Home | About | Donate

When It Comes to America's Endless War: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure


When It Comes to America's Endless War: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure

Nick Turse

"Africa is a challenging place today and one that, if left unattended, is likely to be the birthplace of many more challenges in the future,” Army Secretary John McHugh said recently. Since 9/11, in fact, the continent has increasingly been viewed by the Pentagon as a place of problems to be remedied by military means. And year after year, as terror groups have multiplied, proxies have foundered, and allies have disappointed, the U.S.


Perhaps it is time to have "no extermination without representation" to replace (or affix to) "no taxation without representation".


I would like to know the exact amount of tax dollars we have spent on these "Training Exercises" and more importantly just who in Africa asked us to show up there in the first place...What has America gained from this bloody, expensive agenda?


School of the Americas redux? Maybe without the walls this time?

How to win friends and shoot people.

The Military version of the Peace Corps?

We'll call this the War Corps.

Who do we teach to shoot at their peasants? Just asking.


"When It Comes to America's Endless War: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure"

That's "Conservative's Endless War". Leave liberals out of it or we will sue for defamation and for incriminating and endangering us.


The same guys who will later shoot at us.


The US has remained engaged in wars more often than not for at least the past century. War is what we do, and we can no longer do much of anything else (except prisons; cheap prison labor increasingly replaces other workers). By shipping out a huge number of American jobs, and ending welfare (increasing the number of people who are absolutely desperate for any job at any wage), we have made ourselves unsustainable. Tax revenues continue to shrink as war expenditures continue to grow.


War is what we do. It doesn't much matter why or where anymore. There is no other American agenda. We should consider what happens when the international community agrees that the US presents to great of a threat to the survival of all humankind, and puts an end to us. America today is a profoundly divided nation, as we are pitted against each other by class and race, and the country is exhausted economically and militarily. A sizable (if invisible) portion of our population no longer has anything left to lose, any consequences to fear. That's a dangerous position for a country to be in.


i can see where you are going but that was considered when the corporate world government was first being theorized. The USA would be the only military superpower and serve as security for the Corporate World Order. If you notice, the guarantee of stability is economic catastrophe as the alternative. Europe, the Americas, and even Asia (incl. Australia.etc) all have a stake in keeping the economic wheels turning. That's why we get away with it and why ordinary Americans are being robbed of their share of this country's wealth to pay for that world's policeman bull. The oligarchs don't mind using the taxpayer's money to mess around in the world, they just hate using the taxpayer's money to help the taxpayers.

Will it result in a classical civil unrest situation? Possibly but I'd doubt it since we may be struggling but that also means struggling to buy a summer cabana or a cabin in the mountains by the lake or a jet ski or even another couple of cable channels and a flat screen TV.

However when catastrophic climate change is thrown in the mix THEN all bets are off. The powerful deny too much too often and pretend nothing will happen. Once things do start to happen due to climate change (these drought caused fires for example are just the beginning) then that gulf between rich and poor will became a rift. If you understand my meaning.

BTW fascism is getting ready for unrest. Militarized police, warrantless surveillance, drones above our skies, data mining (Ashcrofts Total Information Awareness) ... they know that they are greedy.


This is no longer about the 1% vs. the rest of us. The poor and middle class are deeply pitted against each other. Right now, the rich are doing to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor. Our better-off no longer consider those who are too poor to owe taxes to be legitimate human beings at all.

It's worth noting that the US had been in similar messes before. Each time, the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, ultimately united to push back, to everyone's benefit. That can't happen this time, so the richest, the corporate rulers, are moving in for the kill.


Where are you going with this? I'm curious. Moreover what am I supposed to say? I think the middle class everywhere the fat burghers, the complacent comfortable class has always distanced itself from the poor in most countries. Who else can they compare themselves to? The rich are envied and the poor are disdained but the middle class feels comfortable.

That has flipped around since those two trillion in tax cuts/closing factories/ lost good middle class jobs and pensions and the rest. Suddenly the middle class isn't comfortable. Will they make common cause? Let's hope but they didn't do it like you think they did in the past. The middle class may have suffered but it didn't align with the poor. Tell me when that happened? It didn't happen in the depression. The jobless and poor workers had commonality but the managers didn't march for jobs with those on the soup kitchen lines. Middle class people went to their homes the poor were thrown out on the street.

If climate catastrophe hits then there may be common cause but I wouldn't count on money to define people. Catastrophe unites everybody...

But maybe you will be right this time. Us against the 1%? I think it would be chaos and they'd simply fly off to st. Moritz or the south of France etc.


The Climate crisis / disaster is already underway. That said, it's definitely not going to effect everyone the same way, at-least not for quite awhile.


I know what you mean. My advice is >>> don't buy any beachfront property! Lol.

