How does this end?

Since 1980, we have militarily intervened at least 35 times in more than 27 countries. We keep bombing, we continue spending trillions of dollars, but we're no safer as a result.

Because perpetual war fuels terrorism.

And yet, President Obama now has the same plan for Iraq and Syria.

We've tried arming "friendly" rebels before. We armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. They later became Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who not only attacked us, but terrorized their own people.

We ramped up strikes in Yemen in 2009. Since then, the country has seen MORE terrorist attacks, not fewer.

When we only respond with military force today, we create tomorrow's enemy. The kid whose house was bombed by an American drone will grow up to hate America. Maybe one day he'll fight against us.

Perpetual war does not make us safer.

More historical context...

The U.S. Has Already Completed Regime Change In Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Iraq (Twice), Afghanistan (Twice), Turkey, Libya and Other Oil-Rich Countries

Top 10 US-Backed Atrocities and Authoritarian Regimes

They lied...

They lied about...

The Geopolitics of World War III
The real reason Russia and Syria are being targeted right now

'Blowback' rhetoric helps the perpetual warmakers

People have made and heard this 'blowback' argument (which is what this really is, though the term itself is not used here) many, many times since 2001, and it has done nothing to appreciably increase opposition to the wars. That is why it is the kind of argument likely to be regarded as 'safe,' and hence welcomed, by those same 'antiwar' activists who not only have failed in their ostensible goal for 13 years and counting, but who show no indication (that I can see) of acknowledging this fact, let alone of caring about it.

The wars haven't 'made us safer' because they aren't intended to make us safer. And they haven't brought stability to the region because they aren't intended to bring stability. Arguing that they've 'failed' to do these things simply gives more reinforcement (of which there's been too much already) to the canard that that is their intention, and that the actual results are thus to be understood as 'unintended consequences'.

This approach has done nothing to challenge--and, again, even encourages--the misconceptions on which support for (or, at minimum, indifference towards) perpetual war has rested. Misconceptions concerning:

1) The true interests of the ruling elites, and their related goals and intentions (as exemplified, for example, in 'A Clean Break,' 'The Grand Chessboard,' 'Catastrophic Terrorism,' and 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'--what if, instead of hearing the constant refrain of 'it's not making us safer' from war opponents these past 13 years, the public had instead been educated about the eye-opening truths revealed in works such as these?; such as, that the policies which these elite spokespersons presciently recommended had nothing to do with making us safer);

2) The true nature of the relation between these elites and the mass of the people--most crucially, the notion that their respective interests are essentially convergent rather than divergent;

3) The true nature of the relation between the presumed attackers and US elites--most basically, the notion that while the former start out as instruments of US policy, they at some point cease to be, and react against it, supposedly to the total surprise (no matter how many times it's happened before), and contrary to the wishes, of US policymakers;

4) The true identity and nature of the threat--who/where the attacks have ultimately come from and are likely to come from again;

5) The explanation for successful terror attacks--namely, a disproportionate focus on motive at the expense of means and opportunity (it is hardly less misleading to explain these solely with reference to 'hatred of and anger towards US policy' as it is to 'hatred of our freedoms').

Discussed more here (starting at 1:32):

Chossudovsky on the US 'Long War'

From a conference in Germany in January 2014, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I.

On the matter of their real intentions and motivations (about which I think it's vital for war opponents not to be encouraging misconceptions)....

(At 8:50) '...the global war on terrorism is a fabrication. It is...state terrorism, using terrorists as foot soldiers to kill civilians.'
(At 11:25) ' the ultimate objective of warfare.'
(At 11:43) 'And the objective is not necessarily to win a war. The objective is to destroy countries, and transform those countries into territories.'

(FYI, I personally found some of his statements re which protest organizations are manufactured fronts to be a little too sweeping; also, not sure whether his remarks re effects of Fukushima are exaggerated or not. Otherwise, I found this to be very good and very relevant.)

And, while we're at it

Also relevant--a talk by Nafeez Ahmed from 2004, on the continuities in the US's imperial foreign policy from the Cold War to the post-9/11 period.

Note what he says near the end (again making the point that the increased insecurity of the people is a success, not a failure, of the so-called 'war on terror'): '"National security" is not about our security. It's decreasing our security. It's decreasing the security of the people around the world. Instead, it's increasing the security of corporate elites, who are only concerned about maximizing their power and profit....'


Take a listen to (1) Guillermo Jimenez in this excellent audio piece that contextualizes 20 years of war in Iraq, within the larger destabilization game.


Help Obama Kickstart World War III!


Eee gad! (egad)

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars - by Michael Rivero