If you’re anywhere near Washington, D.C., this Memorial Day, I strongly recommend a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. There may be nowhere where American history is more highly concentrated in all its kooky cruel splendor — and so there’s also no better place to ask questions about it.
For instance, the grounds and the mansion at the entrance of Arlington once belonged to Robert E. Lee’s wife. Did we just seize it all during the Civil War, like a normal country? Not exactly: Instead we created a transparent sham where she was required to show up in person to pay her $92.07 in property taxes for 1864, and when she didn’t it was sold off at a public auction, with the U.S. government as the only bidder.
What about John F. Kennedy’s grave: Is all of him in there? No, his brain was removed during his autopsy and his body was buried without it. (The brain then spent some time at the National Archives before vanishing in 1966.)
And are there any Wiccans buried at Arlington? Presumably there always have been. But in 2007 the military added a pentacle to its official list of religious symbols that can be engraved on headstones, so it now can be publicly recognized.
But of course if you spend time with the dead from the Civil War and the Boxer Rebellion and Iwo Jima and Apollo 1, you’ll also find yourself asking larger questions. Every time I’ve gone there, as I’ve looked out from Lee’s hilltop mansion at the hundreds of thousands of soldiers quietly feeding the freshly-mown grass, I’ve wondered why human beings just can’t stop fighting wars.
The fervent pomp of Arlington to me always exudes desperation, as though we’re trying to suppress any acknowledgement that war’s the silliest thing people do. We sort ourselves into teams based on imaginary lines, dress up in costumes, pledge allegiance to pieces of cloth, and then mercilessly slaughter total strangers.
This reality — that waging war is both extremely unpleasant and fundamentally ridiculous, yet we keep doing it – indicates that it must serve some important purpose.
And all the history books I’ve ever read and all the history I’ve lived through suggests what that is: Wars are less about conflicts between societies than about conflicts within societies. Every country has a militaristic right-wing, and nothing helps that right-wing triumph over their domestic enemies more than a state of war. And just like a pharmaceutical company that doesn’t want to cure diseases when managing them is so profitable, their top priority is never bringing the war to an end, but maintaining and expanding their power within the country.
Amazing enough, Donald Trump recently told the National Governors Association exactly this, even if neither he nor they understood what he was saying. “We never win. And we don’t fight to win,” Trump declared. “$6 trillion we’ve spent in the Middle East … and we’re nowhere.”
But obviously Trump himself is somewhere: He’s in the White House. And lots of that $6 trillion is somewhere too, in the bank accounts of defense contractors. So if you understand who the real “we” are, we in fact have won the war on terror and are still winning. U.S. politics have been shoved hard to the right, making Trump possible, and since 2001 the value of Lockheed Martin stock has sextupled. The real we likewise have no interest in “fighting to win” in the sense Trump means — because that would require raising taxes on billionaires and drafting their children out of Stanford and Yale to go die in the sand, something that would quickly lead to the defeat of any president who tried it.
This perspective on the purpose of war was directly expressed by George W. Bush and his circle before he ever became president. Texas journalist and Bush family friend Mickey Herskowitz was hired to write a Bush biography for the 2000 campaign, and spent hours interviewing him. Herskowitz later said that Bush was already thinking about attacking Iraq — because, Bush said, “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.” According to Herskowitz, people around Bush, including Dick Cheney, hoped to “start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” Why? Because, Bush told Herskowitz, that would give him “political capital” that he could use to “get everything passed that I want to get passed.”
In other words, the actual country of Iraq had little to do with the Iraq War. Its main purpose wasn’t beating Saddam Hussein, it was beating Americans who wanted to stop Bush from privatizing Social Security.
Soldiers in the Old Guard walk over a puddle while placing flags at graves in Arlington National Cemetery during “Flags In” in preparation for Memorial Day May 25, 2017, in Arlington, Va.
Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Meanwhile, the motivations of our official enemies are the same: i.e., they’re consumed with gaining power in their own societies, and from their perspective we exist mainly as bit players in that drama. A key focus of Al Qaeda when planning its 2000 attack on the USS Cole was filming it so the footage could be used in a recruitment video — one needed, as the 9/11 Commission report put it, for “their struggle for pre-eminence among other Islamist and jihadist movements.” Unfortunately, the terrorist with the camera overslept and missed his compatriots blowing themselves up. So Al Qaeda then filmed a re-enactment and used that tape instead. Thus 17 Americans on the Cole were killed in real life, but zero Americans had to die to create what Al Qaeda truly wanted, a way to consolidate influence in their world.
The same dynamic was involved in the 9/11 operation itself. According to the commission’s report, part of Osama bin Laden’s motivation was that he believed the attack would benefit Al Qaeda “by attracting more suicide operatives, eliciting greater donations, and increasing the number of sympathizers willing to provide logistical assistance.” Just excise the word “suicide” and bin Laden sounds exactly like George W. Bush, planning to inflict spectacular ultra-violence thousands of miles away in hopes of getting bigger campaign contributions.
For Saddam Hussein’s part, all his foreign policy had one goal, keeping him in power for the next week. It’s true his 1990 invasion of Kuwait could easily have led to his overthrow and death in the medium term, and in fact it did in the long term. But that was irrelevant from his perspective, since the invasion eliminated the dire threats he faced in short term. As he explained after he was captured by the U.S., he had created an enormous military establishment during the Iran-Iraq War, something dangerous in a region with a long history of army coups. He went into Kuwait, he said, in part just to keep his generals busy.
What’s most surprising isn’t that politicians start wars to consolidate their own power, but that the people don’t always simply assume that leaders choose war for that reason. Of course, the main calculation for politicians when making decisions is whether or not those decisions will help tighten their grip on the levers of society. From prime ministers to dictators, anyone who doesn’t think about that first and foremost will be, evolutionarily speaking, selected against, and quickly find themselves outside the palace walls.
That’s why we need a Memorial Day, I believe, and so does seemingly every country on earth. At Arlington and at all the world’s solemn military cemeteries you can witness the endless ocean of young men and women who have been shot, gassed, incinerated, ripped limb from limb, shredded, driven to suicide. In the best of situations they died because of talented warmongers in other countries. In the worst it’s because we ourselves were so weak that we handed over power to killers who were delighted to see us die if it gave them a three week bump in their Gallup approval rating. We have to draw a veil of consecration across all of it, because looking at it directly is unbearable.
Top photo: A soldier in the Old Guard places flags at graves in Arlington National Cemetery during “Flags In” in preparation for Memorial Day May 25, 2017, in Arlington, Va.
As per the 1977 movie “Twilight’s Last Gleaming”, could the US pursuit of “limited wars” since 1945 really be a way of keeping the US credible as an overbearing military threat while feeding the Military Industrial/Security Complex without resorting to full-on thermonuclear war.
