Washington DC -- "We've got to stop ISIS...al-Qaida...Syria's Assad...Hamas...Hezbollah...Taliban
...Shebab...the wicked Ruskis in Ukraine...those Yemeni Houthis...Iran...Sudan...Islamists in
Libya and Mali...Boko Haram in Nigeria...the Red Chinese in Asia. Oh yes, and defend Latvia
and fight the Lord's Army in Uganda.
That's the view in Washington where international police fever and growing hysteria over
ISIS, the latest Mideast bogeyman, have gripped the nation, as elections near and
politicians talk more nonsense than usual. . . .
Speaking as an old Mideast hand and veteran war correspondent, I say no plan is a good
plan. Washington has made such an awful mess of its foreign policy that inaction is an
increasingly attractive option. More little wars will mean the US falling into the trap
set by Osama bin Laden.
Who came down from the mountain and said the US must police the globe, from the South
China Sea to the jungles of Peru? After losing wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US should reconsider its overly militarized foreign policy
and exaggerated international pretensions. You can't rule the globe on money borrowed
from China and Japan. . . .
Bombing Iraq now costs the US $7.5 million daily, or $562 million since June. This is
just the opening ante for Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama's very own Iraq War.
George W. Bush's Iraq War cost well over $1
trillion. This at a time when 44 million Americans rely on food stamps and
infrastructure is crumbling all over America.
As they say at the Betty Ford Clinic for drug and alcohol addicts, "just say no." Or, if
Americans really want more jolly little wars around the globe, then raise taxes to pay
for them instead of hiding their cost in the national debt.
Americans now face two conflicts in places they can't even find on the map.
[Those who want to wage war against this group assume that our use of military power is
bound to yield a positive outcome. Their recommendations should carry a warning: Actual
results may surprise.--Steve Chapman, "Ignorance
Fuels the Calls for War," reason.com, September 4, 2014]
[The summit therefore is seemingly a last-ditch effort to preserve international
tensions as the ratifying condition of Western supremacy.--Norman Pollack, "NATO,
Spearhead of Western Fascism," counterpunch.org, September 8, 2014]
[For the 20 years between 1991 and 2011 -- the interval between Operation Desert Storm
and the final withdrawal of U.S. forces after a lengthy occupation of Iraq -- Washington
policymakers, Republican and Democratic, relied on various forms of coercion to align
Iraq with American expectations of how a country ought to run. . . .
Destroying what Obama calls the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant won't create an
effective and legitimate Iraqi state. It won't restore the possibility of a democratic
Egypt. It won't dissuade Saudi Arabia from funding jihadists. It won't pull Libya back
from the brink of anarchy. It won't end the Syrian civil war. It won't bring peace and
harmony to Somalia and Yemen. It won't persuade the Taliban to lay down their arms in
Afghanistan. It won't end the perpetual crisis of Pakistan. It certainly won't resolve
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Andrew J. Bacevich, "Obama is picking his targets in Iraq and Syria while
missing the point," counterpunch.org, September 8, 2014]