‘Geopolitical tensions’ are not why we have recently invaded, overthrew and occupied so many non-offending foreign sovereigns. And neither are ‘righting an injustice’, nor ‘terrorism’. Those may be what is fed to MainStream Media, and they may buy in, but they are not the reasons.
We The People backed both Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad for decades, while they were indisputably sponsoring bad guys and/or doing bad things. No, there has to be more to the story of when and why we overthrow governments. Recently declassified US documents finally show what we all knew about the Shah of Iran’s installation:
And then what we already knew about our support of Saddam gassing Iran:
And then General Wesley Clark tells us Wars Were Planned: Seven Countries In Five Years…shortly after 9/11:
Gen Clark admits why in the above video: “The truth about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa.”
It is not humanitarian to bomb people. That is why I oppose all acts of war except those to defend one’s sovereign property, including our current drone bombings in several countries, and our pending (imminent) stabilization/whatever of Syria. I have no clue why we have gone into most wars/police actions/whatevers of my lifetime, and in all likelihood I have no right to an answer…”terrorism”, no doubt stated, “empire” almost certainly the actual reason.
T. Boone Pickens recently had the gall to say that US for-profit entities are ‘Entitled’ to Iraqi oil. Pickens is arrogant and wrong. The FIRST oil profits from Iraq should pay back IN FULL We The People who funded Iraq’s overthrow and monumental wealth redistribution. Otherwise, the whole exercise was no more than a massive corporate welfare giveaway to global corporate campaign donors. But it does not appear to be going my way so far:
“Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000. The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.” ~ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
That development compliments this graphic:
(Update: March 4, 2014) Flash forward to Ukraine, 2014. Here’s an eerily similar map:
The motivation has been far removed from mere nationalism, the results far from limited to political favor points of any participant or supporting government. The global energy lobby has locked Ukraine into its profits. Now, Russia has to occupy, the US must counter. The only sure losers are earth’s people. The only sure winners: the global energy lobby. All else: who knows, but it matters only peripherally.
We can have a strong defensive military, without the extreme offensive military demanded by the war profiteers who own both of our political parties. But you can’t have an $800B annual military budget, when its only justification is strong defense.
The Political Class has benefitted from our recent acts of aggression, in the form of an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. They do so from my investment, and I am sick of paying for it. #FixOurBridges instead.
@NBCNews today: 79% percent of Americans want Pres. Obama to get Congressional approval on #Syria http://nbcnews.to/15DQ6HU
We should send humanitarian aide, if needed. We should also follow the US Constitution, and seek Congressional approval for any act of war. We should, then, upon We The People agreeing that we need to spend this exorbitant amount of cash right now, tax and ration our current resources, in real-time to sacrifice for it. Our Commander-in-Chief, though, should refrain from proposing acts of war for anything except to defend our nations borders from harm. If not because most of us (overwhelmingly) prefer that, then because our bridges are breaking and we can’t afford to police the planet.
In some cases arming “the insurgents” is wise; in Syria, there are over 1,000 different militias, and almost all hate almost all the others almost as much as they do Western (OK, US and British) governments. Nothing to gain, much to lose.
Plus: aren’t we too broke to pay for bridges and kindergarten? I personally don’t think we are, as covered previously on this site:
, but that is the consensus of our leadership.
Look: I am a law-abiding gun owner. I disagree with many Americans and often. I do so peacefully and (when possible) without getting (too) snippy. I would use that gun to defend your shores, as they are our son’s as well. I oppose marching into yet another place most Americans couldn’t find on a map, and know nothing about, to liberate/stabilize/whatever. Nope, not ironic…downright American, I’d say.
Then why do We The People continue to do it?
The tightrope that is Mid-Eastern politics is a football game of mult-billionaires, as this one of many excellent analyses explains:
Fine. Then let the billionaires fight the endless battles…or at least hire the people to do it.
Still, the US Fourth Estate is predictably and dutifully drumming up support. Even small-town local columnist, whose perceptions are roundly seen as mediocre at best, PennLive’s Robert Vickers:
I’m unclear what leads Vickers to believe that any US involvement outside its borders unprovoked, with or without a ” contemplative approach” – which I take to mean seeking versus not seeking Congressional approval – will have on the “credence to the claim that the U.S. bullies the Muslim world”.
If another country invaded/stabilized/liberated us or whatever, I don’t think my perception of that country’s actions would be altered by what internal, voluntary protocol it followed beforehand.
I believe that perception will be the same, regardless how the US invades. The only thing that would alter that is if we would stay home.
In Orwell’s 1984, three power centers continually warred. They did this only to perpetuate war. This activity required the economies of the planet to be devoted to war and war making. Such care was taken to ensure the battlefront was kept remote from the economic centers driving the wars, that most of the populations lived their whole lives never seeing a battle, a severed arm or an orphaned child.
The result was a planet of paranoid inhabitants who spent every moment of their lives hating and doing all they could to perpetuate Endless War against folks they had almost no interaction with or knowledge about. The three power centers continually shifted; to not shift would mean two of the allies – none of which could defeat any one of the others – would eventually emerge victorious. None of the power centers wanted or could tolerate that: their economies and locks on control would falter.
Around the time 1984 was written, Republican POTUS Eisenhower warned us not to enable the military:industrial complex to acquire political power. He said they would use that validation to corrupt and cripple our political process and control our economies.
Here we are a half century later. Maj. General Stewart gets it:
…but misreads his own conclusion. Do enough readers understand the scenarios laid out equally and accurately by Orwell, Eisenhower and Stewart? Or will we misinterpret his otherwise excellent analysis as Stewart himself does: as evidence that one group of people must be stopped, and that this can only be done by an ever-shifting alliance of other groups? We shall see, or we shall continue to define and redefine that ‘Group Who Must Be Stopped’, choosing that ever-changing Group from only among those with which we have almost no interaction or knowledge about.
If we are willing to call out and fix this dizzying revolving door of allies, enemies then allies again tirelessly fearing and hating yesterday’s allies (today’s enemy), we must take some steps. None will be easy, as all will be resisted by The Political Class, who depends on this Endless War to consolidate the power and wealth of the world’s commonwealth. First, disconnect for-profit financing from the selection of our public servants. The obvious conflict of interest was apparent to Eisenhower, and should still be to us. Nothing following will be allowed to happen, without breaking this chain. Secondly, each nation must commit to limiting itself to a strong defensive military, providing humanitarian aide as it can, and never intervening in a remote civil war. Intervening in civil wars must only be done by majority of the world, never unilaterally in one nation’s interests, which are always and only financial and political.