Wednesday, August 25, 2010

‘Secure’ Equals Enslaved

A high ranking official among the Empire’s legions has declared that it will probably be a "few years" before Afghanistan will be secure enough for the Marines to leave.

“Secure?" For who? When an area is deemed “secure” in military lingo, it generally means that all hostiles have either been killed, captured, or run off. In other words, everyone who does not obey the orders and kiss the boots of the US government is dead in the ground. Secure can also mean “safe from attack.” But there is no place that is safe from attack from someone. I’m sure the occupants of the Pentagon were confident that their building was “secure” on 9/11.

When the plundered public questions the length of any military occupation, the word “security” is almost always invoked, despite being a very ambiguous term. Most questioners immediately accept this response without even thinking about, let alone questioning, its exact meaning.

Back in 2004, Lew Rockwell wrote:

“Submission and compliance: that is what is meant by the term security in the state's lexicon.

Who is this security trying to secure? We are told it is for our own benefit. It is government that makes us secure from terrible threats. And yet, if we look closely, we can see that the main beneficiary of security is the state itself.
The state has a special reason to desire security: its agents are always a minority of the population, funded by eating out their substance, and its rule is always vulnerable. The more control it seeks over a population, the more its agents have to watch their backs.”

Security is about control, dominance, and a vision of peace consisting of no resistance to any governing or occupying authority. Afghanistan will finally be “secure” when it becomes a compliant colony of the US. Knowing something about the history of past attempts at occupation in this part of the world, I don’t expect that to occur any time soon- if ever.

No comments: