We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
This and other sources frame the conflict between McChrystal & Obama as one of civilian vs military control of foreign policy. I don't see it that way to any significant extent. The military and civilian elements are so intertwined in the US ruling class that such a distinction is irrelevant. What is much more likely is that the war adventure in Afghanistan is clearly going awry, its legitimacy is increasingly thin, NATO allies are jumping overboard and withdrawing their troops. Hence, all war parties in the ruling class are at each others throats.
Such a situation of extreme frustration can be dangerous. I worry that they might make a dramatic miscalculation such as attacking Iran in hopes of salvaging some kind of victory from the ashes of their defeat.
Is it much of a stretch to see that Osama Bin Laden's strategy to draw the US into a war in Eurasia is now reaching its goal--bankrupting the US as it did for the Soviet Union?