Fighting to lose
One thing that Neocon A (McCrazy) and Neocon B (O’Bomber) agree on, along with almost everything else of import, is that the US needs More War. Especially in Afghanistan.
It strikes me that it isn’t sufficient simply to point out (what should be) the blazingly obvious truth: the US has no sensible strategic military reasons for its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s not just that those occupations are militarily pointless. "Pointless" isn't value-neutral: it’s a very bad thing. Any pointless military action is an invitation to disaster.
Aside from the fact that they drain the US defense complex of the ability to defend the US against actual enemies – strongly suggesting no one in charge of US defenses believes any exist – and laying aside that the grotesque costs of the two pointless horror-shows have broken the economy to the extent that over a quarter-century of inflation-fueled boom has busted, probably beyond repair, we all seem to be overlooking one very important fact.
In the real world, successful pack alphas are never aggressive. They don’t go looking for fights.
Why? Because they can’t win anything.
If you’re the Alpha, that’s it. You’re top of the stack. What benefits can you gain by fighting?
None. There isn’t anything left. All you can do is keep the status quo. Or lose.
Three basic possibilities exist for the rewards to fighting for an Alpha:
Parlous times for parodists
You can't parody such times as these.
A few days ago I was out walking with my dog (whose innocent name I won't sully by mentioning in such a foul and murderous context as politics) when it struck me that, for a lark, and since the two entities in question can't seem to muster any actual disagreement with one another, I ought to publicly propose that Obama select as his running mate John McCain.
Then he went and did.