This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Endless War Is a Feature – Not a Bug – of U.S. Policy

George Washington's picture




 

We are in the middle of a perpetual series of wars. See this, this, this and this.

As just one example, in 2010 the war in Afghanistan became the longest war in U.S. history.  But - no matter what you've heard - there are no plans to get out any time soon.

As Glenn Greenwald notes today:

Despite the happy talk from [the Pentagon's top lawyer, the war on terror] is not ending soon. By its very terms, it cannot. And all one has to do is look at the words and actions of the Obama administration to know this.

 

In October, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the administration was instituting a “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of, all based on this fact: “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

 

The polices adopted by the Obama administration just over the last couple of years leave no doubt that they are accelerating, not winding down, the war apparatus that has been relentlessly strengthened over the last decade. In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.

 

Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent?

Why is the war of terror being waged indefinitely?

Many have said that “war is the health of the state”,  and Thomas Paine wrote in the Rights of Man:

In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.

George Washington – in his farewell address of 1796 – said:

Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty.

James Madison said:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Greenwald noted in October:

As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:

“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”

In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant.

Indeed, top American military officials and national defense experts say that our specific actions in the “war on terror” are creating more terrorists and more war.

As Greenwald points out today, the endless nature of the war on terror is a feature, not a bug:

There’s a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs.

 

***

 

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question – and it’s becoming less of a question for me all the time – is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

 

It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this – or, more accurately, because of it – they continue with these policies.

 

***

 

There is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war. Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges).

 

***

 

If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.

 

Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was – “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22″ – the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).

 

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically unforgivable.

 

But the notion that the US government is even entertaining putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

Indeed,  the American government has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade.  See thisthis, this, this and this.

(Remember, if there aren’t scary enough enemies in real life, we’ve got to create them.  Oops … did I say that out loud?)

And the American government lies – and even kills its own – to justify new wars.

Top American economists say that endless war has ruined our economy.  It benefits a handful of elites, while levying a tax on the vast majority of Americans.

Congress members – part of the super-elite which has made money hand over fist during this economic downturn – are heavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

No wonder the American government is making the state of war permanent, and planning to unleash new, widespread  wars in the near future.

Postscript: Under Bush, it was the "war on terror". Obama has re-branded the perpetual fighting as "humanitarian war".

But - underneath the ever-changing marketing and branding campaign - it's really just the good 'ole military-industrial-and-banking complex consolidating their power and making money hand over fist.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:47 | 3127012 Element
Element's picture

Realistically you'd get hundreds of pulses over several days to weeks, in numerous geographical locations, with numerous repeat pulses, to ensure comms and sensors remained inoperative, and the EM noise-floor remained elevated. Thinking in terms of one pulse is nonsense. Each side, especially the Russians, didn't build so many excess heavy missiles and high-yield weapons for no purpose. For certain, everything electronic will be going out of commission. Various types of systems, circuits and antennas, transmission lines and underground cables may survive the electrical shock of one pulse, but they are extremely unlikely to survive ten. The Russians actually conducted a single full-scale high-yield EMP test over fairly undeveloped Kazakhstan in the 1950s, and from memory an electrical power cable buried one meter underground over 1,500 kms (actually, I think it was 1,500 miles radius) radial-distance from the epicenter of the detonation melted, fused, burned and junctions exploded. The US did it as well, but over the Pacific. Triggered an intense global auroral display at both poles too, and the ionosphere visibly glowed over a very large area for hours before the electron glow slowly but visibly slipped polewards along the geomagnetic field lines.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 09:24 | 3126795 Element
Element's picture

I'm well aware of the matters regarding disarmament staging, but you're completely fooling yourself about reliability, effectiveness or readiness. Russian operational hardware today is fully-functional and well-maintained. This isn't the end of the Soviet-era any more, their most capable hardware has no lack of credibility, nor of extensive test demonstrations. I could just as foolishly and pointlessly refer you to failures of US nuclear missiles, in service, and in tests over the years, lots of them, but I have more brains than to assume missile failures and decay of components are anything but a routine part of the risks and factors of operation. It wouldn't for one moment mean that the operator was incapable of flinging more than enough warheads in very short order.

