W każdej dyskusji są głosy za- i przeciw- , mniej lub bardziej wyważone, lepiej czy gorzej uzasadnione. W debacie o Syrii również. Ale czasem zdarza się głos tak trafny, tak celny, jak słuszny, że po prostu dalsza dyskusja mija się z celem. Ktoś po prostu trafił w absolutne sedno, ma absolutną słuszność, nie można do tego nic więcej dodać ani ująć. Mamy takie wrażenie czytając doskonały esej Davida Stockmana o Syrii, z którego fragmenty przytaczamy poniżej. Całość dostępna na thedailybeast.com.
David Stockman, były kongresman ze stanu Michigan, jest autorem The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America i bestsellera The Triumph of Politics. Od 1981 był dyrektorem budżetu za prezydentury Ronalda Reagana i jednym z głównych architektów reaganowskiej rewolucji. Następnie od 1985 pracował dla Salomon Brothers a potem, jako jeden z założycieli i wczesnych partnerów w grupie Blackstone, był inwestorem private equity.
Pisze Stockman [zanim Obama zorientował się że nie ma poparcia w Kongresie i się wycofał z bezsensownego ataku]:
Indeed, the tragedy of this vast string of misbegotten interventions—from the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran through the recent bombing campaign in Libya—is that virtually none of them involved defending the homeland or any tangible, steely-eyed linkages to national security. They were all rooted in ideology—that is, anti-communism, anti-terrorism, humanitarianism, R2P-ism, nation building, American exceptionalism. These were the historic building blocks of a failed Pax Americana. Now the White House wants authorization for the last straw: namely, to deliver from the firing tubes of U.S. naval destroyers a dose of righteous “punishment” that has no plausible military or strategic purpose. By the president’s own statements, the proposed attack is merely designed to censure the Syrian regime for allegedly visiting one particularly horrific form of violence on its own citizens.
Well, really? After having rained napalm, white phosphorous, bunker busters, drone missiles, and the most violent machinery of conventional warfare ever assembled upon millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Serbs, Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemeni, Libyans, and countless more, Washington now presupposes to be in the moral-sanctions business? That’s downright farcical. Nevertheless, by declaring himself the world’s spanker in chief, President Obama has unwittingly precipitated the mother of all clarifying moments.
The screaming strategic truth is that America no longer has any industrial state enemies capable of delivering military harm to its shores: Russia has become a feeble kleptocracy run by a loud-mouthed thief, and the Communist Party oligarchs in China would face a devastating economic collapse within months were they to attack their American markets for sneakers and Apples. So the real question now before Congress is, how is it possible that the peace-loving citizens of America, facing no industrial-scale military threat from anywhere on the planet, find themselves in a constant state of war? The answer is that they have been betrayed by the Beltway political class, which is in thrall to a vast warfare state apparatus that endlessly invents specious reasons for meddling, spying, intervention, and occupation.
There should be no $650 billion war machine with carrier battle groups and cruise missile batteries at the ready to tempt presidents to heed the advice of ideological fanatics like Power and Wolfowitz.
In pursuit of nothing more ennobling than raw self-perpetuation, the propaganda machinery of the warfare state—along with its media affiliates such as the War Channel (CNN) and the War Press (The Washington Post)—have over recent decades churned out a stream of vastly exaggerated “threats,” falsely transforming tin-pot dictators and tyrants like Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, and now Bashar al-Assad into dangerous enemies. At length, triggering incidents are concocted such as the phony Gulf of Tonkin episode, the Madison Avenue–based fabrications about Iraqi soldiers stealing babies from incubators in Kuwait, the vastly exaggerated claims of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and Saddam’s reputed WMDs.
Eventually, the drumbeat for military intervention is cranked to a fever pitch, and cable TV drives it home with nonstop telestrators and talking heads. Only after the fact, when billions in taxpayer resources have been squandered and thousands of American servicemen have been killed and maimed, do we learn that it was all a mistake, that the collateral destruction vastly exceeded the ostensible threat, and that there remains not a trace of long-term-security benefit to the American people.
Setting aside the self-evident catastrophes in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, even the alleged “good” interventions are simply not what they are cracked up to be by warfare state apologists. The 1991 Persian Gulf War, for instance, insured only that Saddam Hussein would not get the oil field revenues from what he claimed to be Iraq’s “19th province” so that he could fund projects to placate his 30 million deprived, abused, and restless citizens. Instead, the loot was retained for the benefit of the despicable Emir Al-Sabah IV and a few hundred gluttonous Kuwaiti princes.
Yet in the long run, “saving” the Kuwaiti regime and its unspeakably decadent opulence did not lower the world price of oil by a dime (Iraq would have produced every barrel it could). And it most surely subtracted from national security because it resulted in the permanent basing of 10,000 U.S. troops on Saudi soil. This utterly stupid and unnecessary provocation was the very proof that “infidels” were occupying Islamic holy lands—the principal leitmotif.
Po prostu doskonały esej, do przeczytania którego serdecznie zachęcamy. Całość dostępna tutaj.