There is no reflexively pro-war Blob, says Blob
By 
Sarah Lyall has an entertaining, semi-critical analysis of The Blob that for me if anything affirms the usefulness of the concept. The key are the quote from parties who find it offensive:
Let’s have a serious conversation about American policy, says a man whose position on Afghanistan is that the United States should have somehow broken its withdrawal agreement with the Taliban while magically not escalating military conflict with the Taliban pic.twitter.com/mmpFd5pOaO— Tom Scocca (@tomscocca) September 17, 2021
I’m particularly amazed by Kori Schake’s assertion that critics of the Blob have been “ineffective in persuading people.” The Blob’s disastrously failed Afghanistan project is about as popular with the public as cancer of the rectum. Biden went ahead with the pullout. Who are they persuading here, exactly? This is a top-down project (that has been wrong with remarkable consistency) all the way, and they don’t like being called The Blob because the term captures it so effectively.
Exactly — the Blob constantly lied about both their ultimate objectives and the conditions in Afghanistan because they NEVER had popular support for a long-term occupation and they knew it https://t.co/Vi4xqA37bQ— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) September 18, 2021
…as McAllen says, there’s also a classic “this, but unironically” moment:
“What I find troubling about the idea of the Blob is that it taps into this old conspiratorial mind-set about what produces American foreign policy,” Mr. Brands said. “It makes it seem that American foreign policy has been so disastrous and foolish that it must have been foisted on the American people by some elite that doesn’t have their best interests at heart.”