But why the hell are you asking me about fucking nihilism, why don't you go ask one, I'm not engaging in hypotheticals and ridiculous strawmen propositions. You seem stuck in a sunshine-'n-lollipops version of selective-reality and monumental naivety, where all the well-known and documented sociopathic butchers, that gained power in modern hystery and knowingly murdered tens of millions, simply didn't exist.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 11:49 | 3126968 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I agree, what is left is more than sufficient and efficient - still "MAD"

was just wondering if you knew about that part of the long story

sorry, I should have posed the "nihilism" a bit differently - I forget quite often that "straw man" are considered impolite, here, and I still haven't understood completely why

let me put it a bit more boldly: imho, nobody on this planet excluding some English-speaking exceptions espects a Nuclear Armageddon

I mean by that: it's an isolated cultural phenomenon, this exceptation. I'm not attacking it's validity, here, just noting something

like a "School of Tought", if you want

as my observation/opinion from the last exchange, that power makes optimistic and is a strong block to red button pressing

just a question: how likely do you see a nuclear war? something that would terrify me, like two percent of chances, every year?

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:06 | 3126997 Element
Element's picture

Tell it to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:28 | 3127034 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

who are in the same ranks of the slaughtered by gassing in WWI, the last time we made big chemical wars

we had this argument, I maintain that we don't make the same big mistake very often, but plenty of new big mistakes

and I don't count inflation of the monetary base to this category, btw, that's a recurring one

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 22:19 | 3127106 Element
Element's picture

Irrational theoretical garbage and committed denial is what it really is.

Chemical gases have been used since - several times!

Just days ago there was another direct threat to use them again.

http://rt.com/news/syria-fsa-chemical-weapons-229/

And that's why M.A.D. will fail, because there will be exceptions, given enough time.

Now would you piss-off with this bullshit line of theory.

 

--

 

EDIT: Verified use of chemical weapons in combat during the 1980s - note that Iran still didn't use any in return fire. there have been multiple instances uses of these weapons since 1925.

 

"Allegations
There have been reports of chemical warfare from the Gulf War since the early months of Iraq s invasion of Iran. In November 1980, Tehran Radio was broadcasting allegations of Iraqi chemical bombing at Susangerd. Three and a quarter years later, by which time the outside world was listening more seriously to such charges, the Iranian Foreign Minister told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that there had been at least 49 instances of Iraqi chemical-warfare attack in 40 border regions, and that the documented dead totalled 109 people, with hundreds more wounded. He made this statement on 16 February 1984, the day on which Iran launched a major offensive on the central front, and one week before the start of offensives and counter-offensives further south, in the border marshlands to the immediate north of Basra where, at Majnoon Islands, Iraq has vast untapped oil reserves. According to official Iranian statements during the 31 days following the Foreign Minister's allegation, Iraq used chemical weapons on at least 14 further occasions, adding more than 2200 to the total number of people wounded by poison gas.
 
Verification
One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March. …"

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/chemical_warfare_iran_iraq_w...

"… and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Iraqi Kurds. At the time of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, due to various outside pressures, the statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and retrospective authors have claimed, "The international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian[s] as well as Iraqi Kurds. …"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 20:23 | 3126108 Satan
Satan's picture

Daddy?

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 14:12 | 3125223 Pseudo Anonym
Pseudo Anonym's picture

hmm,

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit ...

owners of the USG,...power, profit -> hofjuden, the owners of usg, who profit from these wars will not allow it to stop.  deal with it.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:38 | 3125209 Manthong
Manthong's picture

War on Poverty.. War on Drugs.. War on Terror..

Three strikes and you're out.

We are being gamed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoXwxqeVzg

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:35 | 3125203 Cycle
Cycle's picture

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

[first three paragraphs of chapter one - "War Is a Racket] 1935

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 14:08 | 3125383 Getting Old Sucks
Getting Old Sucks's picture

Right you are!

