The U.S. War Addiction: Funding Enemies to Maintain Trillion Dollar Racket

+1 / -1
The U.S. War Addiction: Funding Enemies to Maintain Trillion Dollar Racket (external - login to view)

Monday, 21 June 2010 08:35
'Wherever there is a war, look for CIA/IMF/private military war profiteers covertly funding and supporting BOTH sides in order to keep the wars raging and the profits rolling in. As former CIA Station Chief John Stockwell explained: “Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the US military machine to turn.'
Read more: The U.S. War Addiction: Funding Enemies to Maintain Trillion Dollar Racket (external - login to view)
Wikileaks Confirm US Funds Taliban (external - login to view)

Wednesday, 04 August 2010 08:44

'Oh! The horror! The betrayal! Wikileak documents reveal that Pakistan has been funding the Taliban.
"The Taliban are stronger than ever and a crucial component of their success is the support they receive from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The military spy agency nurtured the Taliban in the 1990s and has maintained ties to the group ever since."
And guess who has been funding Pakistan and the ISI to the tune of billions of dollars? Billions of which "go missing?" Just two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton announced millions more. Obama officials say the US-Pakistani relationship will not be harmed by these revelations. Of course not. The goyim must continue to destroy themselves in Afghanistan.'
Read more: Wikileaks Confirm US Funds Taliban (external - login to view)
Ahh the Wikileaks again, another reliable source. This belongs with the fairy tales.
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Ahh the Wikileaks again, another reliable source. This belongs with the fairy tales.

along with abcmsnbbcsbscnnfox?
Bar Sinister
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Ahh the Wikileaks again, another reliable source. This belongs with the fairy tales.

Interestingly, considering that this is a thread from Stretch, the US government has not denied this particular leak. In fact comments made by the government indicate that the charge is legitimate.

YouTube - DOGS OF WAR Graphic Pink Floydampx202camplrm

This puts war into perspective. It is big business, nothing else. All the BS reasons are just that, BS. Arms manufacturers need to move product and more product can't be moved until the previous shipment has been consumed. The body count is irrelevant to them, only the almighty dollar.

The U.S. War Addiction (external - login to view)

By: kdtroxel
  • AFGHANISTAN (external - login to view)
  • CORPORATE MEDIA (external - login to view)
  • COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS/PROPAGANDA (external - login to view)
  • DICTATORSHIP (external - login to view)
  • ECONOMY (external - login to view)
  • EDUCATION (external - login to view)
  • IRAQ (external - login to view)
  • PROTESTS/REVOLUTION (external - login to view)
  • TORTURE/WAR CRIMES (external - login to view)
  • VIDEO (external - login to view)
  • WAR/DRAFT/VETERAN AFFAIRS (external - login to view)

When George Bush launched the Iraq War, it was obvious to any observer that we were in that country because they had oil, and our government wanted that oil. But this isn't the only time that our military has been used to help businesses take control of the natural resources of a country. In fact, it's happened a lot more than you might think. Mike Papantonio talks about our war addiction, and how US corporations are helping to make these wars self-perpetuating, with David DeGraw, a founding member of the Amped Status blog.
Tell us something we don't know that would have a bearing on today.
Bar Sinister
Nothing new there. The US military-industrial complex faced a real dilemma with the end of the Cold War. Suddenly the massive flow of funds to military-based industries was about to dry up. As a result it became necessary to invent new enemies to keep the cash coming. Fortunately "terrorist" states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea reared their ugly heads and provided those favouring continued or even increased military spending exactly what they wanted.
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Nothing new there. The US military-industrial complex faced a real dilemma with the end of the Cold War. Suddenly the massive flow of funds to military-based industries was about to dry up. As a result it became necessary to invent new enemies to keep the cash coming. Fortunately "terrorist" states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea reared their ugly heads and provided those favouring continued or even increased military spending exactly what they wanted.

