Permanent War

Glenn Greenwald, one of the more rational and therefore radical writers of our time, writes today about the Washington discusssion of Afghanistan:

The debate over Afghanistan -- or, more accurately, the multi-pronged
effort to pressure Obama into escalating -- is looking increasingly familiar,
i.e., like the "debate" over Iraq. The New York Times is publishing
articles filled with quotes from anonymous war advocates. Permanent
war-justifier Michael O'Hanlon is regularly featured in "news accounts" as
he all but blames Obama for increasing combat deaths due to his failure to
escalate the moment the military demanded it. The New Republic is churning
out pro-war screeds. Every option is on the proverbial table except
one: not fighting the war. And there's a widening gap between
(a) public opinion (which sees Afghanistan as "turning into another
Vietnam" and which opposes more troops, with 49% favoring a full or partial
withdrawal) and (b) the virtual unanimity of establishment punditry which,
as always, is cheerleading for the war. The only difference is that, with
a Democratic President, there seems to be more Democratic and progressive
support for this war (though there was, of course, plenty of that for Iraq,
too).

The primary rationale for remaining -- and escalating -- in Afghanistan
is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything
the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism. Apparently, the
way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops
into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war
there. That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us
safer.