Whoa, without going into the social characteristics of our brand of chimp that lead to following “leaders” whenever we perceive threat, or the unnatural sequestration of organic material best left to evolved scavengeres to properly recycle, or even into the PRIMARY reason:
overdense overpopulation ,
I just want to comment on the astonishing double standard I saw as child exposed to propaganda.
Every Mayday, US tv had raptly foreboding images of Soviet military parades, and late in the same month, touted glorious fulfilling dessert-like video of US military might. On July 4th, Angelic fighter jets still fume loudly overhead in many places, raising testosterone levels.
What was the difference? Peasants under one could still be easily exchanged under opposite umbrellas, without effect.
In prehistoric times, we are told, well over 30% of males died violently. Is that so hard to let go?
I pass by cemeteries carved, blasted, scalped from an ancient forest where the tallest trees on earth once each grew for single magnificent lifetimes that exceeded all technologies beyond horse and bronze- and bronze, anthropologists tell us, was only smelted originally for war.
A single lifetime spanning all the monuments you have seen, and half the existence of piled stones that amaze you as you impute civilizations died within the single lifetime of one now living.
Termites, dudes.
Exuding poisons, taking all but 2% of those magnificent single lives, and only a voting age ago, were discovered to harbor an unique, functioning, varied, complex ecosystem, one that has existed, unlike any of man, for two hundred forty million years.
Hubris, dudes.
Nukes, now again bandied about as victorious war toys, wipe out every living thing, and can even imitate massive volcanism, soiling skies enough to generate years without summers. Hungry much? store, fridge, right there. You, too, can wipe out, if very temporarily, the world that sustains you. I have heard the cry of hopeless other animals, seen the blood, felt the shock.
Some cohort with a lead pellet-spewing weapon giving you social support is your answer to utter infantile anger, frustration, perceived loss; or perhaps an imagined future in adoration, self-judged to be worthy of Valhallas, the idea foisted upon you like a scar by avaricious elders.
Bones. I have studied the scat of carnivores and some carrion-eaters. They properly recycle those seemingly hard reminders.
I find soft white bone meal, ready to fertilize ancient trees, tiny slugs , fungi, sprouts springing up in exuberant life. Their own, the constituents never having been the property of humans or other bone-wearers, but only shaped for a time, from others.
Carbon, calcium, water, what you borrowed was once the selves of others, myriads of others. Your own rentals are exhaled, breathed, defecated, leaked, sweated constantly, as, for a while, you take yet others in.
What shall you do in the time you alone live? Will you share and benefit in joy with all?
Or will you merely kill because you are told?
Necessarily a student of neurological function, as all behavior, all cognition, all suffering, all ecstasy, all companionship, all and every sense, occur only because molecular communication.
i hear, read, see, the symbolic and evanescent human transmission about the present they manipulate, perceive, and mostly imagine.
Our time is long, until it is not. I once rested and ran, played, climbed, sensed with a Wolf. His primary lesson, underlying all the astonishing things he sensed and communicated and knew about health, illness, injury, function, in all those around him, was that all is constant change, taking our form, leaving from it.
Exuberance, eagerness. We see it in every blade of grass. Why would any stop it up, this change? why “conquer” when you never step outside the self, even if you grew neurons that respond to the beloved?
That is the essence of memory, mediated through tiny molecules that momentarily unwrap very specific strings of nucleic acids, or calling a halt to the loosening.
Oh, we love; better, we seek to love. Hate and fear slam molecular doorways more permanently, dead in unworkability, lugged around for years.
I can tell you what picking up a gun does to your hormone production and balance. It’s a cheap jolt, similar to other cheap jolts you can buy straight. THe neurotransmitters that inspire you, can be replaced, if incompletely, and unfulfillingly for prices as cheap.
Strangely, neuroscience, of behavior, once the province of fables and imaginary gods, has shown that the rewards you feel, are EXPECTATIONS of reward.
While I cannot elaborate here, your habits and desires, your ecstasies are expectations of pleasure. Expectation, momentary satiation as the system rebalances, dependent for life upon expectation.
How beautiful, when applied to bonding with companions along the way. how foul when seeking immolation. the long-claw scars on granite, of mountains passed, where others very unlike ourselves walked, slid, flew, climbed and fell, all with exuberance forever unknown to us.
Tomorrow there will be others, made of you unless you box your borrowed constituents.
Some glacier, though, some subduction and andesite explosion, will return even those substances you cadged, to their proper new users.
Great article.
For those who haven’t yet read it, read the book “War A Force That Gives Us Meaning” by Chris Hedges.
Go to Verdun and see the Ossery. The bones of a half million people are in the basement in a giant heap. Yup. You can look in the window. The problem is the evil few among us. Or in our case the evil many among us. My trip there was part of a 50th anniversary tour of the US 7th armored Div. War was hell is a mild form of putting what these men my father one of them went through because of the politicians.
Ever notice that Memorial Day only pays tribute to the headstones, because those in the V.A.’s, homeless, impoverished, would cost too much money; which all goes to that Mideast “ally,” who continues to warmonger? Lookup the history of the “G.I. Bill” at the “Bonus Army.” Soldiers/Vets are pimped.
Arlington is sad and solemn, no matter how you feel about American wars.
While the article correctly identifies an important motive for external wars to be internal power play:
* it fails to describe more precisely the motivational pathway of the internal power play. i.e. how is war exactly profitable? the naive picture is that it is profitable only for say manufacturers of weapons, but it is a mistake to put all the blame on the weapons manufacturers (see below)
* it oversimplifies the external/internal distinction (i.e. the war on drugs)
Assume with me for a moment that in a true and functioning democracy, making profit would be hard, and requires actual positive constructive contribution to society, prices per subjective effort would equilibrate.
I.e. cleaning a toilet would be a relatively high subjective effort (because humans tend to not like to clean toilets), and be one of the better paid jobs, but something prevents this from happening.
I posit that the economically motivated pathways are to keep it easy to profit from the group (*the rackets*), which is only possible by having “democracy” fail to represent its citizens in:
* law making (legislative branch)
* law enforcement (executive branch)
* law application (judicial branch)
I.e. in my terminology *the rackets* are the real problems that democracy should address, and *the artificial war* are the diversion to prevent it from doing so.
The method for the economically motivated pathway is (de)prioritization:
(these are not unfortunate side effects, these properties are by [possibly emergent] design)
*the artificial war* serves this role perfectly by diverting attention from *the rackets*
1) to keep the law-making bodies from representing the public, populace, …: i.e. laws that address *the rackets*
*the artificial war* forces the legislative body to keep busy with trying to come up with laws regarding the artificial war, instead of trying to come up with laws that better represent the populace.
