The security of a straitjacket depends very much on its size, which should be as small as practicable to be secure. A jacket that is tight at the chest and armpits will make it much more difficult for the wearer to pull the arms out of the sleeves. The sleeves of the jacket are typically sewn shut at the ends—a significant restraint in itself because it restrains the use of the hands. The arms are then folded across the front, with the ends of the sleeves wrapping around to fasten or tie behind the back. On some jackets, the sleeve-ends are not anchored to the garment to allow the fastening or knot to rotate away from the wearer's hands as they move their arms, making it more difficult to undo. Some straitjackets are even designed to have the persons arms crossed behind him/her rather than in front to ensure restraint even more. Most jackets feature a crotch-strap to prevent the jacket from simply being pulled up and off. ...Wikipedia
Of course, if you love (and start) war you're no saner than if you love murder. In spite of social and political pretenses, you are no credit to your country or family. The uniforms may look good and the madmen who embrace war may seem to be more handsome and worthy than you feel, but -- believe me -- nothing about rushing to war makes them better "patriots" than or morally superior to anyone else.
Quite the contrary. Instead of rushing up to a member of the military and saying "Thank you for your service," we should probably rush up with a straitjacket. Of course, if you hate war but believe you're just doing your duty, well, okay. But you're a patsy -- at best. We owe you rehab, counseling, help, pity. If you think I'm kidding, think again.
That said, Nicholas Kristof recognizes that if our political leadership deliberately tips our nation over the edge into the insanity of war, they're leaving us with a huge responsibility and some really bad choices. The crime having been designed and carried out , we can't just pick up our guns in Afghanistan and go home. Kristof is right about that.
Steven Simon, a National Security Council official in the Clinton years who is now a terrorism expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that there may be more Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, Yemen and perhaps Somalia than in Afghanistan.
“I’m skeptical that the war in Afghanistan is going to solve the Al Qaeda problem,” he said.
That’s not to say we should pull out, and it’s a false choice to suggest that we should either abandon Afghanistan or double down. A pullout would be a disastrous signal of American weakness and would destabilize Pakistan.
My suggestion is that we scale back our aims, for Afghanistan is not going to be a shining democracy any time soon. We should keep our existing troops to protect the cities (but not the countryside), while ramping up the training of the Afghan Army — and helping it absorb more Pashtuns to increase its legitimacy in the south. We should negotiate to peel off some Taliban commanders and draw them over to our side, while following the old Afghan tradition of “leasing” those tribal leaders whose loyalties are for rent. More aid projects, with local tribal protection, would help, as would job creation by cutting tariffs on Pakistani and Afghan exports.
Remember also that the minimum plausible cost of 40,000 troops — $10 billion — could pay for two million disadvantaged American children to go to a solid preschool. The high estimate of $40 billion would, over 10 years, pay for almost half of health care reform. Are we really better off spending that money so that more young Americans could end up spilling their blood in Afghanistan without necessarily accomplishing much more than inflaming Pashtun nationalism?
Max Boot is a famous warrior/madman. A senior fellow at the CFR, he can be relied on to trumpet the need for troops and surges. Just press his button. Evidently General Petraeus relies on him to get the word out about the importance of surging. Here's his latest argument for a surge. Read it and haul out the straitjacket.
During 10 days spent in Afghanistan at the invitation of Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, I observed that a difficult task has been further complicated by the checkered results of the Afghan election. But what seems to be conspicuously absent from the conversation in the United States is the realization that Afghanistan’s corruption problem, like its security problem, can be best addressed by additional troops. ... ... Poor governance is an argument for, not against, a troop surge. Only by sending more personnel, military and civilian, can President Obama improve the Afghan government’s performance, reverse the Taliban’s gains and prevent Al Qaeda’s allies from regaining the ground they lost after 9/11. ... NYT
