This strikes as the Powell WC wing of the pentagon and state against the Rummy and rice bolton wing.
Crying same that the people charged with the defense and putting forth the interests of the United States are at each others throats.
Ah for the days of FDR when he is attacked goes after the secondary target, Will this country ever learn that if we don't unit the McClellans and Stenson's come to the top As Oppose to the Grants and the other side of the Roosevelt family.
Yes, life was far more simpler, then. This brewing bruaha (sp) has been building since pre-Vietnam. This split in method and ideology. I think back to Clinton/Gore in their "let's dialogue" (truth to power) type of ideology -- which is, in fact, what the pacificists assert -- that mere words can make the world a better place. When in fact, "mere words" has brought about politically correctness, overlegalization, frivolous lawsuits, and "words equal "rape" (a la MacKinnon/Dworkin model). It booned lawyers. The ones who benefit are those allied with, if not themselves, lawyers. Ipso, the ICC.
This "words" to peace ideology has brokered... "what is the meaning of "is"", and permits thugs like Saddam to define for HIMSELF and all who lived with Iraq, what the meaning of "sanctions and laws" were. Moral relativism.
I think we've seen, that this ideology of pacificist "words" equals cowardice on the largest order -- giving haven to those who pull and ply a moral relativist position on words, honor, mutual respect, and civility.
The people of America bought this bilge. Many wanted to believe in this new "sacred altar" of the left. That mere peace could be brokered by mere words. This has never been so, and recorded history proves this, when dealing with those who do not uphold "life" and "freedom for all". The moral relativist re-shifted the paradigm of "thought, word, and deed" to be on the order of "lie, author it and get your pals to support it, then protest. They misrepresented the Trinity to fit their humanistic agenda.
In the 70s, feminists actually did suggest that one could "talk" a rapist out of raping them. Assuredly, this can happen only very, very limitedly; but is a very bad rule to live by.
How did this "words" thing grow? Well, every single study in child psyche institutes proffered that little girls are far more verbal than boys; whereas little boys are more action-oriented.
The liberals posited that these were biologic behaviors were the result of "man-made" cultural institutions in behavior, and sought to change the world to being more "word friendly" (as in female-biased).
The liberal churches used the "Word" friendly, to alter scripture for the masses who attended church.
In short form, a very, very different war was launched upon America -- a psychologic war -- so difficult to name, to point.
I've done field work in the "abuse fields". One thing very true? Physical battery is fairly easy to detect and to prove; but emotional and verbal battery? No. Not at all easy to prove. And this then, was the nature of the war waged upon many cultures -- that of "emotional and verbal".
So, with this war, a newer arsenal had to be built.
And is yet being constructed.
And the liberal "word" masters, don't even see the sand disappearing under their feet. MSM is still trying to hold the line for the "word" masters, and they recognize their support and credibility is crumbling, and so they try newer approaches to using modern technology in order to revive their "word-war" games.