Every session spent on the war, is one NOT spent on:
* a more just economy (even if banks divest from weapons, they could continue profit by war, if it prevents attention to economical injustice)
* on defending civil and human rights, …
2) to keep law enforcement busy enforcing *the artificial war* instead of upholding law and order, especially to prevent upholding laws that better represent the people by addressing *the rackets*, in case the legislative passed them despite the diversions in 1)
(despite some of its attention being diverted to the war the legislative bodies now and then manage to squeeze in a few better laws that partially address *the rackets*. To prevent them from being actually enforced, the war creates diversions for the enforcement agencies instead. Lack of resources, time and manpower sets an upper limit on the number of feasible enforcements of law, the higher the fraction of enforcements is directed at “the enemy spies”, “the homegrown terrorists”, … necessarily causes diminished enforcement attention to *the rackets*. Every case built against a target of *the war* is a case not built against *a racket*.
3) to keep the judicial branch busy and occupied with cases relating to *the artifical war*: sometimes a law defending against *a racket* survived diversion in 1) and sometimes law enforcement succeeds in building a case against an instance of *the racket*, despite the frustrated enforcement by diversions in 2) and the last line of defense becomes: keep the courts (with their finite number of cases they can process per year) occupied with *the artificial war* cases: every ruling for a case of *the artificial war* is a ruling NOT addressing a case of *the rackets*.
To put this in perspective, think of it as intention vs action:
Suppose 25% of democratic attention (a form of intention) is spent on *the artificial war*, there would still be 75% of action left to address *the rackets* right?
WRONG, at each level 25% of the original intention is lost so:
75% x 75% x 75% = 3/4 * 3/4 * 3/4 = 27/64 = 42% of the action would correspond to the intention.
Suppose you profit from a racket, you only need to help other racketeers maintain 25% of democratic attention diversion, and the racketeers diminish their risk of apprehension to 42%, allowing quite the profit margin no?
Concentrating *ALL* the blame on weapons manufacturers will lead to some very confronting sobering up! It will fail to weed out a deep root for the support of nonsensical wars!
That was really good!?
War is a racket — Butler
Uday and Qusay are no more. Sometimes the ends do justify the means.
And now IS is holding a large part of Iraq.
Yes, but don’t forget Uday and Qusay would have posed a mortal danger to the poor little USA ,presiding over a 3rd-world country half a world away. Sometimes the ends do justify the means!
War is hell.
Humans have been fighting from time immemorial, they know War is horrible and not the romantic notion that is instilled. That is why myths are created, from Cuchalian to Greek Gods, to present day machismo. Real life often sucks, we create an idealized version of reality to combat the inevitability of things we can’t really change…
Switzerland was last involved in a war 1200 years ago.
Constantly citing the 911 Commission report devalues Jon’s reportage. Most of the world, particularly the Muslim World, does not believe the official narrative of 911. The 911 Commission Report will eventually go the way of the Warren Commission report, which over 60% of American find to be fraudulent.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
Oh grow up. The moronic physics you truthers believe in makes you all the laughingstock of anyone with just a bit of commonsense.
I wouldn’t describe the actual laws of physics as moronic, unless I was try to name call and discredit someone.
That’s not what Mike did. He was referring to the moronic misunderstanding of physics to which Troofers (correct spelling) ignorantly cling.
And the Troofers definitely need and deserve to be called what they are and to be throughly discredited — the friggin’ perseverating goofball ignoramuses.
I described the truthers’ misinterpretation of the laws of physics as moronic.
Speaking of moronic physics, care to explain how WTC came down?
Done:
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
Heat damaged the upper floors causing them to fall into the next floors down, breaking them loose, and so on. It is clearly topdown, as shown by the videos.
Here is the interesting thing: even if explosives were used to remove the floor structural members, the material still would have fallen down at the same rate (as determined by gravity). Explosives destroy structural members; they do not make material descend faster.
So the arguments you truthers make about it coming down too fast for the plane to have done it is obviously wrong. The material in the upper floors arrived at the ground level at the same time whether the plane did all the damage, or if explosives were set of in a timed manner in order to make it appear that it was the plane. You simply cannot argue with the law of gravity.
I’m not a truther, and I meant WTC 7; I haven’t seen a plausible explanation for its demise.
Do you have the scientific or engineering expertise to challenge the official explanation? If not, and you write what you did, you are a truther, like it or not.
I have common sense to know buildings don’t collapse without impact or purposeful demolition.
I guess you never heard of the so-called Magic Bullet, which the Warren Commission report claims struck both JFK and Connoly in a truly bizarre “trajectory”, with multiple vertical components, only to end up on the wrong man’s gurney in the hospital. THAT is “moronic physics” and it’s not espoused by any other source except the morons who wrote the Warren Commission Report and those that believe it.
The ones with a bit of common sense are the ones who know that JFK was shot by someone other than LHO, and that airplanes didn’t bring down the twin towers. In both those instances, physics tells us that both of the official stories about these are abject lies.
For everyone including Doug Saltzman…
who found this piece great, I very highly recommend going to Jon’s blog site…….( there were some other contributors too… one of them brilliant..) there is some fantastic stuff HE has written there….. and if old, STILL relevant today! YES, The Intercept is lucky to have him.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/
Doug Salzmann
May 29 2017, 10:10 a.m.
This is an example of the importance and quality of Jon’s work — and is an example of what he should be free to write, rather than being wasted on assignments to spew yet more partisan nonsense.
Absolutely excellent stuff, Jon.
Craig says:
Yes it did, when W most needed to look like a super hero war president. And for simplicity he chose the PNAC approved country. Why hurt your head by thinking? So you see when you point out that JS is wrong on some details, you help him out by reinforcing the best recent example supporting his main point.
Craig is a devout authoritarian, pro-torture (if it’s the U.S. or Israel doing it) PNAC true believer. Whether he’s ever explicitly endorsed PNAC or not, he’s a through-going Zionist, wingnut fanatic and warmonger; he fits the PNAC profile in virtually all material ways.
An exemplary article like Jon Schwarz’s could only cause a reaction in Craig akin to that of a vampire’s proverbial response to the crucifix.
Well, he might be a smarter than DQ.
Talk is cheap Mike. The question is whether he would have invaded Iraq if 911 did not occur. It is very likely that Bush would have resumed the inspection system on Iraq by force if necessary (like Clinton), but there is no evidence he would have invaded Iraq without 911. The World Trade Center attack was a game changer.
Saddam Hussein played cat and mouse with the inspectors throughout the time of the inspection system. Sixteen resolutions were passed because Saddam refused to cooperate. He had a history of using WMDs. He invaded two countries. He was an oppressive dictator who ruled by force to maintain Sunni rule. He had started a nuclear weapons program (at one time bombed by Israel). He had sponsored terrorism against Israel. He launched missiles capable of carrying chemical weapons at Israel as the Iraqi army withdrew from Kuwait. He was a destabilizing force in the region.
Bush needed two things to remove Saddam from power : Saddam’s history and 911. He needed both. The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was about regime change and the assurance that he (or his sons) would not be able to develop nuclear weapons – like North Korea.
What about dubya’s long-standing motivation – the one he imparted to Herskowitz in 2000? That just stopped being a consideration, I guess? Just suddenly became a straight-up, honorable guy, only interested in keeping America safe..
