The Thirty Years War (Part II)
America’s former Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, has stated that it will take 30 years for the United States and its “allies” to completely eradicate the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). On hearing this, the hearts of America’s armaments and munitions manufacturers, and their shareholders, must have leapt for joy.
Unfortunately, Mr. Panetta refrained from estimating the cost to US taxpayers for President Obama’s new Thirty Years War. It is known that the bill for the first full month came to $1.1 billion. Assuming no increase in spending, each year of this conflict would cost $13.2 billion, for a grand total of $396 billion over 30 years.
But, Mr. Panetta expressed agreement with General Martin Dempsey that expunging ISIL will require American “boots on the ground.” In which case, it might be that the war in Afghanistan (which, over a span of 12 years, cost US taxpayers an estimated $3 trillion) provides a superior paradigm for the price tag on America’s newest “police action.” How does $7.5 trillion strike you?
President Obama’s war appears to have been predicated on the assumption that Russia will not intervene on Dr. Assad’s behalf, as USA proceeds to destroy what remains of Syria. This begs the question whether the annihilation of ISIL is anything more than a pretext for the destruction of Dr. Assad’s government.
It seems worthy of note that Obama & Co.’s hatred of Bashar al Assad (like the Bush family’s fanatical hatred for the late Saddam Hussein) is of long-standing. We are powerless to know what motivates such men and women to invent even the most outrageous lies as pretexts for the ritual execution of their chosen “enemies,” and the “collateral” slaughter of countless innocent civilians.
Similarly, it seems nothing short of stunning that the US Congress voted to furnish so-called “moderate” terrorists in the Middle East with heavy weapons and training. Did they learn nothing from having armed Afghan guerillas for combat against the Soviet occupation, only to see those same weapons subsequently used against USA’s own occupation troops? Or, do the wishes of America’s military-industrial complex precede the needs of all others? Are U.S. troops in the Middle East really to protect and defend the Homeland, or merely to transfer what remains of the wealth of the middle and working classes into the pockets of the ruling class?
It is known that most of the ammunition used by ISIL is manufactured in USA and unspecified Middle Eastern countries (perhaps Israel, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia?), and it has been noted elsewhere that the Toyota crew-cab trucks with machine gun mounts, favored by ISIL forces, are manufactured only in Texas, USA. Apparently, there is no terrorist group anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa which has not been the recipient of American arms and ammunition. Whether these materials “fell” into terrorist hands, or were the gifts of all too clever CIA agents — i.e., were a result of the US government’s stupidity, or of its corruption — cannot, with certainty, be known. Suffice it to say, here, that a relatively few Americans (primarily in government and industry) seem to be reaping substantial financial rewards from the blood and sacrifices of working and middle class citizens.
Neither can we know, with certainty, the true goal of American foreign policy. It appears that USA is, for the time being at least, satisfied to reduce nations on its “black list” to chaos; consider Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Insofar as possible, it seems to prefer fomenting and/or financing revolutions in nations out of compliance with Washington’s desires; think about recent events in Ukraine and Hong Kong. There is little basis for doubt that Washington would welcome regime-change in both China and Russia, and would actively support uprisings in those countries.
But, failing there, the Pentagon has assured Obama that USA can win a nuclear war with China and Russia. While this provided Mr. Obama with a green light to begin bombing Syria “back to the stone age,” it also signaled Washington’s intentions to Iran and Russia. Even in the unlikely event that Putin is willing to watch America destroy Syria, he must draw a line somewhere; if not in Damascus, then in Tehran or Moscow itself. The Americans look like having knotted a noose for Vladimir, and coming for him.
Presumably, the Chinese government is watching as US foreign policy gradually unfolds in the Middle East. If so, however reluctantly, some in China may realize that their destiny is inextricably tied to that of Putin’s Russia.
So it is that, through a succession of regimes — both Republican and Democrat — the American people appear to have been dragged to the brink of nuclear war. They may awaken one morning to the news that all communications with USA’s greatest cities have ceased. Only then, perhaps, would they begin to realize that China and Russia have awakened to the menace that is Washington. However satisfactory America’s counter attack, the fact is that the death toll in USA might well be in the millions. In a word, it would be meaningless to claim “victory” in a nuclear war.
Given the abject failure of the “peace movement” (or what little there was of it), the reader may wonder if anything can still be done to avert W.W. III. Dr. Ron Paul recommends supporting secessionist movements in every American state. Toshiyori is in agreement. It seems rather unlikely that, in the aftermath of nuclear war, the politicians who desired it and labored to bring it about could subsequently emerge from their rabbit holes and re-assert their dominance. Is not “Balkanization” a more likely outcome? Do not think that the independence movements in the Basque country, Catalonia, and Scotland are dead; do not suppose that the European Union is any but a fleeting association for America’s convenience. But, if separation is judged a probable consequence of war, perhaps a vigorous secessionist movement today might succeed in diverting politicians from terminal war. Indeed, it might be the only hope left to mankind.