Yup! Creating boogiemen to keep the little peons cowering under their beds so the war machine can keep the cash flow flowing. That is where your tax dollars go - fear, machines of mass destruction and blood and guts. Fear is a money maker. Shake your money maker, Uncle Sam!
+3 / -1
#11  Top Rated Post
and the beat goes on:

War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons Why America's Wars Persist | Informed Comment (external - login to view)

War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist

It was launched immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when I was still in the military, and almost immediately became known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT. Pentagon insiders called it “the long war,” an open-ended, perhaps unending, conflict against nations and terror networks mainly of a radical Islamist bent. It saw the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, buried in the aftermath of defeat in Vietnam, and a reinterpretation of that disaster as well. Over the years, its chief characteristic became ever clearer: a “Groundhog Day” kind of repetition. Just when you thought it was over (Iraq, Afghanistan), just after victory (of a sort) was declared, it began again.
Now, as we find ourselves enmeshed in Iraq War 3.0, what better way to memorialize the post-9/11 American way of war than through repetition. Back in July 2010, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on the seven reasons why America can’t stop making war. More than four years later, with the war on terror still ongoing, with the mission eternally unaccomplished, here’s a fresh take on the top seven reasons why never-ending war is the new normal in America. In this sequel, I make only one promise: no declarations of victory (and mark it on your calendars, I’m planning to be back with seven new reasons in 2019).
1. The privatization of war: The U.S. military’s recourse to private contractors has strengthened the profit motive for war-making and prolonged wars as well. Unlike the citizen-soldiers of past eras, the mobilized warrior corporations of America’s new mercenary moment — the Halliburton/KBRs (nearly $40 billion in contracts for the Iraq War alone), the DynCorps ($4.1 billion to train 150,000 Iraqi police), and the Blackwater/Xe/Academis ($1.3 billion in Iraq, along with boatloads of controversy) — have no incentive to demobilize. Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored options in Washington.
“Freedom isn’t free,” as a popular conservative bumper sticker puts it, and neither is war. My father liked the saying, “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and today’s mercenary corporations have been calling for a lot of military marches piping in $138 billion in contracts for Iraq alone, according to the Financial Times. And if you think that the privatization of war must at least reduce government waste, think again: the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated in 2011 that fraud, waste, and abuse accounted for up to $60 billion of the money spent in Iraq alone.
To corral American-style war, the mercenaries must be defanged or deflated. European rulers learned this the hard way during the Thirty Years’ War of the seventeenth century. At that time, powerful mercenary captains like Albrecht von Wallenstein ran amok. Only Wallenstein’s assassination and the assertion of near absolutist powers by monarchs bent on curbing war before they went bankrupt finally brought the mercenaries to heel, a victory as hard won as it was essential to Europe’s survival and eventual expansion. (Europeans then exported their wars to foreign shores, but that’s another story.)
2. The embrace of the national security state by both major parties: Jimmy Carter was the last president to attempt to exercise any kind of control over the national security state. A former Navy nuclear engineer who had served under the demanding Admiral Hyman Rickover, Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber and fought for a U.S. foreign policy based on human rights. Widely pilloried for talking about nuclear war with his young daughter Amy, Carter was further attacked for being “weak” on defense. His defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 inaugurated 12 years of dominance by Republican presidents that opened the financial floodgates for the Department of Defense. That taught Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council a lesson when it came to the wisdom of wrapping the national security state in a welcoming embrace, which they did, however uncomfortably. This expedient turn to the right by the Democrats in the Clinton years served as a temporary booster shot when it came to charges of being “soft” on defense — until Republicans upped the ante by going “all-in” on military crusades in the aftermath of 9/11.
Since his election in 2008, Barack Obama has done little to alter the course set by his predecessors. He, too, has chosen not to challenge Washington’s prevailing catechism of war. Republicans have responded, however, not by muting their criticism, but by upping the ante yet again. How else to explain House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress in March? That address promises to be a pep talk for the Republicans, as well as a smack down of the Obama administration and its “appeasenik” policies toward Iran and Islamic radicalism.
Serious oversight, let alone opposition to the national security state by Congress or a mainstream political party, has been missing in action for years and must now, in the wake of the Senate Torture Report fiasco (from which the CIA emerged stronger, not weaker), be presumed dead. The recent midterm election triumph of Republican war hawks and the prospective lineup of candidates for president in 2016 does not bode well when it comes to reining in the national security state in any foreseeable future.
