Cocktailhag, the blog

Having found such a gold mine of authoritarian propaganda in the “news” pages of the poor Los Angeles Times over these last two days, I couldn’t help dropping in again for a look-see this afternoon.  Would there be yet another journalistic equivalent of an overturned dump truck in the Cahuenga Pass?  So enamored am I by the dateline, “reporting from Washington” at this point that I can’t stop clicking in, and even though Rick Serrano was evidently too busy at Fox Nation to write anything, there was a little piece by his colleague, Julian Barnes, which more than sufficed for my Pravda fix, deceptively titled, “Top Military Official Outlines Tempered Approach to War.”

Hmmm.  Sounds reasonable enough.  Closer reading reveals, however, that Julian and Rick are actually the same person, kind of like Hayley Mills in “The Parent Trap.”  That’s my theory, anyway.  To wit:

Reporting from Washington – (Don’t you just love that?  You can almost hear the teletypes in the background…) The U.S. military must use measured and precise strikes, not overwhelming force, in the wars it is likely to face in the future, the nation’s top uniformed officer said Wednesday in outlining a revised approach to American security.

Yes, the dozens and dozens of wars in addition to the current ones.  It was only in those boring old days that we sat around waiting to see if we won or lost to come up with new strategies for the next time(s).

The view outlined by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, differs both from the doctrine of overwhelming force advanced by Colin L. Powell, a onetime Joint Chiefs chairman, and the “shock and awe” approach of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Yeah, Powell wasted time thinking about the aftermath, and Rumsfeld didn’t bother with such minutia.  Both never were involved with actually winning any wars, but why not start with them?  They both certainly knew how to sell wars, and that’s all that matters these days.

“There is no single, defining American way of war,” Mullen argued. “It changes over time, and it should change over time, adapting appropriately to the most relevant threats to our national security.”

I’ll say, not when we have so many wars we can’t even keep up.   But wait, there’s actually a “relevant” threat out there?  Do tell, Mr Admiral man.

Mullen’s views, presented in a speech at Kansas State University, mirror the latest U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan, a showcase effort in which troops in Marja are trying not only to seize control of territory but to obtain influence over the local population in a bid to break the hold of insurgents.

His comments are significant because the Joint Chiefs chairman under the Constitution serves as the president’s chief military advisor.

And thus, in the new and improved America, he pretty much tells the pissant President what’s what.

Mullen held out Marja as a model of the kind of warfare he was describing. There, the military announced in advance plans to retake the city and emphasized careful use of force.

“We did not prep the battlefield with carpet bombing or missile strikes,” he said. “We simply walked in, on time. Because, frankly, the battlefield isn’t necessarily a field anymore. It’s in the minds of the people.”

Well, then why not have a seminar or something?  Is refraining from carpet bombing the new touchy-feely?  Sheeesh.  Who could type up such horseshit without laughing?

The ideas outlined by Mullen are not universally accepted within the military. For instance, to minimize the risk of civilian casualties, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, placed restrictions on the use of bombs and other air power.

Some officers and analysts think that those self-imposed restrictions have allowed the Taliban to escape the most effective and potent U.S. weapons, potentially endangering American and allied troops.

Here we’re listening to the bonkers rantings of a modern-day Atilla the Hun with $700 billion in borrowed Chinese money to throw around each year, and even crazier people than he are calling him a peacenik, and this is considered worthy political discourse.  May I suggest that Mr. Barnes broaden his circle of friends, if only for his own safety?

In addition, the Marja offensive showed that even deliberate, measured force can produce civilian casualties.

Which no one cares about, of course, but can always be dragged in from the cold as a talking point, in a pinch.

In another shift in thinking, Mullen said in his speech that policymakers now and in the future should consider the U.S. military not as a last-resort solution in a crisis, but as part of early American responses to conflicts and disasters.

Ah, what was once merely “on the table” has now shoved everything else off, and henceforth we bomb first, ask questions later.  I’d noticed that happening, but thanks for clarifying.

“Military forces are some of the most flexible and adaptable tools available to policymakers,” Mullen said. “Before a shot is even fired, we can bolster a diplomatic argument, support a friend or deter an enemy.”

And afterward, boy howdy!  Another 20-year war or three is born.  These guys are geniuses!

Mullen emphasized that military power must be used alongside other government tools. Similarly, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, speaking at the same venue in 2007, called for increased spending on the State Department.

As long as the general trend continues toward completely draining the treasury for somebody’s pointless and delusional dreams of world domination, some panty-waist diplomacy stuff will have to be tolerated here and there too, especially if it helps to bring Tom Friedman along.  Luckily, this means more moats (literally, at least in London…) around our embassies, which sound like economic recovery to me.  Maybe Blackwater can supply the gators, cost plus.

“U.S. foreign policy is still too dominated by the military,” Mullen said, “too dependent upon the generals and admirals who lead our major overseas commands and not enough on the State Department.”

I had not noticed that.  Had you?

Overall, the speech represents a refinement of military doctrine, reflecting the wrenching policy and strategy review last year over Afghanistan as well as the debates in 2006 concerning strategy in Iraq.

Which were all resolved, you guessed it, in favor of the military industrial complex over the needs of everyone else, natch.

Policy and strategy, Mullen said, must “constantly struggle with one another.” Rather than setting a strategy and stepping aside, political leaders must remain involved. The day the U.S. stops adjusting is the day the country loses, he said.

Guess what, Mike?  We already lost.  But don’t tell the remaining readers of the LA Times.  They all loved Dr. Strangelove down there, I hear.