Tuesday, September 11, 2007

petraeus report

i've been listening to the testimony/questioning this week of general petraeus and don't really have much to say regarding it. i'm not really sure why i bothered to listen, but it really makes you wonder about our cynicism and if perhaps people like the general, the congresspeople and senators really are decent people doing the best they can on behalf of their constituents and not just corporate tools/oligarchical puppets. maybe they are honest people deceived into thinking they are working for the people when in fact they are corporate tools.

i didn't really think about it when i put on my moveon.org t-shirt today, but when it started getting warmer and i took off the sweatshirt, i felt a little funny about it. after work i checked my email, and of course moveon.org sent out an email statement so i clicked on the link for the ad in the nyt that asks general petraeus or general betray us? after looking at it and thinking about it, i don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the integrity of anyone connected with the administration, an administration that used up the last tiny bit of credibility it had long ago. but i do think moveon may have made a tactical mistake in this case. its not going to play well in the mainstream.

one notable snippet is how the general referred to ground troops as 'assets'. i mean yeah, soldiers are assets in a military operation but for chrissake, they're first and foremost people and i was disgusted with referring to them as 'assets' as if they are just so many cogs in the machine. but indeed, that is what they are and what the vast majority of us are. economists regard labor as a unit of the production process. it takes this many units of labor and this many units of capital to produce whatever. bullshit. this needs to change. workers are people, human beings dammit and equally deserving of full consideration as the shareholders, board members and stock traders. soldiers are not just assets, they are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters. to describe them as assets is demeaning and dehumanizing. i guess that's why they do it. another reality distorting euphemism like collateral damage.

i think the highlight for me was when a congressman from Hawaii pointed out the war is for oil and i want to further investigate who he is, what exactly he said and what he was talking about because i didn't catch it all.


crallspace said...

I turned on FOX news early this morning and the sun damaged female anchor was ranting and raving about the move on ad and some Fox fux created 3 hypotheticals (at first, their producers couldn't bring up the right picture on cue.)

One had FDR and said something like "Franklin Roosevelt or Frankly Dishonest?" Another with the Vietnam General... and the topper: Eisenhower with the caption "Eisenhower or I's a trader?" all the while, the anchor screaming, "Can you imagine if THESE had been around back then? Is that good for morale?" Talk about unimaginative hatemongering. And to compare Bush's warrior Petraeus to any of the others is an insult to their legacy. Not all wars are equal. They all suck for different reasons.

Hey, I googled "report to wrench about Forum" and your blog came up first. You seem to be the only one to ever done reporting to Wrench on the Forum...in online history anyway.

nina said...

a real social disease in this country is emotional detachment. while i find the elitists and those like them making decisions that keep people enslaved, in poverty, fighting wars for their agenda, etc. deplorable in their actions and choices, i believe most of them, somewhere, have a conscience. however, their obsessive need for power, wealth, control overtake their conscience and therefore, they emotionally detach.

i've often felt if those making the decision to send people to war would be required to look these kids and their families in the eye and tell them what they must do and why, we may have a different world. but instead, we refer to these folks as assets when alive and collateral damage when dead.

repulsive doesn't even come close to describing how i would define such actions.

tkn said...

the congressman was Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii. i couldn't get his transcript from the hearing, though.

crallspace said...

Hey- I tried to read the no shop christmas blog, but only invited readers can view it.

If this is a mistake, open it up to the masses. They gotta know.

crallspace said...

Update dammit!

crallspace said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
david said...

hey, tim...this past blog reminds me of about some things i saw in a documentary called "why we fight" by eugene jarecki...ever hear of it? if you haven't seen it, i think you might enjoy it...way better than d-war...lol. i had heard a lot about d-war (or dragon war, as they're calling it here in the states, i guess) from a lot of my yu-hak-seng friends and if your analysis is anywhere close to what i had anticipated, i'm pretty sure i'll be justified in skipping out on watching it...if that made any sense at all.