Home | About | Donate

Will Trump agree to the Pentagon's permanent war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria?


#1

Will Trump agree to the Pentagon's permanent war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria?

Gareth Porter

The two top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of Defence James Mattis and national security adviser HR McMaster - are trying to secure long-term US ground and air combat roles in the three long-running wars in the greater Middle East – Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.


#2

The GOP has always enabled eternal occupations and wars to equal eternal revenue for the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC).

Although Trump accused Clinton of being a warmonger during the 2016 campaign, Trump has a history of accusing others of actions that are more characteristic of Trump than the accused. There is zero evidence that Trump is anything less than 100% supportive of MIMIC's eternal war mission.

Just as Trump and the GOP have historically generated far more fake news than any other people or organizations they make it sound like everybody except them are generating fake news, an example of pure Goebbels strategy.


#3

I don't know Mr. Porter; you're analysis seems to suppose that Trump is a rational actor. Or an uncompromised actor. Or an informed actor. When in reality he is merely an actor.

When W addressed the assembled Congress and articulated "the generational conflict" it was in fact a lie, because I immediately knew that the next thirty years at least, maybe fifty, or into the unforeseeable future, the US would be locked into military conflict. a multi-generational, never ending state of war. The only way it ends is for the US to lose the ability to bully world opinion and to conduct military aggression with impunity. What does that look like? Nuclear holocaust?


#4

EndTheEmpire

BringOurTroopsHome

RebuildOurCountry

DumpTheDuopoly


#5

I wish I could press "like" a thousand times.


#6

The basis of our military actions in the Middle East may indeed be solely for the acquisition and control of petroleum reserves there. Certainly, our military is a major consumer of fuel oils, but our economy and worldwide economies are more dependent on petroleum. That dependency is orchestrated by corporate interests which would rather their profitable status quo remain in place. As long as this dependency remains, the powers that be have no problem committing our military to protecting the dominating influence of their control over economies, particularly via petroleum dependency.


#7

"If Trump approves expected proposals for the three countries, the US ground combat role in the region will be extended for years to come"

Great! More weapons factories means more employment, more job positions for soldiers means a lower national unemployment rate, and more military pensions for widows and children of the dead and maimed means more spending on new fridges, physical rehab, and spanking new tombstones plus optional pots of flowers for the dearly deceased to keep the U. S. of A economy revved at its robust best!!!


#8

In today's lesson we are going to review what we have learned about the nature of the perversion of the "art" of war. More specifically, to what extent do intervening countries create and nurture a vicious cycle of seemingly self-perpetuating circumstances, which they then use as the sophomoric and specious justifications for unduly prolonged military campaigns?

"Okay class, repeat after me: If you don't know history, then...'"

It seems as if the United States has adopted a game-plan that calls for perpetual wars. The current focus is on the Mid East. However, there are many other areas that are prime candidates for U.S. invasion or intervention. All it takes is the invocation of fear/terror, and mass media’s devout compliance—in incessantly beating the war drums.

I think they took the recent myriad wars straight out of “1984,” by George Orwell. In that book, there were constant news reports about some perpetual war, being waged on the periphery or borders of the civilized world. The reports were usually of "near victory," but never any real substantial gains.

On June 28, 2010, an AP article quoted then-CIA director Leon Panetta, "We're seeing elements of progress, but this is going to be tough.” That article read, “Panetta estimated there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida militants operating inside Afghanistan, with the rest hiding along Pakistan's mountainous western border.” When asked about the Taliban, he said, “There is progress—even if it's slower than I think anyone anticipated."

On July 25, 2010, an article read, “More NATO troops will die in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer, but Washington's goal of turning the tide against the [Taliban] insurgency by year's end is within reach, the top U.S. military officer said.”

Back then, I recalled many an article with a title similar to, "Al Qaeda's network has been 'severely degraded' by joint U.S.-Pakistani efforts".

