After WWII, the U.S. has fought one war after another and so far as we can see, has nothing whatever to show for it excepting South Korea. That is a visible, positive accomplishment. After that: nothing or a situation worse than it was when we rushed in to save somebody. The cost however, has never slackened.
Senator Obama as a presidential candidate blasted President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. He thought Afghanistan was ok. Now, President Obama is (somewhat covertly) re-invading Iraq and adding Syria. (Never mind what we’re doing in central Africa.) Plus ca change’ …
If you would like a nice wrap-up of what the Presidents Bush, pater et fils, accomplished in Iraq, Judge Andrew Napolitano, presently a senior news analyst at Fox News, provides it here. What President Obama’s Iraq III will look like, we leave to your imagination as ours boggles at the thought. And that doesn’t get to Syria. Please trouble yourself to follow the link; it is a crucially omitted piece of the needed debate about this scene.
After the piles of dead Afghans and the planeloads of dead and wounded Americans, is Afghanistan one bit better off? Well, the American money dumped there, much of it stolen by corrupt Afghans (the standard variety), has perked up what passes for the Afghan economy. The shiploads of used military gear we are leaving there has equipped Afghan government and Taliban troops. The Taliban no longer control any significant portion of the place, though as a client of he Pakistani military, it is still extant. Otherwise, little has changed, nor is it likely that it will. Call it a wash.
In Iraq, dumping a nasty dictator has destabilized the ‘country’ and had no little to do with creating ISIS. It is reasonable to think that it contributed toward destabilizing Syria too. Middle Eastern dictators seem an odious lot generally but the area, when relieved of them, seems arguably worse. In any event, sending the U.S. military there shows, so far as we can see, an enormous cost in treasure and lives producing little or no gain. So, why is the U.S. President, sans Congress, doing it again? Particularly after his criticism of his predecessors for doing exactly that?
Hell, how do we know? Perhaps the Prez is bonkers … or perhaps he finds it necessary to satisfy the needs of President Dwight Eisenhower’s (he of the balanced budget) “Military-industrial complex” against which Ike warned us. Those arms industry guys must have been pretty desperate as they saw Iraq and Afghanistan winding down.
We are forced (by reality) to note that the spending on social welfare and military adventures abroad, account for the U.S. deficit and debt. As we see no evident gain in the world’s condition nor any popular draft of America to police the place, we wonder: What is the justification for beggaring America in these destructive adventures? Yes, awful things happen in these places. But as they seem no less awful for American presence, why are we beggaring ourselves in them? Hell, we don’t know, as we said. We’d like to stop all that and work on our own economic mess here at home, though. At least here, we have a luminous past to offer hope …