Posted on 06/12/2011 6:51:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
When historians sit down decades from now to address the events of the early 21st century, they will have no trouble explaining why Americans elected Barack Obama president. They elected him out of a firm conviction that the United States was not involved in enough wars.
Problem solved. Today, American forces are fighting in four different countries.
No. 4 is Yemen, where we learn the administration is carrying out an intense covert campaign against anti-government militants, using fighter aircraft and drone missiles. It is being handled by the Pentagon in conjunction with the CIA, and according to The New York Times, "teams of American military and intelligence operatives have a command post in Sana, the Yemeni capital."
Feel safer? Probably not. Most of what presidents do with the U.S. military is not aimed at enhancing the security or welfare of the American people. It serves mainly to advance our domination of the world, even -- or maybe especially -- in places irrelevant to any tangible interests. Like Yemen.
Or Libya -- also known as War No. 3. Since March, the administration has been immersed in a grand humanitarian mission requiring us to deliver bombs on a regular basis. Obama's stated goal was to prevent a mass slaughter he accused Moammar Gadhafi of plotting. But that pretext has given way to the real purpose: killing the dictator, pounding his regime into submission, or both.
No end is yet in sight, but an optimistic Defense Department official told the Times, "We are steadily but surely eroding his capacity." If that statement is false, we have burned through $700 million on a futile offensive in a country that posed no threat.
But in this case, a pessimist is someone who thinks the optimists are right. If NATO is truly on the way to defeating Gadhafi, we will soon face the question: What next? Having demolished its government, we will suddenly inherit full responsibility for the fate of Libya and its people.
Piece of cake. I mean, look at how well things went in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, when victory gave way to violent chaos that killed thousands of American soldiers.
Or consider our record in trying to transform Afghanistan. The U.S. has 100,000 troops there, triple the number when Obama took office. Civilian officials and generals invariably assure us that our efforts are succeeding, but never quite well enough to allow our departure.
Despite our vaunted military prowess, generals say the gains are so "fragile and reversible" that we will have to stay for years to come. The Afghan regime is notoriously corrupt, incompetent and often hostile. But Ryan Crocker, nominated to be ambassador to Afghanistan, holds out the shimmering prospect that we can someday achieve a "good-enough government."
Don't we wish. An assessment released last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- which is controlled by members of Obama's own party -- found few encouraging results from our attempts to create a functioning polity and economy. "Insecurity, abject poverty, weak indigenous capacity and widespread corruption create challenges for spending money," the report said.
Foreign assistance, it noted, accounts in one way or another for an astonishing 97 percent of the country's economic activity. Our departure could mean "a severe economic depression."
What's the solution? Don't leave. "Building governance is not something that's going to happen in 18 months," Rajiv Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told the Voice of America. "And President Obama has said it's a generational effort."
That word "generational"? It's what government officials use when they mean "eternal."
The president doesn't plan for us to be out of Afghanistan until 2014 -- 13 years after we went in. He promised to start withdrawing this summer, but the Pentagon is resisting anything more than a minimal drawdown.
Likewise, despite our alleged success in Iraq, the administration is prepared to keep troops there as well, if the Baghdad government will agree. No worries: Leon Panetta, Obama's incoming defense secretary, says he has "every confidence" that it will.
Given our torrential budget deficits, entering an era of fiscal austerity, how can we afford to fight all these wars? We can't. But we'll do it anyway.
You can stop wondering when the U.S. government will stop sending our battle-weary troops on endless deployments to police the globe. Country singer Blake Shelton laments, "The more I drink, the more I drink." The more we fight, the more we fight.
It has nothing to do with war; it has everything to do with spending money. Spend as much as you can. Crash the system. That’s the plan.
It takes a lot of fighting to put a caliphate in place. Especially when the people paying for it don’t even realize that’s what they’re paying for.
The author is not credible.
South Korea and the Balkans are still wars.
The number is 6.
Isn’t it five wars?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan?
Or doesn’t Iraq count as a war anymore?
I missed the peace treaty -— or surrender- which “Mission accompished” was it?
It also has to do with creating chaos. It’s much easier to place a dictator of the “right type” when the people are scared, government breaks down and they are desperate to make it all stop. A world lead could then swoop in and promise peace if only they follow him. Sound a little familiar?
From the looks of things, we might have another war to get involved with in Syria.
Amen!
this is beyond insane.
...maybe future historians can answer WHO we are fighting in Afghanistan.
Bush said we aren’t fighting Islam.
Obama says we aren’t even fighting a war on “Terror” anymore.
So WHO is killing our troops there, and why can’t we simply bring them home now? What do we accomplish besides spending a lot of money there?
Same insanity in Libya. NATO has killed a LOT more confirmed civilians, than Gadhafi was alleged to. including children.
...the “no-fly” zone has been taken as a license to bomb Libya indescriminately.
(recently the “rebels” called in a NATO strike on an Orthodox Church ! ...some of those rebels, admit they fought us in Afghanistan!)
“Obama’s stated goal was to prevent a mass slaughter he accused Moammar Gadhafi of plotting. But that pretext has given way to the real purpose: killing the dictator, pounding his regime into submission, or both.”
/// again, WHY? Gadhafi gave up his nuclear program, unlike Iran, and was covertly turning in Islamists to us.
(from Benghazi area, that our own Gov. reported that was a leading source of Afghan fighters. Now, we are helping them?)
Yet Obama wants Gadafi dead, and when actual video of Syria slaughtering civilians with helicopters, etc., comes out,
we do nothing to Assad but send a “strongly worded letter”.
In DEMOCRATSPEAK, bombing is referred to as Kinetic Urban Renewal.
King Obama’s plan is to defund and thin the military with armed conflict to destroy our strength. He is a communists BLACK Muslim and his only agenda is to destroy America. His aspirations is to be the first dictator and build his black army from the remains of the civil war that will come.
Who knows how many covert operations Obama is carrying on. We only know about Yemen because (surprise!) NYT reported on it. Who knows what else he is hiding.
“We have always been at war with Oceania...”
Orwell was off by only a generation or two.
Weaken our military, too. The ones operating the 0bama meat puppet know that they've got few friends there.
Yep, no better way to burn through cash quickly than with military maneuvers.
Hmmmm...
There's something to that: 1. scattering and overextending the military, which 2. multiplies opportunities for advancement for officers & 3. neutralizes it as a bulwark against autocratic seizure of power. 4. It unites & distracts the populace, focusing their attention outside; 5. creates opportunities for production, employment and profit.
But I wonder if this can work unless 'bam is able to achieve the ultimate goal of foreign adventure: seizure of wealth, or control of wealth to replenish the coffers.
I suspect 'bam's model is mercantilism-- except he thinks he can apply it "a la carte." He probably isn't aware of this--just stumbling along the path.
It's a possibility.
Proof that Code Pink is just a DNC PAC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.