Yeah right… It is just like I constantly read about the al-Qaeda's ”Number-3 man” being killed. He's replaced. Then, the next “Number-3 man” is killed. Of course, he’s replaced. Then… ad nauseam.

These war-on -terror news reports will "see-saw"—up and down, back and forth—into public consciousness for the next 50 years. The U.S. news media will mostly be reporting the military’s achievement of some sort of progress or near victory—punctuated by occasional setbacks. However, most of those military campaigns will never accomplish anything really definitive. Certainly, there will be no actual victory or “mission accomplished”, as the United States plans to engage in perpetual wars in that region.

Recently the West has embarked on ambitious campaigns of active combat engagement in several other Mid-East countries, from Libya, to Syria and Yemen. All the while—predictably— it is still stuck in the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. Certain military strategists shocked many onlookers, when they suggested that the United States partner with certain elements of al-Qaida in order to achieve geo-political goals of the West.

And since then, for the sake of propaganda branding and stoking seemingly everlasting tension and fear, al-Qaida has almost magically morphed into various incarnations/factions. There are the so-called moderate rebels and then there is ISIS. Those relatively recently re-named forces mysteriously obtain training, logistics, funding, transport and supplies (i.e. from Iraq and Libya); certain of those ragtag forces are imported into different countries to create boogeymen so as to justify interventions on the scale which serve to further the geo-political agenda of the global power-elite. (It is no surprise that many of those recruits "defect" to the "enemy," along with their newly acquired training, weapons and supplies. Nice!)

So, be prepared next week for an article to read, "ISIS' network has 'gained substantial strength' DESPITE joint U.S.-[Insert name of coalition-force du-jour here] efforts".

Hmmm... It begs the question, "Why didn't the coalitions of the West learn their lesson from the former Soviet Union?" For, it also got bogged down in an Afghanistan quagmire. Truth be told, the powers-that-be—in their "infinite wisdom"— always knew that such wars would drag on and on and on... But then again, the military-security-industrial complex does seem to have an insatiable appetite.


#9

You have portrayed our reality quite well.

What are we to do when our 's/elected' puppets continue to do the bidding of their masters?

Why would any rational American continue to vote for political parties that perpetuate endless death and human suffering all over the world?

Knowing our children and grandchildren will be robbed of their futures of living in peace with all nations on Earth because our government must maintain an Empire built on the death and destruction of others should be enough for us to just say, 'No More.'

However, on November 8th of last year, 137 million Americans said, 'We want more.'

My time on Earth is getting closer to being 'one' with the Earth. I remain hopeful for the young. Their whole future is dependent on whether or not they are willing to fight for their freedom from this Empire.

As I have said before, I will stand with them and support them as long as I still breathe.


#10

Permanent -- 1. Lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
1.1 Lasting or continuing without interruption.

Mystery solved :wink:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/permanent


#11

The headline that states: WILL TRUMP AGREE TO PENTAGON'S PERMANENT WARS, is really a very dumb question and only the most naive do not know the answer is YES!

But what is totally disingenuous and misleading is this: Trump is not the one who makes military decisions about the MIC, even though a supposed Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Trump, like all war presidents is nothing but a figure head for the war department and their war mongering, puppet; otherwise, he would not have been allowed to be selected for Commander in Chief of the armed forces. And the proof of that is if Trump decided to be a peace, president, he would be either impeached or assassinated!


#12

Yea! Verily yea!
;-})


#13

Look on the bright side, when the Wehrmacht has finally killed the janitor it'll all be over. :wink:
;-})


#14

Afghanistan has been devouring giants since the days of Alexander the Great. Most recently, Great Britain, CCCP and now the US Fourth Reich, which will eventually join the offal tread into Afghanistan's soil.
* Someday, the lesson will be learned and people will stop trying to conquer Afghanistan. If they want the country's oil, gas, minerals and pipeline routes, they can trade and bargain for them like civilized nations do.
;-})