Exactly.
Another excuse would have been found or generated. With 911 it happened sooner and with more support, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it.
There are far more henious crimes being committed internationally worth intervening for. Saddams mistake was rejection of the petro dollar.
Love this piece. Great work, new thoughts and perspective.
Would love to quibble a bit too: “pledge allegiance to pieces of cloth”… who does that? The US doesn’t. China doesn’t. No gov. I’m aware of…
I’ve been wondering if it’s ethical to have the young sign up for military service and take a Constitutional oath; it would seem much more right if all military members were JDs — experts in US Const. Further, the US would not be allowed to go to war unless it could connect the dots between the action Potus or Cong. wants to take and the Const. oath. Viz: you want to invade Iraq? Okay how is this upholding and defending the US Constitution? Go. Explain.
W/ all the hoopla over Confederate monuments lately it’s raised the old question what was that war about? Free slaves or states rights. We’re going to argue about what the Iraq war was about: WMD, 911, bringing democracy to ME, you tried to kill my father, any/all of the above? How would we know what it was about, what did my loved one die for?
I like what you did, you used the Commander in Chief’s own words to say what the Iraq war was about: political capital. Although it doesn’t settle it. The US will argue 150 years from now what it was about. They’ll want it to be for good not evil.
If the US is still around 150 yrs from now I’d bet Bush apologetics will win histroy.
Well said. I was reading a book by Taylor Caldwell, of all people, from the 1960s, and as part of a subplot to the basic melodramatic romance story, was corrupt politicians selling weapons and planning wars. Go back even earlier, and Hergé in 1931, in TinTin in America, is making biting political commentary about weapons manufacturers keeping countries at war with each other.
[[[ WE NEED MEMORIAL DAY TO OBSCURE THE UNBEARABLE TRUTH ABOUT WAR …
And all the history books I’ve ever read and all the history I’ve lived through suggests what that is: Wars are less about conflicts between societies than about conflicts within societies. ]]]]
You should stop reading those books.
Why?
All wars are fought over money / natural resources.
Copper = Afghanistan.
Rubber = Vietnam
Rubber = WW II (Japan for military ops to VN and Germany for synthetic rubber from IG Farben; and Germany was tired of its slavery imposed by the Versaille Treaty.)
Cuba = Nickel
Iraq = Oil
Kuwait = Oil
Panama = Panama Canal
Chile and Argentina = Copper
Granada = Who Knows?
Somalia/Eritrea = Gold and Copper
Libya = Oil
America’s wars against the Native Indians — conquest of the USA.
And those are just a few…
Why was JFK whacked? Cuz the Bankers wanted to swap out the USA’s gold and silver currency with counterfeit copper + nickel coinage. First order of business for Johnson — repudiate all payment of specie … to begin ~20 years of hyperinflation (dollar devaluation).
Right. So despite Bush having directly told his biographer the ignoble reason why he intended to invade iraq, you’re still going with your own noble narrative for the invasion.
FAO craigsummers
Photosymbiosis
Disinformation from Photo
“……(1) First, the bloodiest war in the region prior to the invasion of Kuwait was the Iran-Iraq War, which both the United States and Britain encouraged and financed…….”
The US did not encourage the invasion of Iran by Iraq. In fact the US was surprised. Saddam feared the export of the Iranian revolution to Iraq – and invaded on his own. The US essentially remained neutral on the conflict until 1982 when the war turned against Saddam. The US provided covert assistance to ensure that Iran did not win the war. The US did not provide weapons to Iraq, but facilitated the import of spare parts and Soviet weapons since the USSR had supplied weapons to Iraq. The Soviet Union and Syria (etc.) provided weapons to the Iranians.
“…….(2) Second, one of the more curious features of Desert Storm (the effort to oust Saddam’s army from Kuwait) is that GHW Bush and Margaret Thatcher may have given Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait……”
The US and Britain did not give a green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. That “might” have been misinterpreted by Saddam. The reason Saddam invaded was because he wanted to control the oil fields because Iraq was essentially bankrupt from the war in Iran. He was in need of funds. He was a definite threat to Saudi Arabia – but a bigger threat to Kuwait.
“…….August 7, 1990 — Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, U.S. troops arrive in Saudi Arabia in order to have a close base to eventually go after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s troops. Bin Laden becomes outraged at the U.S. forces’ presence near the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina…….”
You’ll recall that it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which motivated jihadists (including Bin Laden) to make the journey to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. You might even infer that the Soviet Union was responsible indirectly for the rise of al-Qaeda – certainly as responsible as the US.
“The U.S. did not encourage the invasion of Iran by Iraq”?Really? As with the Kuwait invasion, a nod and a wink go a long way. See wikipedia:
As far as, “the U.S. did not supply weapons to Iraq”? The U.S. circumvented the need to directly supply Saddam with weapons by providing him with massive “agricultural loans” that freed up Iraqi funds for weapons purchases. Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others did directly supply Saddam with weapons, but how did they get them?
Many years ago, when the Washington Post wasn’t a Bezos-CIA controlled PR rag, they reported on this (1990):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/wartech091790.htm
Britain did the exact same thing, here’s a decent synopsis:
. . .bsnews.info/margaret-thatcher/
More recent revelations include the role of Britain in construction of chemical weapons plants in Iraq in 1985:
…independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-britain-backed-down-on-banning-saddam-husseins-chemical-weapons-during-iran-war-10361917.html
The number of propagandized U.S. citizens who claim that the U.S. never supported Saddam is pretty high – that’s the result of corporate media brainwashing the American public.
Your #2 point is disposed of below, your #3 point is pathetic – the Soviet Union collapsed by 1989, Pakistan had become the most important outside influence in Afghanistan, and the continued repression of Palestinians by Israel was the biggest Arab issue (before U.S. troops entered Saudi Arabia) that Al Qaeda used for recruitment purposes.
All in all, your post is dishonest history with a cosmetic clean-up agenda – the same kind of garbage they teach in propaganda school. In the end, “Saddam the monster” was largely the creation of the U.S and its allies; so was Al Qaeda, founded in the covert CIA-ISI Afghan-Soviet war, and which later relied heavily on Saudi financial networks for support (BCCI leftovers, too) and so, in the latest replay of this idiotic imperial policy, is ISIS, born in the debacle of the Iraq invasion, c. 2009 and then financed by Saudi Arabia and supplied with U.S. weaponry in a bid to overthrow the Syrian government. c.2011-2015.
It’s a record of blood-soaked slaughter for dubious geopolitical agendas and lucrative arms and oil deals. Not very pretty, is it? Not exactly the “moral humanitarian pro-democracy” image the State Department likes to present to the public.
1. Your reference to Wikipedia to show that the US “encouraged” Saddam to invade Iran had zero evidence. The reason is simple. The US didn’t encourage Saddam to invade – as I said.
