- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
The collapse of the Soviet Union did not mean, ipso facto, we were a good society-because being better than a crude and brutal dictatorship is not good enough. But since we had won, we strutted.
Yes.
Are we so strident now because we are less sure of who we are and what the real sources of our strength are?
And yes.
Here's a url for Eisenhower's Guildhall speech for those who are interested.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19450612%20guildhall-nolink.htm
Its wars were now less about survival than about something abstract like collective security (Korea), or something which was quite possibly politically dubious (Vietnam).
Nothing abstract about it, and politically quite sensible (if executed properly): A superpower has, like a mob operation that wants to maintain its turf and authority, to make a show of strength once in a while. You gotta whack someone every now and then, even for a minor infraction, so the rank and file remembers that you're the one with the power to whack. Both the U.S. and Russia engaged in this practice, both clumsily and both with horrific results.
Halberstam's eloquent words need no comment.
But I don't think Dick Chaney is actually all that competent. I think his true skills are blackmail, intimidation and other dirty tricks.
It looks a lot like competence from the outside, but it's not.
