3 ms·
Seems like a classic neocon warhawk That's an understatement. This guy was a core member of the PNAC. (The group of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, et. al.
by rando444 9y ago
Seems like a classic neocon warhawk
That's an understatement. This guy was a core member of the PNAC. (The group of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, et. al. who openly suggested that the US needed a new "Pearl Harbor" in order to advance the country's interests)
Again: they put out an open letter stating that America needed to be attacked in order to achieve its strategic goals.
- jacquesm 9y agoYou'd think that 9/11 fit the bill of being 'a new "Pearl Harbor"' nicely.
- enoch_r 9y agoI am no fan of Bolton or war, but this is an extraordinarily uncharitable reading. The article in question is pushing for a "military transformation" in which the DoD moves "more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts." It discusses challenges to this process--for example, the Pentagon has limited funding, and the US can't declare a "strategic pause" to experiment while our allies and enemies hold still--and notes that: > the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. This seems to me very far from saying that America "needs" to be attacked. They're just noting that the speed of military innovation tends to increase very dramatically after an event like Pearl Harbor.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoThe need is implied by the conflicts of interest inherent in the investments portfolios of the founders of the PNAC. They "needed" it as much as a war profiteer needs war to make profits.