3. “Support Our Troops” as a substitute for thought. You’ve seen them everywhere: “Support Our Troops” stickers. In fact, the “support” in that slogan generally means acquiescence when it comes to American-style war. The truth is that we’ve turned the all-volunteer military into something like a foreign legion, deploying it again and again to our distant battle zones and driving it into the ground in wars that amount to strategic folly. Instead of admitting their mistakes, America’s leaders have worked to obscure them by endlessly overpraising our “warriors” as so many universal heroes. This may salve our collective national conscience, but it’s a form of cheap grace that saves no lives — and wins no wars.
Instead, this country needs to listen more carefully to its troops, especially the war critics who have risked their lives while fighting overseas. Organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace are good places to start.
4. Fighting a redacted war. War, like the recent Senate torture report, is redacted in America. Its horrors and mistakes are suppressed, its patriotic whistleblowers punished, even as the American people are kept in a demobilized state. The act of going to war no longer represents the will of the people, as represented by formal Congressional declarations of war as the U.S. Constitution demands. Instead, in these years, Americans were told to go to Disney World (as George W. Bush suggested in the wake of 9/11) and keep shopping. They’re encouraged not to pay too much attention to war’s casualties and costs, especially when those costs involve foreigners with funny-sounding names (after all, they are, as American sniper Chris Kyle so indelicately put it in his book, just “savages”).
Redacted war hides the true cost of a permanent state of killing from the American people, if not from foreign observers. Ignorance and apathy reign, even as a national security state that is essentially a shadow government equates its growth with your safety.
5. Threat inflation: There’s nothing new about threat inflation. We saw plenty of it during the Cold War (nonexistent missile and bomber gaps, for example). Fear sells and we’ve had quite a dose of it in the twenty-first century, from ISIS to Ebola. But a more important truth is that fear is a mind-killer, a debate-stifler.
Back in September, for example, Senator Lindsey Graham warned that ISIS and its radical Islamic army was coming to America to kill us all. ISIS, of course, is a regional power with no ability to mount significant operations against the United States. But fear is so commonplace, so effectively stoked in this country that Americans routinely and wildly exaggerate the threat posed by al-Qaeda or ISIS or the bogeyman du jour.
Decades ago, as a young lieutenant in the Air Force, I was hunkered down in Cheyenne Mountain during the Cold War. It was the ultimate citadel-***-bomb-shelter, and those in it were believed to have a 70% likelihood of surviving a five-megaton nuclear blast. There, not surprisingly, I found myself contemplating the very real possibility of a thermonuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, a war that would have annihilated life as we knew it, indeed much of life on our planet thanks to the phenomenon of nuclear winter. You’ll excuse me for not shaking in my boots at the threat of ISIS coming to get me. Or of Sharia Law coming to my local town hall. With respect to such fears, America needs, as Hillary Clinton said in an admittedly different context, to “grow a pair.”
6. Defining the world as a global battlefield: In fortress America, all realms have by now become battle spheres. Not only much of the planet, the seas, air, and space, as well as the country’s borders and its increasingly up-armored police forces, but the world of thought, the insides of our minds. Think of the 17 intertwined intelligence outfits in “the U.S. Intelligence Community” and their ongoing “surge” for information dominance across every mode of human communication, as well as the surveillance of everything. And don’t forget the national security state’s leading role in making cyberwar a reality. (Indeed, Washington launched the first cyberwar in history by deploying the Stuxnet computer worm against Iran.)
Think of all this as a global matrix that rests on war, empowering disaster capitalism and the corporate complexes that have formed around the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and that intelligence community. A militarized matrix doesn’t blink at $1.45 trillion dollars devoted to the F-35, a single under-performing jet fighter, nor at projections of $355 billion over the next decade for “modernizing” the U.S. nuclear arsenal, weapons that Barack Obama vowed to abolish in 2009.
7. The new “normal” in America is war: The 9/11 attacks happened more than 13 years ago, which means that no teenagers in America can truly remember a time when the country was at peace. “War time” is their normal; peace, a fairy tale.
What’s truly “exceptional” in twenty-first-century America is any articulated vision of what a land at peace with itself and other nations might be like. Instead, war, backed by a diet of fear, is the backdrop against which the young have grown to adulthood. It’s the background noise of their world, so much a part of their lives that they hardly recognize it for what it is. And that’s the most insidious danger of them all.
How do we inoculate our children against such a permanent state of war and the war state itself? I have one simple suggestion: just stop it. All of it. Stop making war a never-ending part of our lives and stop celebrating it, too. War should be the realm of the extreme, of the abnormal. It should be the death of normalcy, not the dreary norm.
It’s never too soon, America, to enlist in that good fight!

war profit$ = more war
+2 / -1
To maintain our dominance we have to constantly have the ability to dominate...... And this is shocking to anyone?