A couple of years ago, I researched how many years the U.S. went without any type of military action against other nations, including the U.S. civil war.  I counted just 34 calendar years (non consecutive of course), where we weren't shooting at someone.  We started with the Revolutionary War and just kept on and on and on.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 14:21 | 3125415 Cycle
Cycle's picture

With respect to Butler, he wrote about the baiting of the Japanese to war by the US in the 30's, and in 1935, fully expected another world war to break out in the no-so-distant future. He also had the temerity to point out that Germany in 1935 would have beena lot different if the "Allies" had given the German people a reasonable peace after WWI. WWII was the mother of all blowbacks.  But a good one if you profited from selling  arms and supplies.  I remember as a young lad wondering why Bofors cannons were used by both sides in WWII....

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:27 | 3125193 hankwil74
hankwil74's picture

War is Peace

Ignorance is Strength

Freedom is Slavery

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:22 | 3125186 Salon
Salon's picture

Some progressives find my pacifist beliefs to be in conflict with my huge (legal) arsenal and willingness to use it without hesitation in the right circumstances.

Those who understand liberty and our founding fathers see no inconsistency

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 01:01 | 3126559 knukles
knukles's picture

Progressives have no beliefs remaining in concert with basic ethical, moral or civil principles.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:17 | 3125178 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

War is an easy sell and a game for those not in the trenches on the front lines - I saw the way generals lived in Vietnam, a chance to get away from the wife and kids and have a 20 year old housemaid who did more than cleaning...

 

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
 
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:12 | 3125171 chunga
chunga's picture

The "Pentagon's top lawyer"?

That's really creepy. Orlov's "Reinventing Collapse" is a very good read in my humble opinion. Great post GW.

It may appear that the US military is not capable of prevailing over any enemy, no matter how badly armed, demoralized or minuscule. While the Koreans and the Vietnamese were formidable, the US military could not bring to heel even the starving Somalis with their pickup trucks full of narcotic cud-chewing, Kalashnikov-toting youths. Nor could they pacify the Iraqis, even after softening them up with bombs and sanctions for more than a decade. There is one notable exception. If we look at any of the military conflicts that involved the US military since World War II, there is one that stands out as a complete success: the liberation of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. There, valiant American troops dislodged an unsavory and frightening Marxist regime which was supported by Cuba and Nicaragua and replaced it with a democratic, pro-American regime, much to the satisfaction of Grenada’s Caribbean neighbors and cruising yachtsmen alike. The Soviets never learned their lesson in Afghanistan. The slow, relentless, senseless carnage of that war did much to tarnish the image of the Red Army, which was until then still regarded as the people’s champion for defeating Hitler and for standing up to the Americans. It took the disaster of the two campaigns in Chechnya after the Soviet collapse for the message to finally sink in. Russia eventually got Chechnya under control, through political rather than military means. A military effort alone can never defeat a popular insurgency. The insurgents never have to win, they just have to continue to fight. In fighting them, the military is forced to fight the people of the country, and by perpetuating a state of war it continually thwarts its stated purpose, which is to establish peace. There is no room for victory in this scenario, but only for an ever-widening spiral of murder, hatred and shame.

 

The lesson that the United States desperately needs to learn is that their trillion-dollar-a-year military is nothing more than a gigantic public money sponge that provokes outrage among friends and enemies alike and puts the country in ill repute.

Orlov, Dmitry (2011-05-31). Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects (Kindle Locations 844-857). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:01 | 3125153 pine_marten
pine_marten's picture

The liberals are still having wet dreams and spontaneous orgasms when they think of Obama. As long as the womb bosses and homophobes are defeated in elections they are content. Self delusional does not begin to describe them. And nowhere is this insanity more apparent than in academia where there are supposed to be great minds and deep thinkers. What tragic fools they are.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:29 | 3125194 hankwil74
hankwil74's picture

Damn those women for not wanting to be forced to carry a child they don't want for 9 1/2 months and then deliver it.  And while we're at it, damn those homosexuals for wanting to have the same rights as everyone else.  Who the hell do they think they are?!?

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:42 | 3127064 Random
Random's picture

A heartfelt fuck you very much, retard, i didn't even junked you btw. The issue with gays is not about having the same rights as everyone else, is the "need of being recognized as normal". Well, fuck you, getting it up the ass is not normal any way you slice it, so yeah, fuck you again! Picture yourself trying to kiss any man as you'd do to a girl and if that doesn't triggers nausea, you must be crazy in the head. Call it what you want but that is anything but normal (no pun intended).

