Will America Always Be At War?

U.S. Marines depart a checkpoint and patrol back to Forward Operating Base Geronimo, Afghanistan, May 30, 2010. The Marines are assigned to Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Mark Fayloga

William Astore, The Nation/Tom Dispatch: 7 Reasons Why America’s Wars Aren’t Ending Anytime Soon

How never-ending war became—and will stay—the new normal.

WNU Editor: This is a good summary on the American left's point of view on why is America at war .... and I confess that I always read these commentaries to better understand their reasoning/explanation on why President Obama .... the most "left-wing" President in U.S. history and one who has always believed philosophically that America has been a problem rather than a solution to many of the world's conflicts .... has personally ordered and engaged U.S. forces in more countries than any of his immediate predecessors. Saying (as William Astore does in this post) .... Since his election in 2008, Barack Obama has done little to alter the course set by his predecessors. He, too, has chosen not to challenge Washington’s prevailing catechism of war. .... is not a good enough explanation .... because President Obama has done far more than just that.

I do not expect an answer .... because the answer is not appealing nor easy to explain. Managing this blog has taught me that the world is a very messy place where ethnic/sectarian/religious/political conflicts and unrest are the norm rather than the exception. The U.S. .... for better or worse .... is a part of this global community, and it has defined its strategic interests based on economics coupled with a determination to also form alliances and partnerships with nations that share its political/economic/social points of view or who have expressed a willingness to one day accept the U.S. view of the world. Sometimes these commitments result in committing to a war .... and sometimes (quoting Trotsky) war decides to come to America. But these are the consequences and responsibilities of being a global power .... and since the Second World War the American people have accepted that role.

Is The Fight Against Islamic Jihadism Losing Its Momentum?

Smoke rises over Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike, as seen from the Mursitpinar border crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern town of Suruc in Sanliurfa province, October 18, 2014. Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Washington Post editorial: The U.S. fight against jihadism has lost its momentum

WNU Editor: The Washington Post clearly believes that the war against the Islamic State/al Qaeda is losing momentum .... citing recent IS territorial gains and frustration among Iraqi officials that the U.S. war effort is falling short as well as an uptick in Al Qaeda inspired terror attacks in Europe. What's my take .... the Washington Post's editorial board is probably right. The solution is to expand the war effort, but there is a great deal of reluctance among the U.S. public to pursue such a direction .... and the White House is (understandably) reflecting this mood. They (the White House) know that the first step necessary to change the momentum would be to have U.S. Special Forces on the ground directing air strikes against IS targets in Iraq .... and after that .... U.S. combat troops. Faced with such a choice ... and no clear end game/exit strategy .... with the exception of war hawks like Sen. McCain/Sen. Graham/etc. .... public support to re-engage into another Iraq war (for example) is minimal at best .... and when the body bags and costs start to escalate .... I would wager that it would probably plummet to 80% strongly against. As to the other conflict zones .... Syria, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, etc. .... those are even greater "black-holes" that will need the deployment of massive resources to make a difference .... resources that the U.S. also has little if any interest to risk.

In the end .... we in the West do need to have a debate on what is important to our national interests/security needs .... and what should be done. But for the moment we are not having that debate .... just a piecemeal policy of a little bit here and a little bit there .... and hoping that everything works out for the best. Hell .... we are not even in agreement on how to define this conflict .... with the White House even ruling out that we are in a war against radical Islam.

Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister: US Responsible For Two-Thirds Of All Military Conflicts

U.S. Army 1st Lt. Brian Godwin administers the oath of enlistment to U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Conover during a ceremony on Forward Operating Base Lightning in Afghanistan's Paktia province, April 27, 2014. Goodwin and Conover are assigned to the 10th Mountain Division's 4th Battalion, 25th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Javier Amador

US Responsible For Two-Thirds Of All Military Conflicts – Russia’s Top Brass -- RT

US interference in the internal affairs of countries around the world has brought neither peace, nor democracy, said Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister. America’s double standard experiments in supporting terrorists are provoking further destabilization.

“Think of it, over the last decades the US initiated two-thirds of all military conflicts (worldwide). Call to memory, how it all turned out in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria,” Russia’s deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said, addressing colleagues from the Southern and Southeast Asian states in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Read more ....

Update: 2/3 Of Global Military Conflicts Instigated By U.S. – Russian Minister; Willing To Share With Asian Countries Army Modernization Experience -- IBTimes

My Comment: The U.S. is involved in a number of conflicts .... but to say that they are responsible for a majority of these wars/conflicts is a stretch .... correction .... a huge stretch.

Pentagon Resents White House Management Of The War Against The Islamic State

President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisors to discuss strategy in Syria, Saturday, August 31, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Military Hates White House ‘Micromanagement’ of ISIS War -- Eli Lake & Josh Rogin, Daily Beast

The Pentagon brass placed in charge of implementing Obama’s war against ISIS are getting fed up with the short leash the White House put them on.

Top military leaders in the Pentagon and in the field are growing increasingly frustrated by the tight constraints the White House has placed on the plans to fight ISIS and train a new Syrian rebel army.

As the American-led battle against ISIS stretches into its fourth month, the generals and Pentagon officials leading the air campaign and preparing to train Syrian rebels are working under strict White House orders to keep the war contained within policy limits. The National Security Council has given precise instructions on which rebels can be engaged, who can be trained, and what exactly those fighters will do when they return to Syria. Most of the rebels to be trained by the U.S. will never be sent to fight against ISIS.

Read more ....

My Comment: I follow the news closely .... and even I do not know what is the end game for the U.S. on Syria. As to the Pentagon's frustrations on White House limits  .... welcome to Washington politics.

Is The U.S. Entering An Age Of Small And 'Dirty' Wars?

U.S. Marines Corps Cpl. David Calle, left, Cpl. Kevin Midgley, center, and 1st Lt. Patrick Ford, right, observe surrounding compounds during a security patrol in Nad Ali district in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Aug. 11, 2014. Patrols are conducted to disrupt enemy operations against the Bastion-Leatherneck Complex. Ford is the platoon commander, Midgley is a machine gunner and Calle is a vehicle commander assigned to Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. John A. Martinez Jr.

US Entering New Era Of Dirty Wars? -- Russell Crandall, American Interest

Americans don’t always like to acknowledge it, but the U.S. has a long history of fighting so-called dirty wars. Perhaps rather than insisting we should never get involved in these conflicts, we should learn how to do so as cleanly and efficiently as possible.

Back in May in a brief Rose Garden address, President Obama announced his plan for ending the war in Afghanistan. The effort involves cutting the present troop level of 32,000 down to a residual force of just under 10,000 American soldiers by the end of this year. That reduced number would be halved at the end of 2015 to around 5,000 troops, and trimmed 12 months later to a tiny, almost diplomatic military mission thereafter. As he told the American people, “We’re finishing the job we started” after the 9/11 attacks in what has turned out to be the longest war in American history.

Critics contended that new plan was inflexible and therefore unable to adapt to unforeseeable circumstances, and that it would also embolden the Taliban to hold out for what would be an irreversible American departure. In comments during a trip to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel defended the President’s position, “The American people want our job finished here, but they want it finished the right way. And I think we’re on a path to do that over the next two years.”

Read more ....

My Comment: A sober analysis on America's history of fighting small and messy wars.