Yum!

I'm really wondering how Michael W. Davidson (US Army ret.) scored an interview on NPR for his new book Victory at Risk or why NPR felt compelled to offer him an interview for it. His talk with Hansen lacked any original views or unique insights and instead was a hodgepodge of commonplace predictions (e.g. al-Qaeda setting off a nuke in NYC), conventional beliefs about the US need for massive military might, and pedestrian distortions about US history. As you might guess, none of these were challenged in any way by Hansen.

Hansen launches this one with a rather unappetizing metaphor:

"What do you think the appetite is for Americans to get involved in a war is, given what has been going on for the last eight years?"

Davidson's answer is a doozy:

"The appetite is not where it needs to be, and it's not where it should be...have to address things like strategic visionary leadership...things like will Americans believe a President when he or she says something."

Seems like it would have been a reasonable time to ask how appetizing 4.7 million refugees, 1 million-plus dead civilians, and tens of thousands of wounded and thousands of dead US soldiers is. I know, I know that is such a downer....

Davidson notes that the US will have to be ready militarily when it's next attacked by al-Qaeda, but then later he claims, "we are a global power not because of our warships our warplanes our formations of soldiers and marines. We are a global power because of our commitment to freedom - that's why we have succeeded for 250 years as a nation..."

Seriously, when someone says something like that could the interviewer please just ask if that 250 year commitment to "freedom" included slavery, killing American Indians, lynching, stealing territory, invading other countries, overthrowing governments, disrupting elections, etc. - sheesh...