Regarding abortions...1st. fuck you; 2nd. don't kill;

Regarding pregnancy: it only takes close to or very very close to 9 months, not 9 1/2 months you not so pleasant person you!

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:45 | 3125229 pine_marten
pine_marten's picture

Say Hank - I despise the womb bosses and homophobes.  My point is one that should not be hard to see.  Both parties are hideous.  Those stuck in the binary ford vs. chevy mindset are the major impediment to a solution. 

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 11:33 | 3126944 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

If you believe both parties are hideous then say so instead of focusing on the bad behavior of 1

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:48 | 3125145 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

Afghanistan is NOT the USA's longest war. The Indian Wars are. We were at war with the American Indian from colonial times until about 120 years ago. The terror war is very similar to the Indian Wars, except that it is global and the Muslim insurgent forces have major foreign backers.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 12:33 | 3127043 Random
Random's picture

GTFO Nazi knave!

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 16:55 | 3125672 onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

but which one did Congress declare?

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:44 | 3125183 Blazed
Blazed's picture

Yeah, they have major US/UK/Israeli military and banking backers, priming and supporting radical muslim groups around the world. You can shove that crap up your Mossad pipe and smoke it. If it weren't for the same Soros/Rothschild backed crony bureauocrats/lobbyists promoting the flood of muslim and other third world immigration in the West and promoting isolated terrorist groups, we wouldn't have much problem with them.

 

Here is the real global problem, pushing to destabilize and divide, and they work at it large and small player alike, almost as a collective group hive. Let's see her work for that multicultural mess in her precious Israel, where they are rounding up 50K+ third worlders and immediately shipping them out to protect their racial/ethnic identity and culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug

Watch what they do, it's not what they promote elswhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/20/israel-netanyahu-african-imm...

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:38 | 3125136 Blazed
Blazed's picture

Why exit Afghanistan when the war profiteers have a nice 1-2 Billion/year in drug trade profits locked in and all the drone/army toys they could ever want. 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:39 | 3125131 Keith Piccirillo
Keith Piccirillo's picture

I just finished reading "Occupy World Street" and it had a good chapter 8, entitled "Who Is In Charge" on our perpetual war.

 

 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:13 | 3125106 nmewn
nmewn's picture

They're just giving the people what they clamor for GW...war & welfare.

You see, if you CREATE a crisis you also create an issue people will scream to have addressed by their government and its central bank via its printing press. It matters not whether its a War on Poverty, War on Drugs or...a War on Terror.

The winners and losers will always remain the same.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:16 | 3125177 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

still, youve made the my cavaet for me and i saulte you :)

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:42 | 3125326 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Yes.

The manipulation of the publics fears, anxieties, envy...even goodwill & caring should always be guarded against when brought before you in the context of the state. These are all potential emotional avenues of attack on our liberty, freedom & property.

To my way of thinking, the welfare addict is just as harmful to our society as the crony CEO of GE or Solyndra.

There's really no difference, only the scale of the theft.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 16:25 | 3125574 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

"To my way of thinking, the welfare addict is just as harmful to our society as the crony CEO of GE or Solyndra."

Sometimes I wake to the nightmare of being dragged out of my car and limbs torn off....for the sin of a Ron Paul bumper sticker. lol

The mob WANTS tyranny.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 17:28 | 3125772 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

The mob has no idea what is going on. The problem is that they are willfully ignorant at this point and for this, we are all going to pay.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 18:17 | 3125876 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

I think the mob knows exactly that their free sh*t, outlandish promises and .gov contracts are threatened.  The more this fear is played upon the greater their acceptance of any Overlord/tyranny - as long as the bread and circuses flow..

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:16 | 3125176 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

indeed sir,

WORKING AS INTENDED

but i suppose this is also somewhat implicit in GW's running thesis with such postings - i can imagine he agrees

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:54 | 3125098 Element
Element's picture

I think the definition of 'war' is much too broad and abused these days, over-dramatized and hyped even by the use of the word. About 99% of what is lumped-in as 'war' is more-or-less the product of ham-fisted occupations and various dumb-brutalizing actions that invite, incite and demand sustained local resistance. Well duh. It's not hard to work out why they shoot at you. It will end when the occupation ends - thus it's an occupation. That doesn't mean it won't remain unstable. They always remain unstable and take a few decades to settle down.