2. You wrote
“……The U.S. circumvented the need to directly supply Saddam with weapons by providing him with massive “agricultural loans” that freed up Iraqi funds for weapons purchases……”
Just as I stated the US did not supply weapons to Saddam Hussein, but the US did finance the war with Iran and (as I stated) provided a means to supply spare parts (as well as additional weapons) to the Soviet supplied weapons of Iraq. I never stated that the US did not finance Iraq’s war effort. Who cares how the US did it? Again, you just wasted your time with the long response.
“……All in all, your post is dishonest history with a cosmetic clean-up agenda – the same kind of garbage they teach in propaganda school. In the end, “Saddam the monster” was largely the creation of the U.S and its allies……”
That is fake news photo. Saddam came to power completely on his own (without US help). During Saddam’s rise to power, Iraq forged a strong relationship with the USSR. Saddam invaded Iran completely on his own (without US encouragement). The US was surprised by the invasion and began helping Iraq to keep them from losing to Iran in 1982 – about two to three years after the war began. The US re-opened diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984.
You tend to leave out the parts about the USSR which tend to hide their role in the Iran-Iraq war (Wikipedia):
“……In 1982, the war turned in Iran’s favour and the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini pledged not to stop the conflict until he had overthrown the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Such a prospect was unacceptable to the Soviet Union which now resumed arms sales to Iraq while still maintaining an official policy of neutrality. The Soviets also feared losing Saddam’s friendship to the West. After further Iranian gains in 1986, the Soviet Union massively increased its military aid to Iraq. The Soviets were now afraid of the Iranians encouraging Islamic revolution in Central Asia……..”
Nice to see the USSR and the US partner up against Iran. Wish that would happen today……
Furthermore Russia financed the Iraq war effort (Wikipedia):
“…….In 1979, the Soviet Union supplied Iraq with 240 fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft, along with military advisors, initially stationed at as-Shoibiyah Air Base 45 km SW of Basra.[25] In early 1987, the Soviet Union delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Considered to be the most advanced Soviet fighter, the MiG-29 had previously only been provided to Yugoslavia, Syria and India. The MiG-29 export deal to Iraq gave a more advantageous payment schedule than any offered by the West: Iraq was caught in a financial crisis and needed the low-interest loans provided by the Soviet Union.[17].
Thanks.
Israel has the right to defend itself.
Great article, only made better by the additional facts provided by Photo and Doug.
I hadn’t heard the slant drilling mentioned in a long time.
Nice article, but a few critical historical details on Saddam Hussein’s wars with Iran and Kuwait, the US & British involvement, and the conversion of Osama bin Laden from Afghan “freedom fighter” in the 1980s to anti-American terror godfather in the 1990s are lacking. Here are three points:
(1) First, the bloodiest war in the region prior to the invasion of Kuwait was the Iran-Iraq War, which both the United States and Britain encouraged and financed. Various other parties – Saudi Arabia, Chile, Egypt, West Germany – served supporting roles in arms deals, chemical weapons manufacturing, etc. The details are spelled out in Mark Phythian’s excellent 1997 book, Arming Iraq:
…journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/11683/12423
(2) Second, one of the more curious features of Desert Storm (the effort to oust Saddam’s army from Kuwait) is that GHW Bush and Margaret Thatcher may have given Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait; this is not really certain, but the U.S. government had advance warning of Saddam’s plans and did nothing to discourage them before the invasion of Kuwait.
As far as Saddam’s motivations, it had to do with Kuwait using slant-drilling equipment to drill across the border in Iraqi oilfields; and before Bush and Thatcher launched Desert Storm, Saddam was trying to negotiate a peaceful retreat from Kuwait using Russian contacts (recall this was right after the Berlin Wall fell), an overture which was rejected by Bush Sr. and Thatcher – they really seemed to want a war. As I recall, Bush Sr. spent a lot of time crowing about “exorcising the ghosts of Vietnam” or whatever it was, re-establishing American military intervention in foreign countries as a force for global good, etc. A bit suspicious how that all went down.
(3) Third, one of the main claims used to get Saudi support for their adventure was that satellite photos showed Iraqi troops massing for an invasion of Saudi Arabia; these were later shown to be false claims:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/
Now, the fact that American soldiers ended up occupying Saudi soil was exactly what led to the alienation of Osama bin Laden from the House of Saud and the rise of Al Qaeda. As this CNN timeline notes:
…cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/osama.timeline/
So, either the U.S. government is utterly incompetent and reckless, or they’re just hell-bent on fostering wars and regional destabilization. How else can you account for this behavior?
Well, not, certain, I suppose. . .
Emphasis added.
Wow. There is alot of erudition and historical knowledge here. Also check out http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/
wherein is described the complex situation that actually led to the U.S. ejection of Iraq from Kuwait. (and it’s not about Kuwaiti babies being wripped from incubators, but Kuwait’s pricing of exported Crude oil which cost Iraq $14 Billion in Lost revenue.)
Mr. Schwarz
“…….In other words, the actual country of Iraq had little to do with the Iraq War. Its main purpose wasn’t beating Saddam Hussein, it was beating Americans who wanted to stop Bush from privatizing Social Security…….”
That is a major leap of speculation considering the invasion of Iraq occurred after 911 – and there had been no inspections of the Saddam WMD program since Bill Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 because he refused to cooperate with the inspectors. That was nearly three years before 911. The invasion was mainly for regime change – and succeeded obviously at great costs.
Politicians like Bush are always concerned about promoting their political agenda for their constituents. The next election is always just around the corner. That is true for politicians in the free world as well as in managed “democracies” like Russia. Putin’s popularity has soared at home since he illegally annexed Crimea and began supporting the secessionists in Eastern Ukraine. Blaming the US for the “coup” while portraying Russia as the victim of NATO has played well at home. It has played well enough so that he can murder troublesome dissenters like Nemtsov.
“……The same dynamic was involved in the 9/11 operation itself. According to the commission’s report, part of Osama bin Laden’s motivation was that he believed the attack would benefit Al Qaeda “by attracting more suicide operatives, eliciting greater donations, and increasing the number of sympathizers willing to provide logistical assistance.”…….”
That’s heresy in these parts, Mr. Schwarz. Bin Laden was motivated strictly by US presence on Islamic Holy Land in Saudi Arabia, sanctions directed at Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, our support for dictators and our unfettered supported for Israel. Any suggestion that al-Qaeda is seeking power to recreate the caliphate and build a society governed by Sharia Law is right wing propaganda.
Furthermore, any suggestions that al-Qaeda is aligned with the brutal Muslim-killing TTP and the (Shia Hazara) Muslim killing Afghan Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, respectively, is simply wrong. Any suggestion that al-Qaeda supported al-Zarqawi in his murderous attempt to initiate a sectarian war in Iraq is a lying propagandist. Anyone who accuses al-Qaeda in the Maghreb or al-Qaeda aligned al-Shabaab of killing Muslims for power is simply not telling the truth.
