Grim links to a Richard Hernandez (formerly "Wretchard") analysis, and his readers get the added benefit of his commentary on the analysis. And you get my reply to his commentary to that subtle analysis as well. Not much from me this time around, but still highly valuable. Collect such replies and win valuable prizes!
I take him to mean that, just as the Establishment prefers an eternal stalemate in Israel in pursuit of a 'two state solution' that never materializes, and preferred an eternal war in Afghanistan to either withdrawal or victory, and apparently an eternal war Ukraine to giving Ukraine what it would take to win, and eternal 'strategic ambiguity' on China and Taiwan to a resolution either way, here too they prefer the conflict. The point is not to vanquish the Trump/MAGA "insurgency" but to ensure it can never take power, especially because it makes sure it is formalized as the eternal opponent.I had never considered that possibility. Instead of winning politically, which I have always assumed, could this really be a strategy designed solely to keep the opponents from winning for decades to come? I can scarce credit it.
And yet...
1 comment:
A complete victory might be too risky right now--you might prod half the population into what they think is an existential battle. Kick the can down the road a few years and see if the situation looks more favorable. It'll be somebody else's call then, and they can get blamed if your "win in a week" attack gets bogged down on the way to Kyiv.
Keeping the pot simmering lets you claim handy emergency powers now and then. No nukes flying in one place, no Battle of Athens reprise in another if you make the right noises and offer illusory reforms.
Post a Comment