But you only need to compare deaths and injuries (despite medical and force-protection advances) to see the qualitative and quantitative difference between a stand-up war and an occupation with low-level resistance and a small organized insurgency.

Korea was the last serious sustained stand-up intense fight that the West experienced, but even Korea was passed-off at the time in the media as a "UN Policing Action". Even though it was actually a no BS-ing war. Vietnam was deadly, certainly, it did have major battles. But it was mostly Gulf of Tonkin incited false flag that turned into a strung-out series of extremely dumb and unfortunate acts, some done quite on purpose, and many done through a combination of pure ignorance and staggering hubris, and an inability to admit failure and defeat.

More often than not recently the 'enemy' turns out to be 'friendly' mentored troops deciding they want these fucking occupiers encouraged to leave immediately.

Now how is that a 'war'?

So the endless-'war' notion, and the figures about the durations, make little sense to me.  Mostly it's just endless empire domineering. Which is not surprising when the entire paradigm of the Pentagon is Global Dominance and unrestricted hegemony and coercion. How about we call actual war phase, 'the war', and the other stuff what it in fact is. Otherwise we confuse the issues entirely, and play into the hands of propaganda and dramatic spin, especially in the MSM and politics.

 

BTW, no disrespect is intended to anyone via the above remarks.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:09 | 3125165 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

I get what you are trying to say. I think the author uses "war" mainly because this is how his intended audience preceives it. Most Americans are not willing to admit that the USA is an empire, and that the dollar system is the ultimate symbol of our dominance over other nations. To wit, the Iraq war and coming Iran war are based on either nation's refusal of our dollars.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:27 | 3125307 Element
Element's picture

The dollar is significant, yes, but with Iran it goes deeper than the dollar, or resources. It's geo-strategic. Iran is actually already out of bounds but Obama and his fellow power-trippers, and sycophants in Europe, plus that hapless clown in Israel, just don't understand it, or don't want to admit it.

The potential is real that Iran will at some point pull the rug out, they already warned in early 2012 that it will do this. They consider the sanctions an act of war and that Iran is going to prevent oil flowing to the countries that imposed sanctions on it. I don't think they're kidding. Everyone just assumed they'd either do it right away or not at all, and when they didn't, they assumed that they won't, that they were bluffing. But that's a completely childish moronic viewpoint, thoroughly unrealistic. They'll do it when they are ready, because that's what any professional military would do in this situation. When they act it will be because they have the conditions desired. It can not be that the US Navy has Admirals who don't fully grasp what this will kick off, or who don't properly understand that they can't keep Hormuz open if the Iranians want it closed.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 22:05 | 3126288 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

Well done Element

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 18:46 | 3125921 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

I agree with you.I also agree with the Iranians that the sanctions are an act of war.

Also that they will strike when they are ready, and catch the US Navy Admirls with their pants

down trying to re fight WWII, in spite of themselves.

Hormuz is an Iranian killing field in advanced preparation., and a test bed for Russian and Chinese

weapons designed for use against the US forces.

Very large casualties will result,followed by a rapid  escalation to nukes initiated by the US or Israel.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 20:51 | 3126176 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Mind you the "opinion" of may US MSM channels is that China poses "No Significant Threat" to the USA - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/relax-chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-of-junk/all/ , and other equally dismissive articles.

As long as "The People" can reest assured that their comfortable, Planetary-resource-stripping lifestyles will continue all will be well.

Nothng quite like hubris with a big dose of complacency to lead to serious military failures - which may be coming to the USA sooner than the people would like.

The Russians are not stupid, neither are the Chinese. They are not called "The Inscrutable Chinee" for no reason.

Never, NEVER underestimate your opponent, ESPECIALLY the nation that wrote the Art of War!!

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 00:07 | 3126458 Element
Element's picture

All the Sanctions have done is to turn Europe away and Asia towards Iran, and likewise, Iran towards Asia. This is about as counterproductive as you could get, but the people responsible for the sanctions, and the unaffordably duplicitous moron signing them into 'law', don't give fig about any of that:

--

Asia is Purchasing Nearly all of Iran’s Oil
 
By Zachary Keck
 
January 5, 2013
 
Four Asian countries are now purchasing nearly all of Iran’s oil exports according a report this week from the Economist’s Intelligence Unit (EIU).
 
