Allard article:
“The
lessons of Vietnam were ignored or forgotten. There, a generation of grunts
were conscripted and exposed to a single year of combat. If they survived, many
incurred lifetimes of PTSD. Since that time, there was a general understanding
that if a serious crisis broke out, mobilization would be on the table. No one
expected that but they didn't expect 9/11 either. However, even then,
mobilization was not considered as a serious option. Instead, Americans were
called to the shopping malls, a nonsensical, hollow victory over terrorism by
simply returning to normal”.
If
anything, this article says that life in America is about winning or losing. If
you're in charge, you protect your people, not because their lives matter to
you, but to look like you're winning. If someone manages to kill one of yours,
you act like you don't feel you lost the battle, yet prepare to hit back so as
to look like you've won.
The
following––expressed in condensed form––is what you'll encounter in the Andrea
Widburg article:
“With
coronavirus on top of everyone's agenda, Iran's mullahs might have thought
that, with the US distracted, they could gain an advantage in Iraq. Trump
ordered a targeted strike against Qassem Soleimani. He later ordered another
strike, which US forces successfully carried out. The US Military launched
multiple strikes using warplanes targeting multiple bases used by
Iranian-backed Shia militias. It turns out that this was an exceptionally
successful strike. Generally speaking, things have not been going well for Iran
lately: lots of people are succumbing to the coronavirus; there is terrible
pollution and heavy cigarette smoking”.
The
heartfelt hatred that's expressed in this article toward Iran, matches that
expressed by the Americans towards Japan in the aftermath of its attack on
Pearl Harbor. Iran being Israel's foe, Andrea Widberg is saying that while
America's ruling class considers the American people to be disposable parts,
that same ruling class has––for the first time after three quarters of a
century––developed a tender heart that beats, not for America, but for Israel
and the Jews.
The
following––expressed in condensed form––is what you'll encounter in the Daniel
DePetris article:
“US
strikes on Iraqi targets were like a movie we saw before. A militia group
lobbed rockets at a base killing one American. Trump ordered bombing targets in
Iraq and Syria, killing more than 25. Trump struck Qassem Soleimani,
culminating in Iranian missile attack on a US air base. More than 100 service
members suffered from traumatic brain injuries. Later, two Americans soldiers
and one Briton were killed in a rocket attack. US jets retaliated. We'll hear
about how these strikes will allow the US to maintain deterrence against Iran.
Mark Esper used this same language after the US neutralized Soleimani's vehicle.
But does he understand what deterrence means? The aim of deterrence is to
persuade an adversary that taking action would result in pain so
life-threatening that the costs would outweigh the benefits. In Iraq, however,
deterrence is not being maintained or established. Despite understanding that
the death of an American would generate retaliation, the militias went ahead
with the attack anyway. This is not how deterrence is supposed to work”.
Here,
the indication is that America considers war-making to be a no-holds-barred
sport for amateurs. But rules are just beginning to be set for the game … one
rule being “proportional retaliation.” Nevertheless, war remains a game where
the players are disposable parts easily disposed of. Their purpose before disposal,
is to protect and preserve the only lives that count to America's ruling class:
Jewish lives.