Yes he did, and basically said it was an illusion, a condition we attempt to construct via social engineering, but that process itself leads to war. The bottom line is we're not at peace and to pretend that we are can be likened to Chamberlain's willfulness blindness. To treat the lower end of war as strategically as important as the high end of war is a better way to prevent to escalation than pretending we're at peace. The post is intended to be provocative, because I'm searching for a more comprehensive lexicon that can describe the full spectrum of war. As for peace, that is easier (it isn't messy), we're at peace with Canada, we're not at peace with Russia and we're not in all out war with Russia. We're at war with al-Qaeda.Originally Posted by Compost
Bookmarks