Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stuart Attewell (Paris, Fr)'s avatar

I find it somewhat ironic the we place on our money "In God we trust" when in reality western society has effectively given up believing in anything but our money. No vision of where we are headed, nor idea of who we are or why we are here remains. There is only the creation, accumulation and dispersement of money that remains.

The divine $ has given us the technology to kill at a 1000 miles distance by drone or missile. From this technology we have created a market which feeds the money machine and lets anybody, anywhere play the killing game.

We have spent the last century pursuing money throughout the world often in a zero sum game. The "other's" constant losses...as we are very good at the money game...have created myriads of people who have reason to hate America and Americans. Would it not fit our objectives better and serve the peacefull pursuit of our life to address the causes of the potential terrorist threat that this represents rather than eliminating by drone its symptomes.

Expand full comment
Philip B (Edinburgh UK)'s avatar

This post and the brilliant comments it gave rise to are on their own worth the subscription. Thank you to one and all.

I would like to add three points: 1) It seems to me that the disorderly withdrawal was inevitable once Trump negotiated independently of the Afghan Government. It made plain that their army was on its own except possibly for supplies. I am sure that I have read that the army was nothing like as large or as well-trained as the published figure, and the Afghan troops will have probably known this, and so felt safer avoiding conflict. This would suggest moderation in attacking Biden for the 'shambles'. 2) Intelligence when invading a country relies on local contacts; how on earth is it possible to check on their reliability? I wonder therefore if the drone strike was not 'targeted' for the Americans by an infiltrator; if so it was a near perfect propaganda coup, as well as revenge against a collaborator. 3) It is tempting to make drones the target of opposition, though they undoubtedly need regulation, but when one reflects on the damage done by other weaponry, and the impossibility of a foreign force distinguishing between friend (or neutral) and foe, it is difficult to see how hostilities can be pursued without enormous collateral damage. A good start therefore, might be to minimise interventions (I think of the many US interventions in Latin America among others) and leave each country to find its own way to better government. Government systems and markets are cultural phenomena and so interventions from abroad are unlikely to be helpful. I leave the question hanging as to whether NATO should have tackled the Russian intervention in Syria, and how that affects this argument.

Expand full comment
380 more comments...

No posts