Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

And the "opposition" candidate for president of the USA, was a key architect thereof.

The incumbent, for what it's worth, got into office in large part because he was one of the only people in the Republican party willing to mock those who started this war (specifically, the iraq portion).

Trump still poured the gas on the situation no doubt, but neither of the parties (even after 20 years and millions dead) in USA want to actually...end the war on terror.

The republican party generally wants to make it more violent and about vengeance to suit their domestic political goals, and the democratic party generally want to make it more "efficient" (obama's drone strikes, black ops, arab spring style stoking of internal divisions in target countries & regions, but still intervening in even more countries than bush did before him...biden is advocating for a similar policy item list, from the looks of it)

but as I have already argued in another thread, the whole point of the war was not to achieve stated USA geopolitical interests as a nation-state per se, but more accurately to simply create zones of colonial power exercise and extract profit for privatized actors. That's why it's always been so vague, and seemingly "failed" or "unplanned"-- the point is not to create order, but chaos, it's not to save money for the government but rather to spend it, etc.

pursuing "efficiency" in such an enterprise, is actually the most nonsensical and ideologically blinded thing you could advocate the USA empire to do.

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

This was always the point. The purpose of this war was not to achieve justice or peace, to annex territory into the united states and create 51st and 52nd states...no, it was about resource extraction, privatized profiteering, and the creation of instability for its own sake.

This instability was and is targeted at regions of interest not only for their resources and wealth but also for the risk that they might develop a coherent identity and cooperate to achieve newly identified shared interests (OPEC, for example)

The USA empire is not a coherent entity. It is a sprawling and federated enterprise with interdepartmental rivalries, a culturally and ideologically divided populace, and a decaying economic structure. When its rivals begin to become more coherent and stable, this presents a huge problem for USA's ruling class and all efforts are made within the USA ruling class's power to introduce instability and entropy to such rivals.

It's like COINTELPRO, but as a geopolitical "strategy". The history of GLADIO in Italy is instructive for some of their methods and a context for how far these people are willing to go.

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

Creating refugees, creates both potential soldiers for hire, as well as likely enemies. Both are useful in this context to USA, for one provides direct military aid but the latter is even more helpful because it creates an oppositional force which can be subdivided against itself or used as a pretext for further intervention and power projection by the USA state.

7

bloodrose wrote

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

5