For What, All These Wars?
ANGLO AMERICA, 5 Mar 2012
Patrick J. Buchanan - LewRockwell
“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. … I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.”
As President Obama sent this letter of apology to Hamid Karzai for the burning by U.S. troops of Qurans that were used to smuggle notes between Afghan prisoners, two U.S. soldiers were murdered in reprisal.
Saturday, a U.S. colonel and a major working in the Interior Ministry were shot dead by an Afghan protesting the desecration of the Islamic holy book. All U.S. officers have been pulled out of the ministries in Kabul.
Sunday, seven U.S. troops on base were wounded by a grenade.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. John Allen, commander in Afghanistan, have also offered their apologies.
Remarkable. After fighting for 10 years, investing $500 billion, and losing nearly 2,000 dead and many more wounded and maimed to save Afghanistan from a Taliban future, America is issuing apologies to the regime and people we are fighting and dying to defend?
And how has Obama’s apology been received?
Abdul Sattar Khawasi, a member of Parliament, stood with 20 other members to declare, “Americans are invaders, and jihad against Americans is an obligation.” He urged mullahs to “urge the people … to wage war against Americans.”
In what other war would we have tolerated this from an elected leader of a government we had sent an army of 100,000 to protect?
Undeniably, the soldiers who burned the Qurans blundered. Yet there is no evidence that it was malicious. If vandals desecrate a Bible in America, burning and replacing the holy book would not be regarded a valid excuse for mayhem and murder.
If Afghans cannot understand this mistake and have no other way to express their rage than rioting and ranting, “Death to America!” what kind of raw material are we working with in building a Western-style democracy in any foreseeable century?
Two pertinent questions needs to be put.
While keeping Afghanistan free of the Taliban is a desirable goal, what vital U.S. interest would be imperiled should the Taliban take over again, now that al-Qaida is largely gone?
What price in blood and billions should we expend on what appears a dubious enterprise at best – creating a pro-American democracy in a country that seems mired in some distant century?
It is time we took inventory of all of these wars we have fought since the Army of Desert Storm restored the emir of Kuwait to his throne.
That 1991 war was seen as a triumph of American arms and a model of the global cooperation to come in establishing the New World Order of George H.W. Bush.
But the savage sanctions we imposed on a defeated Iraq and the planting of U.S. bases on Saudi soil that is home to Mecca was a casus belli for Osama bin Laden. Ten years after the triumph of Bush I, he brought down the twin towers.
This atrocity caused us to plunge into Afghanistan to dump over the Taliban and eradicate or expel al-Qaida. We succeeded, then decided to stay on and build a nation. After 10 years, what have we accomplished to justify the immense price we have paid?
In 2003, George W. Bush, seeking to complete the work begun by his father, invaded Iraq. But Saddam had no role in 9/11 and was no threat to America. Iraq did not even have weapons of mass destruction.
Today, after eight years of war, 4,500 dead, 35,000 wounded and a trillion dollars sunk, the 15,000 Americans we left behind are largely holed up in the Green Zone, as Iraq descends into sectarian, civil and ethnic war.
What did it all profit us?
How goes Libya after the U.S.-NATO intervention to dethrone Moammar Gadhafi?
Here is the Rand Corp.’s Frederic Wehrey:
“A weak transitional government confronts armed militias. … Defiant young men with heavy weapons control Libya’s airports, harbors and oil installations. Tribes and smugglers rule desert areas south of the capital. Clashes among various militias for turf and political power rage. …
“Libya teeters dangerously on the brink.”
Now we see a push for intervention in Syria from Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. That would make us allies of al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, all of which also seek the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of a Sunni regime in Damascus.
But it is the clamor for a U.S. war on Iran that grows loudest.
But why, when the U.S. intelligence community still claims to have no hard evidence Iran has even decided to build a bomb?
Since Ronald Reagan went home, the United States has attacked or invaded Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and Libya.
How have Americans benefited from all this war? How have the Chinese suffered these 20 years by not having been in on the action?
______________________
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.
