Very interesting article. Engelhardt presents quite a few interesting theories and some even more interesting facts that I had not known. Overall, however, as is the case with many editorial writes, I think he goes too far. I think he presents one side of the issue, and disregards the other with the same vigor that his opponents disregard his. While I do not necessarily think that we should have troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq, I do think that there were, and there are beneficial aspects to this war. I am not saying that the pros outweigh the cons, only that Engelhardt would have done well to acknowledge that. I do agree that the U.S is addicted to war, rather that some of the largest companies we rely on are addicted to war. I feel uncomfortable claiming that the United States, as a whole, is addicted to war and conflict, but I will claim that the military-industrial complex is as strong as ever and is still too heavy an influence on this country's foreign policy. While it may be true that there is no money in the prospect of peace, at least no money for the people who make the decisions, I do not agree that no effort and no thought is devoted to the concept. Yes, the idea of our citizens fighting and dying in a foreign country may seem repulsive at times, so is the idea of a foreign dictator treating his citizens with incivility and downright cruelty. So too is the idea of a country giving refuge to those who seek only to cause us fear and to cause us harm. No matter your stance, on whatever subject, it is important to examine both sides of an issue and not overstate a single one.
Good thoughts. Sure, the essay has its polemical moments; but, as I see it, until we have a Department of Peace (can you imagine?) to balance our barbaric and violent excesses, we need many more voices like his.