So you guys want us to stop dominating, so that others can eventually dominate us, and then possibly lose all our freedoms because they can kill us if we don't do as we are told?

No thanks, I'd rather dominate then be dominated.

And frankly you're a bunch of idiots for not realizing how lucky we are to be in our shoes.

Bunch of masochist feminist bleeding harts all of you.
This Taliban? Try Texas if you are looking for them.


Oh please, the USA will never run out of enemies to invade...

ISIS in the Middle East, Iran, Russia...... CANADA
You left out Belgium and the $750T sitting in the unlocked cash drawer.
This is the waiting room.
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

To maintain our dominance we have to constantly have the ability to dominate...... And this is shocking to anyone?

So you guys want us to stop dominating, so that others can eventually dominate us, and then possibly lose all our freedoms because they can kill us if we don't do as we are told?

No thanks, I'd rather dominate then be dominated.

And frankly you're a bunch of idiots for not realizing how lucky we are to be in our shoes.

Bunch of masochist feminist bleeding harts all of you.

You dominated to the point that you believe you belong to the dominant class. You should spend some time getting control of your imagination before your masters have completely filled it with error.
the good ol' us of g doesn't have friends, just countries it hasn't attacked yet!
The trouble is the leaked sources are the words of those who were
acting in secret therefore much of what is revealed is accurate in
most cases. This is embarrassing and revealing and denying it won't
make it go away
12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars
Too many parties now benefit from perpetual warmaking for the U.S. to ever conclude its military conflicts.

12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars | The American Conservative (external - login to view)

America doesn’t “win” its wars, because winning a war is secondary to other goals in our war making. Winning or losing has little immediate consequence for the United States, because the wars we start, Wars of Choice, are not of vital national interest; losing doesn’t mean getting invaded or our cities being destroyed. The following are some of the interests Washington has in not winning, reasons for our unending wars.

1) War sustains the (very) profitable log-rolling contracts for supplies in key congressional districts, grants for university faculties to study strategy, new funding for new weapons. During wartime who dares question almost any Pentagon cost “to defend America?”

2) Continued conflict postpones hard decisions about cutting defense spending such as closing surplus bases, cutting duplicate systems, and focusing on waste. See 16 Ways to Cut Defense. Shakespeare put it well, advising a king to have lots of foreign wars in order to have tranquility at home.

3) Starting wars is the historic way for kings (and presidents) to gain popularity and avoid doing tough domestic reforms for problems that cry out for solutions. War lets them be postponed. Think of George W. Bush winning election on promises to balance the budget, have health care reform, reform our bankrupt social security commitments, tackle the EPA, take on the teachers’ unions, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and such. Instead, with war, all those issues were swept aside. He won his re-election by having even bigger deficit warfare/welfare spending and increasing the national debt by trillions.

4) Private “contractors” profit from continuing crises. They don’t get paid in peacetime like ordinary soldiers, rather profiting from war, or at least from America having more enemies to guard against. In Iraq and Afghanistan we had hundreds of thousands of them, very well paid (often former military) and now largely in lesser-paid jobs.

5) Washington’s community prospers. Think tank intellectuals get lots of TV exposure and lectures, new funding produces new jobs and government grants and trips to the excitement of battlefields, or at least to comfy headquarters, to study the “enemy.” Congressmen get more TV time; critics can be condemned for hurting the war effort or even aiding the enemy. Everyone feels important. Heritage Foundation interns were recruited to help administer Iraq, and while not every war produces jobs even for interns, money flows everywhere.

6) Cable TV gets more viewers (e.g. more advertising revenue). Instead of interminable, boring coverage of the same old event, think of CNN’s repeated coverage of the disappeared Malaysian airliner for weeks, wars are exciting and gain 24-hour coverage and viewers.