Al-Qaeda simply seeks revenge for our racist, anti-Muslim imperialistic policies. Al-Qaeda kills westerners only as a last resort.
Misinformation from craigsummers:
“there had been no inspections of the Saddam WMD program since Bill Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 because he refused to cooperate with the inspectors. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)#Accusations_of_U.S._interference_in_the_U.N._inspection_process
There were no WMDs, they knew there were no WMDs, that was a deliberate lie aimed at justifying a war of aggression for economic purposes. I.e., a war crime.
The real reason for the Iraq 2003 war (Gulf War III, really, since 1980)? Under the neocon PNAC agenda, Iraq was to be the oil tanker / aircraft carrier for the United States in the Middle East; its oil output could be used to break OPEC’s control of oil pricing (as well as delivering billions in oil money to Wall Street), and a string of permanent military bases was envisioned which would allow the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian government and extend U.S. influence into Central Asia. A fantastic wet dream of global imperial power, jointly supported by the Bush and Clinton crowd, which turned into a disaster estimated at around $5 trillion, many thousands of dead U.S. soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, the rise of ISIS – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair et al. should be in the Nuremberg dock facing war crime trials.
As far as the agenda behind 9/11 and Al Qaeda? Look up Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 WTC bombing. It’s the same PR line ever since – Al Qaeda tries to justify their actions based on Israel’s repression of Palestinians and American military presence in the Middle East. Their alliance with the Taliban throughout the 1990s is of interest, as that also involved financial and logistical support from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Pakistan. See Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars for the details on background, that’s the best source. It explains how Osama bin Laden turned from a Reagan-supported “freedom fighter” into “the world’s biggest international terrorist” within a five year span.
Nothing about this makes either Al Qaeda, the U.S. government, Israel or Saudi Arabia look very pretty, does it?
Somehow I posted my response to someone else (https://theintercept.com/2017/05/29/we-need-memorial-day-to-obscure-the-unbearable-truth-about-war/?comments=1#comment-406434)
That Bush intended attacking Iraq before he became president, for domestic political ends, is not a major leap of speculation at all. It’s what directly he told “family friend Mickey Herskowitz .. who spent hours interviewing him when hired to write a Bush biography for the 2000 campaign”.
You must have read that. So why ignore it?
I didn’t read it, but Schwarz says that Bush was already thinking about it – which is a whole lot different than saying he was going to invade. Even then, it’s a moot point since Bush invaded after 911 (which was a completely different scenario).
To cover something photosymbiosis missed, you said, “(T)here had been no inspections of the Saddam WMD program since Bill Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 because he refused to cooperate with the inspectors.”
Actually, the inspectors were ordered out by Clinton and Blair for Desert Fox, not by Saddam. (BTW, Hussein Kamil, Saddam’s son-in-law, said the WMD were all destroyed by then- by Iraq.)
Further, the inspectors were allowed back in by Saddam in 2002. They publicly stated that it would only take months to complete their inspections. Bush said it was too much time, and ordered the inspectors out again.
And this is where you lost me. “And just like a pharmaceutical company that doesn’t want to cure diseases when managing them is so profitable[…]”
I’m glad I’m not the only one who balked at that. This is the kind of talk you hear from anti-vaxxers and homeopaths. Does he think curing a disease is easy and we’re just not bothering? Maybe he should give it a try. Does he not realize that scientists and companies spend their entire careers and billions of dollars looking into cures and other treatments? No one who’s spent a day in a medical research lab or a pharmaceutical company would say something so ridiculous. Jon Schwarz is one of my favorite Intercept contributors, so this was very disappointing to me.
Awesome article, well written with an appropriate amount of human empathy seldom expressed in our media today, well done!
This article turned out to be a LOT better than I expected from the title.
Sixteen resolutions were passed at the UN because Saddam refused to cooperate. According to Scott Ritter:
“……..In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem — Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date………”
After the US bombed Iraq in 1998 because Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors (I.e., played cat and mouse), a period of over four years passed until the inspectors returned (1998-2003).
“…….The real reason for the Iraq 2003 war (Gulf War III, really, since 1980)? Under the neocon PNAC agenda, Iraq was to be the oil tanker / aircraft carrier for the United States in the Middle East; its oil output could be used to break OPEC’s control of oil pricing (as well as delivering billions in oil money to Wall Street), and a string of permanent military bases was envisioned which would allow the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian government and extend U.S. influence into Central Asia. A fantastic wet dream of global imperial power, ……”
That is just your own wet dream, photo. When the Iraq war settled down and oil contracts went out to bid, in the initial offering, none of the contracts were won by US oil companies. This is just more oil pipeline and oil control nonsense – like the Syria pipeline which you believe is the real underlying reason for the war.
“I’ve wondered why human beings just can’t stop fighting wars . . it must serve some important purpose.”
I could be wrong, but it seems pretty simple — people in this age generally lead empty lives, and participating in war gives their lives purpose and meaning. I imagine the answer is probably the same even for those that lead people into war.
As for your title, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to say that we *want* a memorial day to obscure the truth. Still, I don’t see anything wrong with honoring the dead, even if ultimately they died for Wall street. In their minds, or most of them from what I can see, they died for each other, and as far as memorials are concerned, who’s to say which is right?
The USA is a nation of thieves, slave owners and killers. And that has been the case even before it was ‘founded’ in 1776. Before its glorious foundation the US was an outpost of the fascist british empire. Now it’s an even more malignant variant of the british cancer.
and the russia-did-it scam is very important to those who want to establish NATO as the army for the thieving banksters. Notice that the NATO HQ is in brussels – at the seat of the bankster TTIP criminals and the euro.
When the people uncover who murdered Seth Rich the warmongering fraudsters are going to lose a lot of respect, then power.
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/390027-seth-rich-wikileaks-russia/
it is really looking like the murder of Seth Rich was a DP operation as the DNC and wallstreet media are doing everything they can to minimise interest in the murder of Seth Rich.
Stop with the Seth Rich conspiracy already. You sound like a retarded loon.
As much as you would like it to, the Seth Rich story isn’t going to go away. Many times more people have googled his name than ‘james comey’ and millions of highly-educated young Bernie supporters want answers.
Many people googling something doesn’t exonerate you from being a retarded loon.
Sounds like you’re projecting there, Joe. What’s the matter, the idea that the powers that be might have an interest in hiding the truth unsettle you? Maybe you should grow a brain and question some of the nonsense you’re spoonfed by MSM..
Also highest number of serial killers crimes.
“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. ”
–Major General Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket (1935)
“Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.”
–Major General Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket (1935)
“Our boys were sent off to die with beautiful ideals painted in front of them. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason they were marching off to kill and die.”
–Major General Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket (1935)
Here is another perspective with which I agree, no soldiers no wars, the proverbial ‘they’ will not fight the wars they want and the wars won’t stop until we start praising those that refuse to be a weapon for the war-makers, instead of the never ending stream of praise for those that go to kill others.