I think people have a tendency to see everything as if it were a hollywood movie which is why unless there is something big right under their noses, like Sandy or those triple typhoons in the Pacific, people go back to being oblivious (evidently mankind's natural state...lol).

These fires (here, the ones in Siberia we never hear about but which are horrendous, in Canada too) are global warming but unless you live where there is smoke, it's turn off the news and back to being oblivious.

But someday (unfortunately too soon at that) the "...at least not for quite awhile" that you mention ...will affect everyone. 110 degree summer heat is an equal opportunity agony for everybody rich and poor. A killer for those who don't have AC though. In general no matter what it is... it is always worse for the poor.

If your niche
is in St. Moritz
no snow is a bitch
even for the rich

Markets will tumble as global warming unrest creates climate refugee crises, new wars and conflicts, drought causing famines and all the rest. There is no place to go where you stay rich once the global warming hits the fan.

Ours (rich and poor) is a Humpty Dumpty global warming future

and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put it back together again.

Heat baby! Heat!


Why is it that no one seems to care about addressing the root cause of all this grief and waste? Shakespeare's Julius Caesar pegged it when he said:
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
1.2.195 He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

The world has become a much smaller place with actions in far off places affecting those a continent and an ocean away. We can no longer hord the fruits of production in the fat bank accounts of the 1% but must pay the workers of the world enough to live on. These exploited masses are not the ones creating the problems, Those individuals are in the plush boardrooms and State Houses the World around and their actions or lack thereof create an atmosphere that can be exploited by groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Red Brigade, the IRA, ALEC. and even the Westboro Baptist Church. Timothy McVeigh did not operate in a vacuum and neither do the dictators and terror groups that cause so much of the worries of today.
I guess it is just too much trouble to do what should be done when you are the one holding the gun.


What makes you think that even the Seychelles would be far enough? The Life Style of the Rich and Not So Famous is non sustaining. Supply lines must be maintained and labor is relied on to do this. Infrastructure is needed to maintain comfort and infrastructure also needs the attentions of labor. Since these persons do not actually do the work that produces their maintenance they are totally dependent on the kindness of strangers. The last time an upheaval of such momentous proportions occurred the human population of the entire planet was likely smaller than the population of a medium sized developed country. I expect that, given the human tendency to ignore potential trouble until it becomes really inconvenient we can look forward to a very interesting century with justifiable trepidation.
Perhaps the reason that we have no proof that Earth has ever been visited by another race of beings is that a civilization with the drive to do so self destructs before it can get off their planet.


I think an analysis which relies on the average person returning to a mythological lifestyle - a fabled return to pastoral roots - the worker/farmer and so forth is impossible in a world with 7.3 billion people. Supply lines need to be maintained for those 7 billion too and that creates a need for organizational structure and that structure creates a governing elite and a hell of a lot ends up remaining pretty much the same whether here or in some half legendary agrarian primitive lifestyle.

In short, the rich wouldn't wait to pack up and move to a better place. They'd set up the very structure that will maintain them and the reason why they can is that not all of those seven billion are invited to come along. Only those who will work and farm and fill a niche in that rich person's structure/support are invited (and paid btw). Those invited will defend their limited privileges.

The result would be a neo-feudalism. It would be created for exactly the same reasons as it was a thousand + years ago. Instability, uncertainty, disruptions, conflicts, a need for security, a need to have a steady source of food and shelter etc. A powerful (rich) person gathered around himself the structure he needed to maintain his power. Farmers (serfs) in the fields, craftsmen in the towns, merchants in the markets etc. A future feudalism is possible but a worker's paradise where no one is a leader or manager etc - where no one is in charge - seems very unlikely.


I honestly don't think some people want to do the right thing. Certainly fascists knew that they had no intention of being fair or even of doing the right thing. The rich may create the situations exploited by the forces of chaos but don't excuse the large numbers of people who voted for Reagan. Who listen to Rush Limbaughs and Bill o'Reilly et al. Don't excuse those who were gung ho we don't want to wait for a mushroom cloud who voted for Bush and his Iraq War or who voted for his two trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich and reelected Bush again, despite the Enrons, the outsourcing and closing of factories, dissolution and give backs of pensions and benefits and the bail outs.

Don't excuse all the people ... the couriers and servants up in the big house who willingly uphold the privilege of their patron because they have more than all those who are not part of that maintenance structure.

The rich are not rich in isolation.


another disappointing and rather shallow article on an interesting and timely situation. there was at least some research here but not enough . not enough work connecting the dots,naming names etc. how can one write an article about our military in africa and not mention the CIA? i suggest getting some editorial help to tighten up these articles and request specific info thats missing from what could have been a good article. i give it a B-