"Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon"
About this Quote
Ron Paul’s line is built like a trapdoor: it starts with the safest sentence in American politics - “supporting the troops” - and then yanks it away, treating the phrase not as patriotism but as a talking point engineered to shut down thought. The intent is confrontational and strategic. He’s not criticizing soldiers; he’s indicting the rhetorical shield that makes criticism of war feel socially or morally forbidden.
The subtext is a theory of how consent gets manufactured in wartime America. “Cliches” is doing heavy lifting: it suggests repetition without reflection, language so pre-approved it becomes a substitute for accountability. By framing these expressions as “designed to distract,” Paul implies deliberateness - not a cultural reflex, but a political technology. The real target is the machinery behind policy: “powerful special interests” that “benefit from war.” He’s pointing to the military-industrial ecosystem without needing to name contractors, lobbyists, or the revolving door. The accusation is that the incentives are misaligned: wars persist not because they’re winnable or necessary, but because they’re profitable and politically convenient.
Context matters. Coming out of the Iraq War’s mounting costs, shifting justifications, and declining public trust, Paul’s critique taps into a libertarian suspicion of state power and bipartisan interventionism. The closing claim - the war “will not end anytime soon” - isn’t prediction so much as indictment: if the drivers are structural (money, influence, narrative control), then moral appeals and symbolic gestures won’t stop it. The quote works because it reframes “support” as a rhetorical decoy and demands a harder question: who, exactly, is being served by endless war?
The subtext is a theory of how consent gets manufactured in wartime America. “Cliches” is doing heavy lifting: it suggests repetition without reflection, language so pre-approved it becomes a substitute for accountability. By framing these expressions as “designed to distract,” Paul implies deliberateness - not a cultural reflex, but a political technology. The real target is the machinery behind policy: “powerful special interests” that “benefit from war.” He’s pointing to the military-industrial ecosystem without needing to name contractors, lobbyists, or the revolving door. The accusation is that the incentives are misaligned: wars persist not because they’re winnable or necessary, but because they’re profitable and politically convenient.
Context matters. Coming out of the Iraq War’s mounting costs, shifting justifications, and declining public trust, Paul’s critique taps into a libertarian suspicion of state power and bipartisan interventionism. The closing claim - the war “will not end anytime soon” - isn’t prediction so much as indictment: if the drivers are structural (money, influence, narrative control), then moral appeals and symbolic gestures won’t stop it. The quote works because it reframes “support” as a rhetorical decoy and demands a harder question: who, exactly, is being served by endless war?
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Ron
Add to List