That link to the song didn’t post but here it is ‘Universal Soldier’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A50lVLtSQik
At least Trump sees war as a bad investment…that in itself is a change of US foreign policy.
The MSM is trying it’s best by pushing his views to be more politically correct…praising him as soon as he launches Tomohawks and MOAB. CNN even calling him presidential !
MSM does a lot of the warmongering because they are owned by some of these establishment, financial, industrial groups with lots of lobbying power in Washington.
“At least Trump sees war as a bad investment”
War is the fundamental american ‘business’ and is the business upon which all other american ‘businesses’ depend on.
“MSM does a lot of the warmongering”
trump is a fully fledged warmongering fascist – that’s why he’s the Supreme Comander of the land of the free and home of the child murderers.
If you are taking drugs VFE, I suggest you lower the dosage.
Ooooops..I stepped on your toes.
If it makes you feel better let me say Trump understands US business model and knows the art of the deal ! Furthermore US msm is peaceloving and does a great job writing unbiassed editorials on warmongering enemies like Russia.
Happy day to you too.
LIFG
Ever hear of it?
The US created ISIS, gave it life, and power.
The MANCHESTER BOMBER was a US BRIT backed LIFG.
The US whore media LIED about his trip to Libya for training – he did not sneak over there – he was sponsored and supported to assist in the overthrow of Momar Gadafi.
check it out. LIFG. now ISIS.
“Every country has a militaristic right-wing that (to paraphrase) needs a war to triumph over domestic enemies at home”. The author conveniently choosing to forget the Vietnam War, which killed more US soldiers than every war combined after the withdrawal from Vietnam, was started and escalated by two left-wing presidents (Kennedy and Johnson). This article is just another redundant criticism of the Bush administration that gets published everyday while ignoring the deadliest warmongering the US government has undertaken.
Thanks for this interesting point of view.
“Bush said, “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.” According to Herskowitz, people around Bush, including Dick Cheney, hoped to “start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” Why? Because, Bush told Herskowitz, that would give him “political capital” that he could use to “get everything passed that I want to get passed.” ”
I already knew about the group around Project for a new American Century, still it is amazing that Bush is so open about his nefarious goals. According to Kirchner (of Argentina) Bush was convinced that war was good for the economy.
There is an easier way of saying this
If you want to stop war, stop participating in it.
And that ‘Wars are less about conflicts between societies than about conflicts within societies’ as Jon suggests, is a lie.
This Platoon kind of statement from Jon, similar as to what Charlie Sheen said in the end of that film, that is that ‘we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves’, instead of fighting for tin and rubber, that is a grotesque lie.
And since I grew up with it, believed it myself for some time, and feel sorry for those who still live within this lie, I respect those who still believe it or make propaganda with it by which wars are continued. But it is a lie nevertheless. This is your (US) memorial day and if you want to feel good about it by swallowing this lie about that war is a within US society problem and not a between society problem: enjoy.
Here is the truth: 80% of the world population disagrees with the statement that war is a within US society problem as they know from the bombing experiences of Bush, Clinton, Baker, the other Bush and the droning of Obama and now Trump experience that it is a lie. The USA is the agresive nation who conquers the world because it needs the world’s resources to keep American standards high. People know this in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Iraq, Guatemala, Iran, Chili and the list goes on and on.
And if you don’t believe me, ask Mattathias Schwartz. He is a member of the CFR, and the CFR has written extensively about this world dominition by the US because stealing resources from other countries is what the US does.
Or learn it from yourself, for example by reading the book Imperial Brain Trust from Shoup and Minter who published declassified CFR documents from the 1920s till the Cold war where this is all documented.
Or read Samuel Butler, US most decorated soldier, story, War is Racket. That will open your eyes.
Wake up.
None of the above refutes, or is even responsive to, what Jon wrote.
Indeed, it is strong evidence that Willem didn’t come close to understanding what Jon wrote.
See my response in the “LATEST” bucket.
BTW, Willem, it’s “Smedley.”
Read it. And yup, Willem simply didn’t get the article.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
? Smedley D. Butler
This was written in 1935. Could just as well be 2017.
A very good rendition of that speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
I understand that the result of US wars is controlling resources for someones high standard of living but thats not the banner that gets people or leaders – usually – to demand support or tolerate war.
The war being about conflicts within societies not between societies comment was referring to priority of leaders conquering “villains” at home like political oppponents, movements or being able to pass legislation that normally would not have been acceptable, rather than winning against outside threats like terrorism. That was my impression anyway.
I didnt think Jon Schwartz was saying that problems in American societies were more important than the devastation that war caused or that if we all just got along we wouldnt go to war, if thats what your criticism was.
What we have here is an obvious mis-reading of the article.
In short, it’s clear to me you misunderstood the author’s point. He’s not trying to deny that external people suffer, he’s saying a critical cause is internal, not external. And on that point, he’s clearly correct. Your point that war caused / conducted by the USA affects others negatively is also true.
That said, I disagree with you about America needing other’s resources to keep our standards high; since WWII at least, America’s actions in the world have been more about empowering a few of the ultra-rich than anything else. The government and its leaders demonstrably don’t give a damn about living standards in the USA, they only care about catering to the ultra-welthy. But this isn’t true only of the USA, it’s a rather common behavior of governments the world over since basically forever.
The greatest war the world is engaged in is the ultra-rich against the rest of us. If we can manage somehow to win the war against the ultra-rich, the whole world will be more just, more fair, have better health, etc. And that’s the battle I’m focusing my attention on.
I’m just going to add that I dont think we need to control resources to have a high standard of living whatsoever. I don’t know where Willem is from. If this person is from a country experiencing war or is a veteran I’m not going to confront perception of America’s standard of living vs another country. I am also not against war because the high standard of living via war isnt reaching everyone in America. I’m not saying youre saying that, its just thoughts I had when replying.
Also I dont believe wealth or lack of is a determining factor in character.
I was reading something about the current adminstration and malignant narcissism, I dont know about specific individuals but I thought that was a pretty accurate description of what America ‘s leadership projects to the rest of the world now.
The always in war mindset of the strategists that brought us here and who they promote appear to be wanting everyone to know how much the world sucks. Dreamers, diplomats are naive. The greater purpose for these people is destroying who they tell you is the enemy. Beyond that you’re on your own, life is hell, take what you can along the way and laugh at whoever suffers.
We arent actively in war yet and we dont hear much from veterans in war but we are experiencing the soul eating affects of what our country is doing to the rest of the world, no words necessary.
“This is an important mission. Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice that I’m willing to make.” – Lord Farquad in “Shrek”
Without taking anything away from this great piece, there is another one I will never forget…..
“Forgetting Why We Remember”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30blight.html
“Wars are less about conflicts between societies than about conflicts within societies.”
I think what is increasingly more true than the above quote, is that wars are less about conflicts within societies, and more about conflicts between governments, that increasingly act as an extra-societal appendage that is far removed from the daily desires of people in society.
I too think few wars are silly and most are planned for conquest, pushing people out or killing them and then occupying the land and using the resources. When I was a child I could never understand how the ‘regular’ people in Germany and Europe could ever allow and did not stop the horrible Germans from killing people in the Holocaust. Now, I understand how. And I see how it seems almost impossible to stop. It is like a snowball rolling down a hill and growing larger as it goes. My big question now is when will other countries unite and stop the U.S. and what will that look like. It would be better for people here to unite and stop it but there is no sign of a movement like that starting.
” It would be better for people here to unite and stop it but there is no sign of a movement like that starting.”
Yes, there is a sign; Bernie Sanders.
I haven’t the proof, but there certainly is plenty of evidence that Bernie had the primary stolen from him, but even as things were, the millions upon millions who supported Bernie in the last election cycle is a strong sign of a movement toward progressive politics and that includes ending these wars.
That was a good piece , well done !!
The Schwarz is strong with this one.
Mountains, rivers and oceans aren’t imaginary lines. Why do you think we speak all these different languages? Often, throughout history, when these boundaries have been crossed, wars have resulted. Conquest has often been the intention. Wars of conquest have enriched the conquerors. There’s nothing silly about that. War can’t be explained entirely as a response to “internal conflicts.” It can be a factor, but it’s clear that wars are also fought for control of land and resources. And other humans.
A lot will have to change before people become convinced that war is silly. Unfortunately, if it occurs, the change will most likely be the result of more war.
A lot has changed, over the past couple of centuries, most notably and emphatically in August, 1945, that makes war more “dangerously silly” than ever before — as in so dangerously silly that the outcome could easily be the destruction, planet-wide, of civilization as we know it. The human species, and the biosphere as a whole, might survive, but that really depends upon how many of the nukes we launch.
I advise, strongly, working to convince yourself and your associates of the above.
No, I’m afraid not.
The fact that war is more dangerous than ever, and a threat to human survival, doesn’t make it silly. It just changes the risk/reward calculation.
Schwarz’s argument is that war — “imaginary lines, dress up in costumes, pledge allegiance to pieces of cloth” — is inherently silly. It’s not.
Schwarz is right. For one thing, he didn’t say ALL wars in ALL times have been fought over imaginary lines. But it’s often enough. And yes, wars of conquest are also about resources. But nothing you argue refutes Jon’s documentation about leaders, e.g. Bush and Cheney, seeing war as the catapult to power and popularity.
You don’t think it’s silly to risk the destruction of civilization, the human race, and, possibly, essentially all life on the planet?
Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of “silly.” ;^(
Logic rising to poetry…
A truly excellent piece, Jon. You should come ’round here more often. ;-)
This is an example of the importance and quality of Jon’s work — and is an example of what he should be free to write, rather than being wasted on assignments to spew yet more partisan nonsense.
Absolutely excellent stuff, Jon. To be widely circulated, labeled “must-read.”
As Robert says, just below, you hit this one outta the park.
GREAT write up Jon.
Thank you.
There is no “Happy Memorial Day” or celebration. It has to be a day for reflection and remembering those who were sacrificed by the warmongers.
In addition to Dulce et Decorum Est, Mark twin’s War Prayer has a lot to say…..
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0110/S00004.htm
Sorry for the typo…
It is Mark Twain.
WOW! Home run.
Thank you, Jon, for this moving reflection on the horror of and reasons for war, to which we humans appear addicted. The suicide rate among U.S. veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq is astronomical; those who returned in other than body bags from Vietnam often didn’t do well either, ending up mentally ill, homeless and otherwise totally messed up.
Of course, our tribe, the American tribe, focuses mostly only on our own losses. Generally unexposed to and uncaring of the carnage our military inflicts on other peoples. On that point, do see this from last week on Democracy Now!: Scahill & Greenwald: What If All Victims of War Received the Media Attention of Manchester Victims?
By far! the best I’ve read from Jon. .. so far.
*imho, if … All Victims of War Received the Media Attention of Manchester Victims the Gruan and NYT would need to expand their front page above the fold section very considerably.
Amen.
Speaking of exuding desperation …. this is a good candidate for the worst “article” The Intercept has ever published. Offend people who lost loved ones? Check. Make breathless vituperations without meaning? Check. Totally fail to appreciate that it is a nice thing not to have Nazis running Europe? Check. Make a Rahm Emanuel grade moronic pitch for a military draft as if it were a route to victory rather than to having incompetent cowardly heroes frag their own officers for the cause of liberty as the least worst response? Check. Complain that the wife of the leader of a worse-than-apartheid state couldn’t be both a fugitive from and avoid having her property be confiscated in the capital of the country she had betrayed? Check. I got the world’s smallest fiddle here and it’s singing a sad, sad song.
Seriously, this thing ought to be scrapped and rewritten from the beginning. By somebody else, ideally. There is such a thing as pacifism, and there are people who believe in it, and I’m sure they can make some kind of decent argument as to why it could work, and TI could ask them what that argument is and share it for the class.
You simple didn’t get it. This was a piece of true honor about those who died and suffered in senseless wars. Probably not the patriotic condescending stuff that you are used to read, but wait, this is Intercept. What were you expecting?
I stopped reading your trolling months upon months ago because it’s a waste of my time. But glancing over this latest POS you’ve posted, I’m still not sure if you’re a troll or, possibly even worse yet, a blithering crank imbecile who actually believes the imbecilic takes he or she posts.
Whatever else it is, Kitt, it is a vile pile of corruption, an excrescence on our species.
Blecch.
I am sorry but if by now you have not figured out how Jon thinks and writes, it is YOUR loss. May be you need to read the post a second time and think more to understand its meaning!!
The Intercept is lucky to have Jon writing for them!
Schwarz wasn’t making a pitch, but that sentence is moronic. I generally agree with your assessment of the article.
He says that ““fighting to win” in the sense Trump means… would require … drafting their children out of Stanford and Yale to go die in the sand…” It doesn’t. I mean, everyone remembers that the second World War was won under a draft system, but I think that’s despite rather than because of it — people simply hated fascism so much they let the system stand that time. But had, say, the first World War been worth fighting at all, the U.S. might well have won it without a draft, sending people motivated to fight and freer to do so rather than sending the poor in the hope they’d die and no longer contend with the rich for resources.
WOW, that was the least-connected-to-reality comment I’ve read this entire year – and then some! Didn’t make a single association correctly? Check!
My guess is that you’re a bitter soldier who lost his marbles in war and can’t come home, or see objective reality so you mis-interpret and re-frame in a way that makes you feel better. … I truly hope the VA doesn’t let you down.
Hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and Isis created, just so Bush and Cheney could grease the privatisation of social security. That revelation of Mickey Herskowitz’s leaves the likes of Tony Blair, and the op-ed chicken-hawks, looking even more ridiculous. The clear takeaway: question hard the official rationale presented for any military engagement.