“Almost all of Iran's oil exports now go to China, South Korea, Japan and India,” the report said even as it noted a sharp decline in the amount of oil each country purchased from Iran during 2012.
 
Iran’s oil exports have been cut in half as a result of U.S. and EU sanctions that were enacted last year to pressure Tehran into making concessions on its nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at acquiring a nuclear weapons capability but Iran claims is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
 
http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2013/01/05/asia-is-purchasing-nearl...

--

How Europe figures it can burn its bridges like that is fascinating to watch though. What incredible fools and traitors infest Western democracies, to allow such stupidity to prevail in the face of material facts, and to allow duel-citizen financialists, advisers and political puppet masters to keep shoving the knife in deeper.

Asia will eventually buy whatever oil is available from Iran, as Iran are the real gate keepers and military controllers of Hormuz access, and to the Gulf's terminals - it actually is not the US Navy who controls this.

As that understanding is more fully digested, and it's realized Iran can not just be picked-off or cowered by Washington's subversion/infiltration/terrorism-support elsewhere in the region, then Iran's oil production and export potential will be quickly fully-absorbed by Asia, and it will remain so.

The resulting sanctions failure will be another sign of the feckless stupidity and rampant loss of credibility and trust in Washington''s leadership in world affairs, or of being a 'protector' of Asian stability and interests. Instead the opposite view is coming to the fore that the US is also a counterproductive entity, just as likely to seriously impair Asia and bring war to it, as to stabilize it. This is the sort of thing that will put the US on the outer as Asia consolidates its own linkages to stabilize itself against any one power.

This 'pivot to Asia' is going to fall on stoney-ground, if the counterproductive stupidity continually displayed by the clown in the white house continues. In the end even Australia and Japan will go with protecting its Asian neighbors interests and needs, as opposed to going along with gross idiocy emanating from Washington. Gushy feel-good words from a teleprompter don't mean shit to anyone.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 09:07 | 3126797 GCT
GCT's picture

Element well stated.  The Asian countries already told this administration to take a hike, thus the waivers.  These waivers of course were granted to these countries to make us look like we were being nice just before said countries told the USA outright they were not going to play by the USA's global reach (bullying) and wil continue to buy the oil. 

I look for the rhetoric to gear back up as the elections are now over.  I think we overstepped our bounds by cutting Iran off of SWIFT.  A new system has come into play disregarding the petro dollar as the main game player now.  Countries are tired of our game and will trade in their own currencies and gold.  This is already happening.  Soverign countries are tired of our meddling in their affairs especially when it come to their energy needs.  I think we made a grave error thinking we could cut Iran off.   Totally agree Iran can close the straits at their choosing.  Although a wide strait it is shallow and sinking an empty oil tanker woud stop 60% of the world oil supply from moving around the world.

I am waiting for the rhetoric to gear back up and then watch how it unfolds.  Someone is going to put a nuke in play and sink an American fleet and all hell will break loose or they will fire many hypersonic missles at us and all hell will break loose.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 11:37 | 3126924 Element
Element's picture

Well, I don't know of anyone who has operational hypersonic missiles. There are claims by some but they are false. The Indians for instance like to claim to have a 'hypersonic' anti-ship cruise missile, but it is a Mach 2.7 weapon and that is waaaaay short of hypersonic. There are fighter jets that can go about that fast in afterburner. Hypersonic begins at about 3 times faster than that, and up.  We're probably minimum of 10 years away from actual operational hypersonic missiles and drones at present.

As for nukes, they would only be necessary if there was no negotiated settlement with Iran forthcoming (and fairly rapidly) to get Hormuz re-opened via sanctions being removed, and all war-like hostilities with the US, and also across the Persian Gulf, fully ceasing and NATO and US forces withdrawn.

But after that the US currency would still be in doubt of course, probably much more-so, as would various US alliance relationships, which would be intensively reviewed, and the US global strategic position would be seriously undermined and impaired.

