Is America Addicted to War?

The top 5 reasons why we keep getting into foolish fights.

Wikimedia Commons Image

Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy

The United States started out as 13 small and vulnerable colonies clinging to the east coast of North America. Over the next century, those original 13 states expanded all the way across the continent, subjugating or exterminating the native population and wresting Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Mexico. It fought a bitter civil war, acquired a modest set of overseas colonies, and came late to both world wars. But since becoming a great power around 1900, it has fought nearly a dozen genuine wars and engaged in countless military interventions.

Yet Americans think of themselves as a peace-loving people, and we certainly don't regard our country as a "warrior nation" or "garrison state." Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that "A just war is in the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace"), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.


In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force. It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush's war in Iraq and could bring U.S. commitments back in line with our resources. Above all, Americans thought Obama would be a lot more thoughtful about where and how to use force, and that he understood the limits of this crudest of policy tools. The Norwegian Nobel Committee seems to have thought so too, when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize not for anything he had done, but for what it hoped he might do henceforth.


Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it's increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

Moreover, as Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "[stain] the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight.

It remains to be seen whether this latest lurch into war will pay off or not, and whether the United States and its allies will have saved lives or squandered them. But the real question we should be asking is: Why does this keep happening? Why do such different presidents keep doing such similar things? How can an electorate that seemed sick of war in 2008 watch passively while one war escalates in 2009 and another one gets launched in 2011? How can two political parties that are locked in a nasty partisan fight over every nickel in the government budget sit blithely by and watch a president start running up a $100 million per day tab in this latest adventure? What is going on here?

Read the 5 Reasons Full Article Here

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on Freedom Watch (Video)

Youtube


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

MUST SEE: Kucinich Exposes the Entire Libya Agenda on The House Floor (Video)

Youtube - DJKucinich
Congresman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaks for a powerful hour on the House floor about the illegality of the Libya war.  This is a MUST SEE speech as he reveals the entire agenda behind the Libya attack. He connects the dots to the CIA quite convincingly.  And he asked the big philosophical questions: "Our dear nation stands at a crossroads. The direction we take will determine not what kind of nation we are but what kind of nation we will become. Will we become a nation which plots in secret to wage war? Will we become a nation that observes our Constitution only in matters of convenience? Will we become a nation which destroys the unity of the world community painstakingly pieced together from the ruins of World War II, a war which itself followed a war to end all wars?"


You MUST WATCH Part 2 and beyond to hear Kucinich thrash Obama and the Congress

RELATED ARTICLE: 
Liberals Trade Blood for Oil Company Profits Under Obama

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Libya vs. Iraq Hypocrisy (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Farrakhan Shreds Obama: "Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?"

Youtube


RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Quote of the Day: Obama Prosecutes Himself

Activist Post

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, 12/20/2007.
RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Chossudovsky: You Don't Come to the Rescue of Citizens by Bombing Them (Video)

Youtube - RT


RELATED ARTICLE:
At Least 110 Tomahawk Missiles fired at Libya, US

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

At least 110 Tomahawk missiles fired at Libya:US

Editor's Note: Each Tomahawk missile costs $569,000.  So $62,590,000 has been spent to kill people without the consent of Congress.

Navy Ship launching Tomahawk missile/Wiki Commons

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US and British forces have fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya against Moamer Kadhafi's air defense sites, a top US military officer said Saturday.

Vice Admiral William Gortney told reporters that "earlier this afternoon over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from both US and British ships and submarines struck more than 20 integrated air defense systems and other air defense facilities ashore."

The first missile struck at 1900 GMT following air strikes carried out earlier by French warplanes, said Gortney, director of the US joint staff.

"It's a first phase of a multi-phase operation," he said.

One British submarine joined with other US warships in the missile attack, he added.

"Because it is night over there, it will be some time before we have a complete picture of the success of these strikes," the admiral said.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

US lawmaker probing Islam is new 'McCarthy': groups

US says Libya at crossroads of democracy, civil war

Fire Water: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace ...

Time to Quit Pining for a “Level Playing Field” in ...

Activist Forward March!

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US Makes War on Another Muslim Country With Oil

Carlos Latuff/Deviant Art

Lew Rockwell

Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.

Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.

But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:

Obama Threatens Kadhafi with Military Action

RELATED VIDEO:

Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is an Act of War

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama warns of military action against Kadhafi

© AFP Mandel Ngan

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President Barack Obama Friday threatened Moamer Kadhafi with military action unless he met specific, "non-negotiable" demands for a ceasefire, a halt to attacks on civilians and a retreat from rebel strongholds.

