Often Tom Engelhardt and his stable of Tom Dispatch writers work from the frame that U.S. forces are not winning the wars... from there they not so rhetorically question: "What's up with that?"
The frame itself is wrong. These wars do serve a purpose, yet the purpose is not the one offered to the public.
The purpose of the wars is to maintain the Military-Industrial Complex at its current funded level. And that can only happen when the threat of attack is maintained.
What better way to sustain the threat of attack than that of stirring up hornet's nests in what were previously stable, albeit volatile zones?
This outcome is thus intentional:
"Missing from government pronouncements, though, is any acknowledgement that the proliferation of Islamist terrorism is a direct consequence of the knee-jerk response of military escalation.
"Discarded to the memory hole is the fact that before each of the major interventions in these three countries, our political leaders promised they would bring security, freedom and prosperity.
"Instead, they have done precisely the opposite."
There are 2 major side bonuses.
One, that the sitting President gets to parade around like a war hero.
Second, that "war abroad allows for tyranny at home." And with global resources shrinking, commodities' prices tanking, and trade wars beginning to stir... the best way to incapacitate those citizens who oppose the corporate plunder of domestic resources as well as foreign assets is to criminalize any action that can be remotely deemed a threat to "national security."
The laws already on the books including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Patriot Act essentially anesthetize citizens' rights to oppose BAD government (in alliance with corporations) policy. And meanwhile, treaties that will further thwart public input and opposition are IN the pipeline in the form of the TIPP and TPP.