As for Iran such a repudiation and assertion of its rights to defense would be very costly, but also quite likely to be successful. Their own strategic position would be greatly consolidated, thereafter, and their diplomatic and trade position also greatly bolstered. So if they, "do a Gaza", just dig in and go for it then weather whatever the US and NATO throw at them, then they'll most likely come out clearly on top, after the dust settles.

And that's why it's likely they will do this. And all the signals given and warnings issued have been met with increasing sanctions and unreasonable belligerence. So the Iranians will prepare and they will go all-in, to break the US's position wide open, and maximize the strategic, economic, financial and alliance damage, and the degree of mortification, failure and demoralization felt in Washington.

Of course, there's no reason for people to die just to get that result, as a lot of non-combatants will suffer and die from it. But frankly, for Iran, the outcome of such a battle is NET much better than the outcome of having no battle.

Mon, 01/07/2013 - 11:02 | 3129350 GCT
GCT's picture

Agree Element.  Go hit Jane's defense weekly and search the missles.  They are indeed in development and the Navy is indeed worried about them.  Not sure if they are manufactured yet.

I thought China had indeed touted their missle was production.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:04 | 3125094 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

GW - stay away from hot tubs, and try not to shoot yourself in the head multiple times.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:17 | 3125180 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

yes, exactly.

try not to shoot yourself in the back 20 times and then jump out a window :/

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 22:42 | 3126348 NeedtoSecede
NeedtoSecede's picture

Somewhat OT, but where does Hillary's "blood clot" fall on this sprectrum? Obviously not as serious as multiple self-inflicted gun shot wounds to the head, but I would be interested to hear from ZHers on the series of unfortunate health issues our fine Sec. State had experienced.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 09:54 | 3125020 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

I agree the banking cartel and not the Government is the big winner in this rather unique combination of war and a bailout regime. We also should be clear about how this war has changed. Originally it was limited and not to be "a war on Islam"...but it has morphed into an outright war on the totality of Islam...something "pap smear" here seems unwilling to admit. I don't believe the US is conducting the war in this way...in fact the basic Bush policy of respect for local customs and control still seems in tact...but the policy which still remains completely opaque in my view...has obviously been fundamentally altered under this Administration with their "secret plan to give Wall Street even more money."

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:16 | 3125149 Element
Element's picture

That's not right, if it were an outright war there would be 10 to 50 million dead by now. The numbers of dead of Muslims in Afghanistan are low considering how long that's been going on. Elsewhere it's considerably worse, and that's mostly Arab on Arab, and Islam on Islam. No disrespect to you but we need to keep a clear picture of the scale of what's happening and who's doing it. Yes, the West is seriously meddling, but others are more than keen to get into it as well.

Islam is all over South Asia and South East Asia and there is little to no conflict occurring in most places. And certainly the West is not attacking Muslims anywhere. What we do have though is a high-degree of peace and mutual defense agreements and abundant cooperation and excellent relations.

The Arabian Arabs are being a pain in the ass, because they are radical extremists, and the south Asian Muslims likewise, and the US/NATO/Israel are screwing with them in numerous ways to make them weaker and more divided, less of a viable organized challenge. When destroyed and fragmented to hell the main game is to limit Chinese and Russian geopolitical influence. The problem is those who are being destroyed also know the bigger game being played. But Iran probably can't be taken down at all, and it will be backed by Russia and China. Especially China, as they will definitely regard the closing of Hormuz a defacto act of war by the US, Europe and Israel, against China. But India, Japan, Taiwan and Korea will also simultaneously go absolutely apeshit over it as well. As will most of the countries in between.

Frankly, the US and NATO would seriously regret an attack on Iran that closed Hormuz. It would sew spectacular levels of lasting damage to allied and otherwise friendly relations with almost all of Asia. You couldn't get more dumb than that. And yet Obama keeps trying to increase the preparatory high-intensity sanctions, which are undeniably engineered as a fore-runner to a major war with Iran.

Does he think Asia is going to thank him? Just say, well, that's OK Barry, we don't need energy, you do whatever you want there. No, instead they'll probably seriously consider destroying the US strategic reserve with nukes, and at the very least they'll go after the US fleet in the Indian Ocean with nukes. And the US and European financial systems would be crippled and destroyed by an endless series of electronic attacks.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!