The unspeakable cynicism behind, and exploitation of, the 13 dead service members

If you're looking for evidence of mounting, hawkish cynicism behind one national publication's declaration that the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in Kabul was a "historic catastrophe," look no further than Paul Wolfowitz's Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning.

He too notes the "terrible recent events in Afghanistan." The deaths that occurred "will hang like a dark cloud over the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of 9/11," writes George Bush's infamous deputy defense secretary.

But wait, was that number of U.S. deaths really so "terrible" — so "catastrophic" — in Wolfowitz's eyes? Turns out, no, not at all. For later he writes that had Americans "been told that U.S. combat deaths had been averaging around 20 a year since we switched to a largely advisory mission in 2015," well, we probably would have been fine with that. "[We] would have seen those 20 years of human and financial costs in a different light."

Which is to say, directly — which Wolfowitz does not — that though the deaths of 13 U.S. service members are being presented by hawks as a historic catastrophe, 20 U.S. combat deaths every year for six years were essentially a nonevent. Nothing to see there, nothing to particularly mourn — in short, nothing, really, to get exercised about.

And that, in turn, is the neoconservative foundation on which Wolfowitz & Friends hope to build: "The war with [the Taliban] and its affiliates won’t end because the U.S. has quit…. The fall of Kabul has been a wake-up call for many Americans. We can’t afford to hit snooze now and go back to sleep."

With that, Wolfowitz closes his Journal op-ed, knowing that little imagination is needed to interpret his "wake-up call."

He also needn't search far to find a likeminded friend. Writes Matthew Hennessey, the Journal's deputy editorial page editor: "Leaving Afghanistan hasn’t made us safer." He then compares this week's bombing that killed 13 service members to the thousands-fold deaths of 20 years ago. Thus, "as with 9/11," writes Hennessey, "the next attack will prompt questions. How could this have happened? People will demand official answers. Why didn’t you stop it? Some will make the familiar argument that it’s better to fight them over there than over here."

Yes, "some" will indeed make that argument, Mr. Hennessey. How clever of you and Mr. Wolfowitz not to name them.

As fickle and flaky as the American body politic has become, God only knows how many of us will listen.

Two days ago I wrote that "it seems to me that America has learned its folly," in that "our misadventures in nation-building are over." I still believe that. The neocons, however, are back — and they're plunging into what they hope will be seen by the public as a vast distinction; they're cynically exploiting the deaths of 13 U.S. service members to argue for on-the-ground, U.S. military reengagement in Afghanistan — not, heaven forbid, any sort of nation-building.

It's a Bushian-Wolfowitzian ruse, a rhetorical artifice, just another neocon hustle — and cynical as hell.

Comments

[Ivory Bill Woodpecker]

The perfectly cynical cherry on top is the fact that the reason Wolfie's old bosses, Chimperor Bush and Darth Cheney, sent troops into Afghanistan in the first place is that the Taliban were hiding Al-Qaida, and they had to do something after having been caught asleep at the switch on 9/11/01.

[Halster]

He also said 9-11 was a wake up call for military interventionism. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were two of the signers of the Statement of Principles for the now defunct Project for the New American Century and the primary promoters of invading Iraq. Wolfowitz is a chickenhawk who thinks the U.S. should have a huge military presence permanently stationed around the world so we can quickly engage in preemptive wars. W had ten of the 25 PNAC signers in his administration.