For the destruction of IS to occur without our aid and participation would be for us not just to have shirked a responsibility, but to have declined to assert our existence, to have absented ourselves from the course of events. The alternative for us to a world in which we helped to destroy IS would be for us an unjust and absurd world.
EG-Series: To Degrade and Ultimately Destroy
Critique of Elkus and Prime’s “Control” Concept for Intervention
…and, Ultimately, to Destroy (3): Acceptance
Collectively as individually, we may also like to think that at the limits we will know the truly unacceptable loss of control when we see it, or are compelled to view it, but we may surprise ourselves with our ability to look away from or to grow used to what formerly we found unbearable, just the latest cadaverized child in a Twitpic.
…and, Ultimately, to Destroy (2): Control
One pseudo-state calls forth another, as the goal of “mere control” constructs its own eventual failure, both logically and, it seems, practically.
To Degrade and, Ultimately, To Destroy (1)
The President’s summary of his policy on the Islamic State or on “the group known as ISIL” was not elegantly enunciated: “To degrade and ultimately destroy” is a compound infinitive phrase that is pitched to the demotic or colloquial in ways that contribute to misinterpretation and distortion. The infinitive “to degrade,” a somewhat esoteric military… Continue reading To Degrade and, Ultimately, To Destroy (1)