Press them for specifics
Yep! I agree. Glenn Greenwald:
But the more important question is the one these chest-beating politicians and pundits notably refrain from addressing. If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks? Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor prompted U.S. involvement in a world war and, ultimately, dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan; 9/11 initiated wars in multiple countries that still, 17 years later, have no end in sight, along with a systematic and still-worsening erosion of basic civil liberties.
So far, argues Greenwald, we've got a lot of political chest-puffery about how Russia did this and Russia did that and this is war y'know. So let's press them for specifics. Greenwald concludes:
At the very least, no politician or pundit should be able to get away with issuing rhetoric of this type without being required to specify what they think ought to be done.
What's the plan? Launch the nukes? Blast Russia to smithereens? Regime change and occupation like with Iraq? Maybe a few sanctions? Impeachment? Military coup in the US and nationwide blacklisting of suspected Russia-lovers? What's the plan? One thing to remember, as we read Greenwald, is that this is a consensus. So when we talk about this sort of thing we aren't talking about something new. I suppose we could start with the last thing that happened, with the programs for nuclear modernization initiated by Obama. The "rhetoric" thing looks like a stage, like how Hitler ratcheted up the rhetoric against Poland on the eve of the Blitzkrieg. Maybe the anti-Trump stuff is part of that stage, too, if the consensus is that Trump is really the wrong guy to carry out the consensus decision (you know, the one they aren't telling us about, the one about what they think ought to be done).
But this is a consensus. One place to look for the consensus is in elite sociology, starting perhaps with the Atlantic Council as gjohnsit discussed it; then we can proceed to the other consensus organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the World Economic Forum, and so on. The people behind these people own our government and are working to close the deal on what's left of our planet that they haven't already taken over.
Or maybe we should go back to Kees van der Pijl's The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, a good book describing how in 20th-century historical time the elites of US and of Europe slowly built alliances allowing them to become a unified global elite, which then had to deal with the new challenges of international capital outside of the Atlantic circuit. I'm sure that by now they've come to terms with Chinese and Indian capital, made a deal to split the proceeds (the solidity of the deal doesn't matter as much as the ideological consensus symbolized therein), and are now going after Russia as the last great remaining source of what Jason W. Moore calls "cheap nature." Cheap nature is the notion that, for the consensus built up through the expansion of capital, the world needs to be taken, and taken as cheaply as possible, with the smallest possible consolation prize for the rest of nature and with as little of what Karl Marx called the "organic composition of capital" as is possible at any time or place. Thusly the world is to be converted into a great production machine for the greater glory of the investor class that is to accumulate it therein.
But war? With Russia? That sounds like more like large-scale theft for the consensus. We might assume that, like with any human consensus, the consensus behind war with Russia has a collective personality. Perhaps we could say that the consensus is narcissistic, bellicose, compulsive, united behind capitalism. So certainly if the mouthpieces of the consensus have decided to babble on about war with Russia, the consensus has something in mind. Let's ask the mouthpieces what it is, shall we?