MORTARDUDE
04-07-2004, 06:35 AM
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=702
Book Review: The Chickenhawk War
Having perfected the skill of avoiding the reality of war during Vietnam, Chickenhawks are now blindly leading this country into another major, bloody fiasco.
By Stewart Nusbaumer
?We are dealing with some very nasty people, now we have to get nasty!? The former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, is livid. ?It?s Time to get tough! It?s time to get tough! It?s time to use force!?
What, the U.S. killing of 10 thousand Iraqis is not the use of force?
?We basically have to level the place,? was how the Fox blond commentator characterizes Eagleburger?s words to her next guest, a retired General--military analyst, of course--who views the world as one huge military problem and the solution as more force. ?We need more boots in there,? the General proclaims as his flabby cheeks quiver. More boots, more force.
Strange, I thought 130,000 soldiers and probably another 20,000 contract soldiers would be enough military ?boots,? especially for a country desperate for the liberation we are providing.
It is amazing what one can learn from Fox--For Outrageous Xenophobes, what Tom calls it. More on him later.
Later in the day, punching the numbers on my remote, I again come across Eagleburger, this time on CNN. These guys really move fast. Instead of spit flying, he is contemplative, but still rock certain. (Eagleburger is a former prot?g? of Henry Kissinger; he learned rock certain from the master.) ?None of us involved in this,? the former Secretary of State is saying, slowly like a wise grandfather, ?expected the reaction that has happened.?
And what has been this reaction? Well, 612 service members killed (471 since May 1st when our Commander-In-Chief pranced across that aircraft carrier ending the war) and a few thousand U.S. soldiers missing one or more limbs and other sizeable chunks of their bodies. Of course these numbers are not accurate, this is not an administration that embraces ?let the truth fall where it may.? This is a group that is pro-active with the truth. As for Iraqis, they don?t count in the U.S. reaction assessment.
?None of us involved in this,? Eagleburger said, ?expected the reaction that has happened.?
Unlike the line of former high-level government officials, unlike all those military analysts on our television screens, Tom my drinking buddy at the Night Caf? on Amsterdam Avenue predicted exactly this reaction from the Iraqis. He predicted it would be a bloody time, and with more time, even more bloody.
His insight into the future was not, at least not this time, the product of a long line of Rheingold beers and Jack Daniels shots. Tom simply knew in his bones that the ?liberated? Iraqis would soon be shooting our troops dead. And so did I. We knew because, as Tom says, ?we've been there, done that.? That?s how Vietnam veterans speak, after Rheingold Daniels.
There is another group of Vietnam veterans, however, who would never partake in the Rheingold Daniels at the Night Caf? nor listen to their bones. These Vietnam veterans are ?military analysts? who work for the major television networks and cable news stations. Most are retired generals, and like retired General Tom McInerney--Fox?s ?military analyst?--
?Listen,? Tom interrupts, ?you know as well as me that all those media people were saying the desert gooks were going to roll over. So get off this kick about Fox News, it?s all of them! Open your ears man; all the news networks said we?d have it wrapped up in an afternoon--Brian, another round here.?
In fact, whether Fox or CNN or ABC, their so-called ?military analysts,? who wouldn?t recognize truth even if packaged in a 500 pound bomb, have a serious conflict of interest and should be fired. Being veterans has little to do with their real expertise, which is whoring themselves for money.
These men are paid significant sums of money by media corporations because of their access to the Pentagon. Yet, if they report something the Pentagon strongly disagrees with, they could lose their access to the Pentagon and if that happens they will lost their media jobs. Identified as independent of the government, they are in fact mouthpieces for the Pentagon, and by extension, the White House. It?s unseemly, and unethical. It is also why ?military analyst? after ?military analyst? reassured Americans--yes Tom, on all the networks--that liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.
And now CNN, as well as Fox, soon ABC and the other networks, are reporting 12 Marines were killed today, that fighting is spreading throughout Iraqi and ? I turn the television off. In the silence, however, I hear: ?None of us involved in this expected the reaction that has happened.?
Ted Kennedy was correct, when he said: ?Iraq is George Bush?s Vietnam.? And Tom is correct, when he says, ?Damn chickenhawks!?
For chickenhawks, today?s bloody battle that killed 12 Marines and wounded at least 25 was simply a ?fire-fight,? as a Republican Congressman said on Fox, and those 12 body bags headed back to Dover Air Force Base are just a ?temporary set back.?
Thirty dead Americans in three days, hundreds of dead Iraqis--most, I?m sure noncombatants. But who can believe these numbers, who can believe a government by, for, and of Chickenhawks. I shutter to think how many have really been slaughter, both Americans and Iraqis.
Chickenhawks know how to fight bloody wars against tough guerrillas in distant lands. They perfected this during the Vietnam War. First, they buy hugely greedy yet dimwitted retired generals. Then they recycle the same old public officials who are soulless. And then the Chickenhawks keep a wide ocean between them and the fighting.
It is this distance that leads them to scratch their head, look into the camera, and say slowly: ?None of us involved in this expected the reaction that has happened.? If this isn?t Vietnam, then there was never a Vietnam. This is the Chickenhawks from Vietnam very own war.
