If the history of U.S. military intervention since 1945 looks like “restraint” to them, I would hate to see what they think overly aggressive and meddlesome behavior looks like.
With trillion$ in military spending at stake it surely must pay well to be a propagandist for the Empire. Having no shame or moral compass is the primary job requirement.
McMaster made a name for himself with his excellent study of Vietnam-era incompetence and hypocrisy in the Pentagon, "Dereliction of Duty". His whole subsequent career could be summed up in the same three words. He has lied endlessly about nonexistent "threats", lies told only to justify endless budget increases for our painfully incompetent armed forces, which are very little more than a massive jobs program whose main "product" is the corpses of the innocent victims of mindless American interventionism.
Like any story, the most important part of McMaster's narrative is what he leaves out. The fact that he did not devote significant attention to Iraq, Afghanistan, or the countless interventions that didn't penetrate public consciousness/receive extensive media coverage (Syria: how many Americans know that ground troops were sent in without Congressional or even Presidential authorization? Libya: does anyone even remember that we tipped the scales against Gaddafi and kicked the hornet's nest?) shows that he is nothing but a selective narrator engaging in motivated reasoning.
I cannot believe that clowns like this are in positions of influence over matters of war and peace.
There have been several "webinars" presented by the Quincy Institute on the subject of defense spending. A recent one, well worth listening to, was June 16:
"[T]he United States has, since the end of World War II, largely pursued a policy of restraint despite its considerable military power."
I think maybe what they mean is that the U.S. hasn't dropped any additional nuclear bombs.
I wish the authors claiming restraint could feel the application of such "restraint" themselves.
General Buck Turgidson, except the first time was farce and the second time was tragedy.
With trillion$ in military spending at stake it surely must pay well to be a propagandist for the Empire. Having no shame or moral compass is the primary job requirement.
McMaster made a name for himself with his excellent study of Vietnam-era incompetence and hypocrisy in the Pentagon, "Dereliction of Duty". His whole subsequent career could be summed up in the same three words. He has lied endlessly about nonexistent "threats", lies told only to justify endless budget increases for our painfully incompetent armed forces, which are very little more than a massive jobs program whose main "product" is the corpses of the innocent victims of mindless American interventionism.
Like any story, the most important part of McMaster's narrative is what he leaves out. The fact that he did not devote significant attention to Iraq, Afghanistan, or the countless interventions that didn't penetrate public consciousness/receive extensive media coverage (Syria: how many Americans know that ground troops were sent in without Congressional or even Presidential authorization? Libya: does anyone even remember that we tipped the scales against Gaddafi and kicked the hornet's nest?) shows that he is nothing but a selective narrator engaging in motivated reasoning.
I cannot believe that clowns like this are in positions of influence over matters of war and peace.
There have been several "webinars" presented by the Quincy Institute on the subject of defense spending. A recent one, well worth listening to, was June 16:
https://quincyinst.org/event/how-much-is-enough-reining-in-runaway-pentagon-spending/