Uh-Oh: Afghanistan.
Listening to “Last to Know” by Neil Finn (One Nil). So yesterday I heard an interview with Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame. The question was about the reasons for a whistleblower, and he was explaining the grounds for his assertions being correct. Amongst this, he dropped a line about when the government would be adding more troops to the Afghan theater without telling us. Not “if.” I thought he was full of it.
This morning, NPR mentions that there’s an editorial written by the current commander in The Stan saying that without more meat, the “current mission will result in failure.” Dammit Ellsberg, don’t you know what they do to prophets who turn out to be right? And can anyone tell me what the differences are? Mission resulting in failure. Failing mission. Mission Failure. I realize we can all spin a difference in there, but really, this is not a discussion of the technical stylistic differences, but the reasons why you’d choose one phrase over the other. I think “habit” especially habitual military written expression.
Oh, and a member of the military writing editorials should be fired. And the publication’s stock devalued. The military has clear procedures for this, if his boss isn’t listening, he is permitted to go over his boss’s head. There should be no problem with him communicating to the Secretary of Defense. This is just stupid. (The war, the controversy, the need to kill more humans and burn up more resources.)