Copyright © 2012 Creators Syndicate
Go to Original – lewrockwell.com
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Regarding the above essay, let me discuss a few points as follows:
1. Replacing Old Models with New Ones:
Computer manufacturers replace the previous models with the new models every few months. That is how they make profit constantly. Microsoft “Windows,” for instance, is replaced with the new edition every three years. That is how Microsoft makes profit constantly. Camera companies, for instance, replace their previous digital professional cameras with the new models every four years. In addition, they launch minor-modified versions of the same model every year. That is how the camera companies make profit constantly. Apple’s “iPad,” for example, is replaced with a new model every year. Weapon production companies also need to replace their previous models of weapons with new models every few years to every few decades or so, depending on the nature and the price of the weapons. That is how they make profit constantly. But one of the main differences between the above mentioned civil product companies and military manufactures is that the latter need armed conflict so that the weapons will be purchased by the government and will be consumed.
When military industries are huge, they have enough political influence over politicians. So, the government helps the industries for their survival. How? The government makes armed conflict to provide the industries with the opportunities to consume the weapons. Military industries themselves cannot make armed conflict by themselves. It is the government that makes war or any other armed conflict to create opportunities to consume the weapons.
2. Armed Conflict as a Domestic Economic Issue:
The conventional peace studies focuses on solving conflict. One of the effective methods for conflict resolution is the TRANSCEND method. It seems to me, however, that the conventional peace studies did not focus enough on the fact that the government wants to make opportunities (i.e. armed conflict) to consume weapons. The government makes war, not just because they consider war as a means to solve the international conflict, but rather because they need to consume weapons. They need to help military industries. The “sale (and therefore consumption as well) of industrial products” is a matter of survival for any industries, including military industries as mentioned above. This is not a matter of international conflict. This is a “domestic economic issue.” Accordingly, it is out of scope of Clausewitz’s theory, out of scope of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.
What the government is implementing is the military industries version of the New Deal. Today, war is not just a means to solve international problems. War today is also a means to solve domestic economic problems as mentioned above. Without the consumption of a large amount of industrial products, the domestic economic cycle does not function properly. Military products are no exceptions. Please recall what I wrote in the first paragraph in this comment. Unfortunately for military industries, civilian consumers cannot help military industries, because civilians are not allowed to purchase military weapons. Only the government can help military industries, because the government is the only “legitimate purchaser/consumer of military weapons.”
Regarding that subject mentioned above, I recommend Mr. Alberto Portugheis’ book, “Dear Ahed: A Game of War and A Path to Peace.” This book analyzes and discusses such relevant issues very clearly and shows the author’s incredible insights on the issues and on things behind the issues as well. Mr. Alberto Portugheis, internationally respected peacemaker-pianist, contributes his comments to this TMS website very often.
My proposal: If the government needs to consume weapons after the purchase from military industries, it might be better for the government to organize war games regularly somewhere on the Moon or on Mars, for instance, and they should use robots to fight against each other. By doing so, no human lives will be lost and a huge amount of weapons will be consumed regularly. This is a realistic proposal because the United States, for instance, has already the technology to send robots and weapons to the Moon and/or to Mars. I do not say that this proposal is ideal but it is far better than killing people and creating decades-long agonies for the war-survivors. “Stop killing people” is the first step toward a better world/a better global village, anyway. Stop killing each other. Start loving each other. We are all brothers and sisters on this planet. What do you think?
3. One of the Main Agendas of the Contemporary Peace Studies:
The consumption of weapons is an essential part of the economic policy of the government today as mentioned. Accordingly, that can become one of the main agendas of the contemporary peace studies as well. Before accusing the government or military industries, those who are involved with peace studies must ask themselves if they are ready to present any solution or suggestion to the above mentioned contemporary agenda. The conventional peace studies has focused mainly on conflict resolution, while the contemporary peace studies is required to focus more on the domestic economic issues and policies, especially in relation to military industries that are an indispensable part of the economic-industrial structure of the nation today.
4. Plus Alpha:
By using this opportunity, let me quote a passage from Chapter 31 of “Tao Te Ching” (translated by Derek Lin). Learn from the teaching of an ancient sage, Lao Tzu.
“The military is a tool of misfortune
Not the tool of honorable gentlemen
When using it out of necessity
Calm detachment should be above all
Victorious but without glory
Those who glorify
Are delighting in the killing
Those who delight in killing
Cannot achieve their ambitions upon the world”
—–
May peace be with you. May the world be without weapons.