Obama said the world could not stand by because, if left unchecked, Kadhafi would commit atrocities in which thousands could die, adding that the Libyan strongman had been given "ample warning" to change his behavior.

But Obama left unclear the exact role that Washington would play in military action against Libya, beyond enabling its European and Arab partners to "effectively" mount a no-fly zone to protect civilians.
He made clear, however, that there would be no US ground troops deployed to Libya, and repeatedly stressed that Washington would not act alone.

"The United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone.

"It means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together."


"Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong."

Obama said that if Kadhafi failed to honor the UN Security Council resolution passed Thursday, demanding a complete ceasefire among other requirements, he would face "consequences."

"These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Kadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through military action."

"Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Kadhafi would commit atrocities against his people," Obama said. "Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue."

Obama also laid down new and specific, conditions for Kadhafi, saying he must pull immediately halt his advance on the key rebel town of Benghazi and pull back from three other rebel contested cities, or face military action.

"That means all attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said.

"Kadhafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas," Obama said.

Additionally, Obama said Kadhafi must allow humanitarian aid to reach the country's people.

He said that he would also send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back to Europe to attend a major summit in Paris on Libya on Saturday, which includes the leaders of France, Britain and Germany as well as Arab allies.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

US examining 'full range of options' on Libya

Obama steers clear of 'doctrine' as Arab tumult rages

Libya no-fly zone would require bombing raids: US

US planners mull military options in Libya: report

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Another Illegal War Of Slaughter Couched In “Humanitarian” Doublespeak

International Community Responds to Fukushima Crisis – By Bombing Libya

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Those who were asking what the “international community” planned to do in response to the escalating global crisis surrounding the nuclear plant in Fukushima now have their answer – bomb Libya. As if the world wasn’t experiencing enough turmoil and devastation, another illegal war of aggression has been launched in a volatile region, couched in the retching Orwellian doublespeak of ‘no fly zones’ and ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric.



Colonel Gaddafi’s announcement of a cease fire today will probably do little to abate the clear plan of military conquest for which Libya has been targeted by the globalists.

What’s particularly odious about the whole disgusting spectacle is the sight of the neo-liberal left, the same people who vigorously opposed the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, acting as cheerleaders for a war sold on the justification of Gaddafi’s actions over the course of the last month, completely oblivious to the fact that the US military-industrial complex has been trying to oust Gaddafi for the best part of three decades.

Read Full Article

RELATED VIDEO:
Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is An Act of War

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US lawmakers seek big Afghan withdrawal in July

© AFP Peter Parks

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Eighty-one US lawmakers, mostly Democratic allies of the White House, pressed President Barack Obama on Wednesday to make a "significant and sizeable" drawdown of US forces from Afghanistan in July.

"Let us be clear. The redeployment of a minimal number of US troops from Afghanistan in July will not meet the expectations of Congress or the American people," the group, all members of the US House of Representatives, said in a letter to Obama.

The lawmakers, just four of whom were Republicans, expressed support for Obama's plans to start withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan no later than July 2011 with an eye to transferring security to Afghan forces by 2014.
But "we, the undersigned members of Congress, believe the forthcoming reduction in US troop levels in Afghanistan must be significant and sizeable, and executed in an orderly fashion," they said.


The letter, crafted by Democratic Representative Barbara Lee and made public by the Peace Action advocacy group, came on the eve of a House of Representatives vote on a resolution calling for an end to the war.

The letter noted that polls show Americans overwhelmingly believe that the war is not worth fighting, and it cited the conflict's high cost at a time when many government programs are on the chopping block.

And the lawmakers cited senior US officials who have said there was no military solution to the unrest, and said that a US drawdown would spur the Afghan government to make strides in battling corruption and pursuing good governance efforts.

"We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our nation's military engagement in Afghanistan does not become the status quo. It is time to focus on securing a future of economic opportunity and prosperity for the American people and move swiftly to end America's longest war in Afghanistan," they wrote.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

Do Ideas Matter in Economic Policy, or Just Special ...

Astronauts could hibernate like bears

Former OPEC Official to Obama: Tap Oil Reserves

Spy bloggers not ‘friending’ U.S. targets, Centcom says

TSA to retest airport body scanners for radiation

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner