Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones 
Please tell me this is just more bullshit posturing.
|
Sane people have no intention of lobbing nukes at anybody "just in case."
However, we (humans generally) have a bad habit of believing ourselves to be sane, while our enemies are insane. Look at our political discourse: "The Iranians are nuts! Putin's lost his mind!" or whatever. The ugly truth is that almost all of the leaders who oppose our agenda are entirely sane, but have competing objectives themselves and a radically different point of view. It's very, very rare for a totally cuckoo person to get into power; when it happens, North Korea is what it looks like (and even then it's not that simple). In contrast, by any objective standard, Hugo Chavez is not only not a "loon" or whatever, he is proceeding on the basis of an entirely rational strategy in pursuit of completely understandable goals.* Doesn't mean we have to agree with them; just means it doesn't take much cogitation to figure out where he's coming from.
And yet, we habitually reduce the opposition to the status of fruitcakes and whackjobs, and we establish a military posture that reflects this. "
We aren't crazy.
We aren't going to lob nukes just for the hell of it. But
Syria, man,
those guys are
bonkers. Who
knows what they might do. If they were rational, like us, we could have a rational strategy. But they aren't. They're
insane. So we have to show a little insanity ourselves, so if necessary, we can out-crazy them." Insert names of players as you like, depending on whether this statement comes from the U.S. or Russia or whomever. Doesn't matter; it'd be formulated the same.
Seen in that light, the position makes a little more sense. However, note that this is a logical formulation, which by definition is contrary to how one deals with a so-called crazy person. If the enemy really were insane, there'd be no functional reason to meet them with a logical counterpoint, because they'd be irrational and unpredictable. (I leave it to the reader to decide which kind of foe is more dangerous.) In other words, implicit in this message is an acknowledgement that the enemy is not, in fact, nuts. It is, as stated, merely posturing.
But it's not empty puffery, or worse, incomprehensible madness; it's based on a self-fulfillingly delusional (and, unfortunately, pervasively common) worldview. And it isn't likely to change any time soon. Which, naturally, makes all of us a little bit crazy. But that's another thread.
* (And for the liberals among us, George Bush and Dick Cheney ain't crazy either.)