Nobel Peace Prize laureate Hussein Obama has requested that the US. Congress authorize his use of [unrestricted] military force for a period of three years. This would appear to imply that, if granted, the next occupant of the White House — whoever he or she might be — would automatically inherit the power to commit U.S. forces to action anywhere on earth, and for any reason.
This seems entirely comparable to a known spendthrift asking for a blank cheque.
One might hope that Mr. Obama wants only the power to send American troops into battle in the “War on Terror,” and not for a first strike on Russia, China, or North Korea. Even so, one might wonder whether he has failed to understand that this war is foredoomed — like America’s wars on poverty and drugs — to failure, or whether he knows its value to the military-industrial complex and the One Percent stems from the fact that it is essentially interminable: A war in perpetuity for the shimmering mirage of peace.
At “best,” the war on terror may end by bankrupting America and reducing the once proud USA to a corrupt third world dictatorship; the “Federal Reserve” banks cannot indefinitely postpone a day of reckoning. At worst, Washington D.C., Manhattan, Los Angeles, et al., would be converted into self-illuminated glass parking lots by a coalition of disgusted Eurasian nations. “Victory,” like the one which concluded the Second World War, may be out of the question, but “defeat” in the neocon/Zionist struggle for world hegemony remains a distinct possibility. It is, of course, not wholly inconceivable that some might deem this the preferred outcome.
The Islamic State is an idea and, as such, cannot be liquidated with bombs. For every ISIS fighter America kills, two or more Muslims are converted to the Caliphate concept. Yet, if ISIS constitutes a problem for the peoples of the Middle East, it is they who must resolve it. U.S, armed forces do not belong in the midst of domestic squabbles which are well beyond their limited comprehension.
It may be relatively safe to declare that wars are rarely, if ever, waged on behalf of the common people. In our time, at least, wars are fought to further enrich those who are already immensely wealthy: Career politicians, industrialists, and investment bankers.
Yet, recent surveys supposedly indicate that 84% of Americans favor sending their own children to fight and die for them in the “war against terror.” Almost 70 years ago, in Nuremberg, Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering explained that the masses are easily persuaded to support the use of military force, and that the key is fear. Once a people is persuaded that their very existence is threatened by some foreign power, they eagerly display their “patriotism.”
Today, in the home of the brave, the masses live in such stark terror of “radical” Muslims as to uncomplainingly accept having their private parts publicly groped at every airport between the Atlantic coast and the Pacific! In tribute to the presstitute media (the government’s de facto Ministry of Propaganda), the sheeple tell one another that “It’s for our own safety.” So, if the Americans visualize columns of masked, black flag-waving Muslim fanatics parading through American streets (loping off innocent Christian heads as they advance), whom ought we hold responsible: the naïveté of the people or the skill of “mainstream media” propagandists?
One might hope that a majority of Americans would demand that their alleged Congressional representatives vote “NO!” on Obama’s AUMF request. But, sadly, we expect that few will actually do so.
How distant, now, the days in which America’s young people used to sing “Give peace a chance.” Perhaps they have grown so accustomed to war as, like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to love it. Were this so, there could be no hope for such a land.