Yazata said:
But imagine that it was an urban warfare exercise, conducted during the George W. Bush administration, set to take place in black neighborhoods. Or imagine that this Jade Helm exercise was planned by Republicans for predominantly Hispanic communities along the Mexican border.
I think part of that proposal involves accepting some sort of delusion about what is actually expected to happen.
If an exercise like this was slated for my town, and if armored vehicles and commmandos with automatic weapons were all over the streets, I'd worry about what might happen to people who leave their homes and try to go about their daily business.
How American standards have plummeted. I'm not joking about Okinawa, Yazata. Around twenty years ago a Marine was accused of rape, and the question swirling in the American public discourse was whether or not he should stand trial in Japan or be shuffled through a court martial. The argument for pulling him from Japanese jurisdiction? It was a "support the troops argument".
Yet this whole time, the NRA and other conservative organizations have been politicking on a platform that requires us to believe the average American soldier is akin to a Nazi.
Put it this way:
Even I don't think so poorly of our military as folks in Texas.
So as I noted before, I need you to actually declare that you believe our service personnel, given the order to seize the United States, would do it.
Because that's the difference between me and, say, these Texans. Or, perhaps, even between me and you. As much as I disdain armies and warfare, even I don't think so poorly of our service personnel. I don't just
think they wouldn't do it. I
know they wouldn't do it.
Are you willing to say it to a soldier's face?
The thing that gets me is that whenever Republicans stoop so low in their desperation, we're all supposed to pretend there is nothing unusual about it. This is a dangerous custom.
So yes, it does stand out to me that there is apparently nothing disrespectful about this high-fuel politicking that requires we presuppose our service members to be so evil. I actually think it's exceptionally disrespectful, but, hey, I'm not a clear-headed Republican looking for an excuse to abuse my fellow human beings for the sake of feeling better about myself, so I'm probably not giving fair consideration to the merits of thinking, say, my friend's son is a bloodthirsty fascist asshole just waiting to destroy America. Then again, he joined the Army, and if I'm a Republican these days, that's all the evidence I need:
He's guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
So the next time you see one of your neighbors whose kid is in the military, offer your condolences as a neighbor and, should the circumstance apply, fellow parent; after all, it is a terrible thing for a parent to witness their child choose descent into a world of hatred and crime and evil. Nobody wants to imagine they've raised a proper villain.
And if you're not willing to say it to the face of a service member, or the family of a service member, why not?
More than anything else, I really do wonder why we let conservatives get away with this wilfully awful behavior.
During the Dubya years, I forget exactly what it was having to do with China, but there came a strange moment when
Pat Buchanan and I were standing on the same side of an argument critical of the Bush administration's "politics of distraction" that involved overstating the Chinese threat to the American way of life.
These moments are telling; they have specific contexts, such as the fact that between President Bush and his frontline talking heads, the general media coverage, and the words of all the other politicians taking part, it was
me and
Pat Buchanan who tapped a common memory of American history, and we both found ourselves at the same conclusion, that the China bit was a distraction, and a dangerously foolish attempt at that.
So what?
Presidential level:
When Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) gets to invoke the Civil War while playing the adult in the room, Republicans need to take a moment to consider what they're into.
Not only is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Jade Tinfoil, he is also more generally trying to rally insurrectionists. And the ticking roster of Republicans calling for "Second Amendment remedies", or explaining that a .380 handgun is intended to stop the government, or any number of other such statements we've heard from conservative figures rallying their supporters toward war, has reached the point that a Republican presidential candidate is pushing insurrection as a campaign argument.
All of which led Sen. Graham to make the point about insurrection:
"Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again. I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets."
And, you know, I don't really
like Sen. Graham that much, and I think we all know his presidential ambitions aren't really grounded in any reality. Still, though, I would suggest he probably tacitly ended his presidential aspirations with that crack. While many of us actually appreciate sane words like that, liberals don't see an ally in Mr. Graham; rather, we worry about what nutsack South Carolina voters will replace him with.
In terms of Jade Tinfoil, consider that Governor Oops is now the Republican voice of sanity on the issue. And that's the thing. Every once in a while I find myself standing shoulder to shoulder with a Republican I otherwise just don't have much appreciation for. When this happens, it's worth taking a look at why. And finding myself next to Rick Perry on this occasion feels very familiar. As with Buchanan and Graham, what we were looking at can be generally described as potentially dangerous innovations on traditionally risky politics, a reshaping of the (
ahem!) "gentlemen's" way of American politicking.
Consider Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). He's willing to buck his outsider status as he comes around on foreign policy; seemingly a dove by proxy of comparative isolationism, Paul has thrown some pretty heavy stakes into policy revisions pertaining to Israel and Middle East regional engagement. That is to say, Mr. Paul is willing to become more imperial.
But he is not prepared to cross his tinfoil wing on Jade Helm.
Of the declared presidential contenders, three are known to be in with the tinfoil: Cruz, Paul, and Huckabee. In terms of Congress, it is worth noting that
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX01); this is significant for three reasons immediately apparent:
(1) It's Louie Gohmert; if the fact of Chuck Norris isn't enough to notice the potsherds, Mr. Gohmert's arrival ought to be.
(2) Mr. Gohmert has made this specifically about anti-Christendom; while many were already pretty convinced that this whole Texas Weak Tea conspiracy theory required some manner of the anti-Obama xenophobia that has possessed the conservative movement these recent years, that actually is a background component for now ...
(3) ... because for the Republican from Texas One this is also part of a Christian nationalism and Christian identity issue. Fellow fringe figure Michele Bachmann is also out preaching the End Times; Rick Santorum is trying to cast Christianity as a victim, with Christians forced to live in a "secular atheist country ... dominated by radical Islamists". Mr. Huckabee is telling Christians their faith will soon be outlawed. Christian author Dr. James Dobson tells his audience to prepare for a Civil War ... over gay marriage.
They want a war. They have delusions of a glorious revolution in which they purge the nation of evil, evil equality. Or, in their minds, rescue liberty from the Devil in the White House. And they really,
really need some kind of tyranny to fight against, given the severity of their rhetoric. So this is it. We now have a domestic version of two nations arguing over "wargames" and "military exercises".
Never mind that the military has facilities for urban combat training; more challenging is to build a range over that much distance. Remember the theatres they're fighting in abroad. Sending them on a trek through Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana won't be as useful in the warmer, more barren theatres our troops have seen recently and expect to see in the near future.
So this is it. And all that is required is to look at that fresh-faced kid, the football star, who is passing on some sort of storybook future to enlist in the service and give these years, and even his life if necessary, to his country. That kid we are supposed to admire, and call a hero. And look at him and say, "Yeah, he'll do it. He'll murder me in my bed to take over the country for the evil Kenyan-Korean Communist-Nazi Muslims trying to destroy the Glory of American Imperialism That Isn't Imperialism But Instead Liberty and Justice for All."
I may be a cynical American, but I am an American, and our tradition is that you're not supposed to treat our services this way ... unless, of course, you need them for racist counterrevolutionary tinfoil involving anal-bestial rape fantasies while a Democrat is in the White House. And that's the thing that gets me. Given everything else we are expected to defer for the sake of respect to our military, how is this requisite distrust of any given servicemember remotely acceptable?
Even the Republican presidential contest is so far out on the fringe right now that
Rick Perry gets to be the friendly, intelligent face in the room for a day.
I don't know, I would think we might find this significant.