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine. You can email him at stewart@interventionmag.com
Book Review: The Chickenhawk War
Having perfected the skill of avoiding the reality of war during Vietnam, Chickenhawks are now blindly leading this country into another major, bloody fiasco.
By Stewart Nusbaumer
?We are dealing with some very nasty people, now we have to get nasty!? The former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, is livid. ?It?s Time to get tough! It?s time to get tough! It?s time to use force!?
What, the U.S. killing of 10 thousand Iraqis is not the use of force?
?We basically have to level the place,? was how the Fox blond commentator characterizes Eagleburger?s words to her next guest, a retired General--military analyst, of course--who views the world as one huge military problem and the solution as more force. ?We need more boots in there,? the General proclaims as his flabby cheeks quiver. More boots, more force.
Strange, I thought 130,000 soldiers and probably another 20,000 contract soldiers would be enough military ?boots,? especially for a country desperate for the liberation we are providing.
It is amazing what one can learn from Fox--For Outrageous Xenophobes, what Tom calls it. More on him later.
Later in the day, punching the numbers on my remote, I again come across Eagleburger, this time on CNN. These guys really move fast. Instead of spit flying, he is contemplative, but still rock certain. (Eagleburger is a former prot?g? of Henry Kissinger; he learned rock certain from the master.) ?None of us involved in this,? the former Secretary of State is saying, slowly like a wise grandfather, ?expected the reaction that has happened.?
And what has been this reaction? Well, 612 service members killed (471 since May 1st when our Commander-In-Chief pranced across that aircraft carrier ending the war) and a few thousand U.S. soldiers missing one or more limbs and other sizeable chunks of their bodies. Of course these numbers are not accurate, this is not an administration that embraces ?let the truth fall where it may.? This is a group that is pro-active with the truth. As for Iraqis, they don?t count in the U.S. reaction assessment.
?None of us involved in this,? Eagleburger said, ?expected the reaction that has happened.?
Unlike the line of former high-level government officials, unlike all those military analysts on our television screens, Tom my drinking buddy at the Night Caf? on Amsterdam Avenue predicted exactly this reaction from the Iraqis. He predicted it would be a bloody time, and with more time, even more bloody.
His insight into the future was not, at least not this time, the product of a long line of Rheingold beers and Jack Daniels shots. Tom simply knew in his bones that the ?liberated? Iraqis would soon be shooting our troops dead. And so did I. We knew because, as Tom says, ?we've been there, done that.? That?s how Vietnam veterans speak, after Rheingold Daniels.
There is another group of Vietnam veterans, however, who would never partake in the Rheingold Daniels at the Night Caf? nor listen to their bones. These Vietnam veterans are ?military analysts? who work for the major television networks and cable news stations. Most are retired generals, and like retired General Tom McInerney--Fox?s ?military analyst?--
?Listen,? Tom interrupts, ?you know as well as me that all those media people were saying the desert gooks were going to roll over. So get off this kick about Fox News, it?s all of them! Open your ears man; all the news networks said we?d have it wrapped up in an afternoon--Brian, another round here.?
In fact, whether Fox or CNN or ABC, their so-called ?military analysts,? who wouldn?t recognize truth even if packaged in a 500 pound bomb, have a serious conflict of interest and should be fired. Being veterans has little to do with their real expertise, which is whoring themselves for money.
These men are paid significant sums of money by media corporations because of their access to the Pentagon. Yet, if they report something the Pentagon strongly disagrees with, they could lose their access to the Pentagon and if that happens they will lost their media jobs. Identified as independent of the government, they are in fact mouthpieces for the Pentagon, and by extension, the White House. It?s unseemly, and unethical. It is also why ?military analyst? after ?military analyst? reassured Americans--yes Tom, on all the networks--that liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.
And now CNN, as well as Fox, soon ABC and the other networks, are reporting 12 Marines were killed today, that fighting is spreading throughout Iraqi and ? I turn the television off. In the silence, however, I hear: ?None of us involved in this expected the reaction that has happened.?
Ted Kennedy was correct, when he said: ?Iraq is George Bush?s Vietnam.? And Tom is correct, when he says, ?Damn chickenhawks!?
For chickenhawks, today?s bloody battle that killed 12 Marines and wounded at least 25 was simply a ?fire-fight,? as a Republican Congressman said on Fox, and those 12 body bags headed back to Dover Air Force Base are just a ?temporary set back.?
Thirty dead Americans in three days, hundreds of dead Iraqis--most, I?m sure noncombatants. But who can believe these numbers, who can believe a government by, for, and of Chickenhawks. I shutter to think how many have really been slaughter, both Americans and Iraqis.
Chickenhawks know how to fight bloody wars against tough guerrillas in distant lands. They perfected this during the Vietnam War. First, they buy hugely greedy yet dimwitted retired generals. Then they recycle the same old public officials who are soulless. And then the Chickenhawks keep a wide ocean between them and the fighting.
It is this distance that leads them to scratch their head, look into the camera, and say slowly: ?None of us involved in this expected the reaction that has happened.? If this isn?t Vietnam, then there was never a Vietnam. This is the Chickenhawks from Vietnam very own war.
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine. You can email him at stewart@interventionmag.com