7) Military careers. Our Army and Navy are designed for past wars where soldiers and sailors were mostly identically trained to be able to fill identical slots for fallen comrades or sunken ships. Officer careers were based upon well-rounded experience and commands. Third world wars are different. In nations without a rule of law everything is based upon personal relationships with tribal and military leaders. The British and Roman empires sent out staffers to spend a lifetime gaining confidences and studying different tribes, religions, and local issues. For America, every officer has dozens behind him wanting to get some “war” experience on their resumes. So officers rarely stay longer than a year on any battlefield posting, barely enough time to learn the area and gain the confidence of local leaders, much less learn their languages. Long, interminable wars allow for many more officers to get “their tickets punched,” as the saying goes.

We can’t absorb many casualties, so to minimize them we bomb and obliterate whole villages and towns (think Fallujah), creating a constant supply of new enemies. If winning was really important we would have to absorb many more casualties and station many more troops for many more years to occupy and pacify the conquered (liberated) nations. Instead we just fight on for years without end.

9) Few Americans want to spend lifetimes studying tribes, religions, and customs in obscure, boring, and uncomfortable regions of the world. The British Empire was heavily staffed by poor Scots and Irish who could find few jobs at home. America does not have that problem facing the skilled, educated elites capable of administering far-flung possessions.

10) Our Congress is more concerned with appearances than winning. Political grandstanding, appearing tough, and pandering to local constituencies are the main objectives for most of them. Think of Iran, where no peace agreement acceptable to Iran and our European allies is likely to gain Congressional approval. Another unending war is more likely and could easily expand to blowing up oil and gas resources all over the Persian Gulf.

11) Our internal security establishment, costing hundreds of billions, needs threats. Think of how often the FBI provides fake bombs and weapons to wannabe terrorist young macho males dreaming of acting out their fantasies. Unending wars fulfill this need. If America actually “won,” many of their (well paid) jobs would be superfluous.

12) We are very vulnerable to false flag operations and paid foreign propaganda. Various foreign nations or rebel interests want us to bomb and/or invade their local enemies. Our recent attack on Libya was based on false information, spread by our allies. Saudi Arabia wants us to destroy Iran, Turkey wanted us to attack Assad in Syria, Israeli (and neocon) hawks wanted us to “rip apart” Iraq. Kuwait’s sheiks paid millions for a PR campaign for America to attack Iraq the first time, and so on.

We could “win” if we followed Sun Tzu and learned from history and from the advice of our founding fathers. But, as stated above, we don’t really want to win; too many Americans benefit from unending wars.

We are not the first empire to confront this problem. However, in the past such unending wars were limited by their costs. But America can always, so far, borrow the money from foreigners. Think though how the Chinese, who have loaned us much of the money, benefit from America eventually weakening itself from continually bashing our heads against religious fanatics, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents and making enemies of much of the Muslim world. As Rand Paul commented, it was American war hawks who created ISIS and much of the chaos in the Middle East. Yet we don’t really lose wars either. As retired Marine four-star General Mattis says, America doesn’t lose wars, it just loses interest and withdraws from fighting them.

Ideas to limit Washington’s profligacy of interventions are beginning to break through into the media, though. Fareed Zakaria supported Rand Paul, writing that he was “forcing Republicans and many Democrats to defend what has become a lazy, smug consensus in favor of an ever-expanding national security state.” The very respected Peggy Noonan now writes that “we spend too much on the military which not only adds to our debt, but guarantees that our weapons will be used.” She quotes policy expert Ian Bremmer—“Policy makers will find uses for them to justify their expense which will implicate us in crises that are none of our business.”

Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.
+2 / -1
Great move Gopher. Now Wally can't give you a red since it was penned by one of the chosen elite conservatives.
Now Rodent has finally figured out that it is the RINO and lefty crony capitalists who love the prolonged wars. True conservatives go to war reluctantly and when they go in they go in to win (see Reagan).
The Contra Affair wasn't a win until you made it one today.
Didn't say conservatives win them all but they go in to win.
Obama is a warmonger.
+2 / -1
can you find any war or fighting in the world that US don't affect on it ??? even the small wars between Tribes in Afirca ???huh??
The war against (intentional) inflation.
Quote: Originally Posted by MahanView Post

can you find any war or fighting in the world that US don't affect on it ??? even the small wars between Tribes in Afirca ???huh??

