The purpose of war, military or economic, is to get your enemy to do something it would rather not do.
Brooks' is a most expansive definition of "the purpose of war" that hollows reasonable meaning out of "purpose." And of war.
Yes, economic war is sort of a common phrase, cyber war, war on poverty, war on cancer, Gwyneth Paltrow's post-criticism war-survivor's state. People take exception to those uses of war, just ask Green Beret Bryan Sikes, they are commonly used but people take exception to them. That's the definition of war right there and in no sense are those common usages proper usages. "Political war," what is that? "Clandestine war?" I thought David Brooks was more "adult" than to be so common and improper.
So: We, and by "we" David Brooks means "the West," was at "war" with Iran? And "we," the West, lost said "war?" The UK, France, Russia, China and Germany also lost? No, no, and no. Using Brooks' words, how can it be that we lost the war with Iran and now face war with Iran? This is demagogic and it is hysteria.*
*The remainder of this post had been deleted in conformity to the strictures announced in the July 8 post "Sixteen words."
Really? So, Hitler's purpose was to get his enemies to do something they would rather not? Like die? Manifestly that was his purpose vis a vis the Jews, the Gypsies, Poles, Czechs, and Russians. It wasn't just lebensraum for Germans, he didn't want all those other folks to leben.
What was the US purpose in the Iraq war? At least at first it was "regime change." Regime change was euphemism for "We would like Saddam Hussein to do something he would rather not do, that is die." Mission accomplished. Then our purpose became to have lovely flowers of democracy shoosting out of the Islamic sand, to have a Federalist Society member in every tent. That was a fail! So, we lost the Iraq war? Hussein would not agree that the US lost the Iraq war.
Vietnam purpose--Get the North Vietnamese to do something it would rather not do, i.e., effect regime change in the South. I'll give you that one.
war
wรดr/
noun
- 1.a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
Over the past several years the United States and other Western powers have engaged in an economic, clandestine and political war against Iran to force it to give up its nuclear program.
Yes, economic war is sort of a common phrase, cyber war, war on poverty, war on cancer, Gwyneth Paltrow's post-criticism war-survivor's state. People take exception to those uses of war, just ask Green Beret Bryan Sikes, they are commonly used but people take exception to them. That's the definition of war right there and in no sense are those common usages proper usages. "Political war," what is that? "Clandestine war?" I thought David Brooks was more "adult" than to be so common and improper.
So: We, and by "we" David Brooks means "the West," was at "war" with Iran? And "we," the West, lost said "war?" The UK, France, Russia, China and Germany also lost? No, no, and no. Using Brooks' words, how can it be that we lost the war with Iran and now face war with Iran? This is demagogic and it is hysteria.*
*The remainder of this post had been deleted in conformity to the strictures announced in the July 8 post "Sixteen words."