Are you related to Admiral Mahan?
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

Are you related to Admiral Mahan?

Maybe (external - login to view)
Yet another CONSERVATIVE says,

Time for America to Abandon Afghanistan

Time for America to Abandon Afghanistan | The National Interest (external - login to view)

Experts and pundits were stunned last week when Taliban forces overran most of the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. Although government troops appear to have retaken portions of the city, they were able to do so only with substantial assistance from the U.S. combat units that are still in the country. Now General John Campbell, the U.S. commander, is urging President Obama to delay the planned withdrawal of the remaining 9,800 U.S. troops and to retain a permanent garrison that is much larger than the president’s plan for 1,000 military personnel. If President Obama unwisely complies with that request, Afghanistan will be on its way to being a permanent nation-building quagmire for Washington.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) asked the question that many Americans likely harbor: why are we still in Afghanistan more than 14 years after the initial invasion in response to the Taliban regime’s decision to shelter al Qaeda? It is an especially pertinent question since even the U.S. military concedes that there is no longer a significant al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. We are now (and have been for several years) almost exclusively at war with the Taliban, whose agenda (while socially repulsive) is focused on that country and does not pose a credible threat to the American homeland. Senator Paul is absolutely correct that it is well past time for anti-Taliban Afghans to step up and defend their own country without relying on the United States.

Unfortunately, what happened in Kunduz is all too typical of the fruits of U.S. foreign policy over the past half century. U.S. administrations seem to have a knack for picking corrupt, unmotivated foreign clients who are spectacularly unable to prevail against domestic adversaries. The Obama administration’s fiasco of trying to train a cadre of “moderate” Syrian rebels to counter both Bashar al-Assad’s regime and ISIS is only the most recent example. Despite spending more than $400 million, the number of graduates from the program that are still fighting is in the single digits. That training effort may well set a new record for an expensive, ineffectual government boondoggle.

Then there is the Iraqi army, trained and equipped at great expense to American taxpayers. When ISIS launched its offensive last year to capture Mosul and other cities, Iraqi troops seemed intent on setting speed records to flee their positions and let the insurgents take over with barely a struggle. ISIS captured vast quantities of sophisticated military hardware that Baghdad’s troops abandoned in their haste.

That episode reminded older Americans of the performance of the U.S.-backed ARVN—the so-called army of the so-called Republic of Vietnam--in early 1975. The collapse of the ARVN’s resistance to the offensive that communist North Vietnam launched that spring was shockingly rapid and complete. Indeed, it was so fast that the U.S. embassy in Saigon was barely able to evacuate its diplomatic personnel before North Vietnamese troops captured the city.

These and other incidents beg the question of why the foreign clients U.S. leaders choose habitually perform so badly. They are characterized by thin domestic support, poor organization, and lousy morale. Their domestic adversaries always seem to be better organized, more competent, and far more dedicated. Given the extent of the failures in so many different settings, Washington should realize that lavishing funds on preferred clients cannot make them credible political and military players in their countries. And continuing to backstop such inept clients with U.S. troops merely wastes American lives. Despite General Campbell’s wishes, it appears that we are on the verge of being taught that lesson yet again—this time in Afghanistan.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is the author of ten books and more than 600 articles on international issues. His latest book, coauthored with Malou Innocent, is Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America’s Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes (2015).

Oh by the way, in case you are wondering, yes, I do condemn Obama's announced decision to prolong our involvement in that stupid war.
The US can't pull out of Afghanistan. Big Pharma won't let them.
" In Afghan Fields the poppies grow, row on row to fuel Big Pharma's needs." (sung to the tune of Flanders Fields).
Follow the money.

Similar Threads

War is a Racket
by darkbeaver | Nov 11th, 2008
75 trillion dollar fright fest
by #juan | Sep 9th, 2008
Imports: A Trillion Dollar Business!
by dancing-loon | May 22nd, 2008
The Trillion Dollar Swing
by BitWhys | Apr 26th, 2007
no new posts