U.S. Instigated and Supported Slaughters
April 27, 2015
The bankrupt and shameful U.S. foreign policy is shown
by its many own-instigated slaughters as in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and
the Gulf War. U.S. sanctions on Iraq and the 2003 war that the U.S.
initiated brought about more slaughter. The U.S. supported NATO and
itself bombed in both Yugoslavia and Libya. Even more recently, the U.S.
role is to support the slaughters begun and carried out by other
governments by supplying aid, intelligence, weapons, training, bombs,
and military support services. It stood firmly with Israel’s attacks on
Gaza. At present it is supplying critical support to Saudi Arabia’s
attacks on Yemen. The U.S. also advised and supported Ukraine in its
attacks on Donbass.
The immorality of the U.S. role is evident by the fact that none of these wars were or are defensive. None involved or involve today even a remote possibility of the supposed foes acting against America.
The irrationality of the U.S. role in these slaughters under the Wolfowitz Doctrine is also evident. They all sought to maintain regional dominance of the U.S. in various areas of the globe. That policy is ill-fitted to any realistic attempt to secure America, simply because it has no criteria of benefit and cost. Markets for security from foreign enemies are non-existent, having long ago been pre-empted by government monopolization of war-making and foreign policy. Lacking such criteria, policymakers do not know how to shape the interventions that are supposed to bring security. They don’t have answers to all the relevant questions: where, who, when, how much. They can’t foresee the results. Furthermore, government is ill-suited to act upon these questions rationally, if only because of the competition within and without government for profits and power that government actions bring. In addition, since government can finance its ventures and interventions by absorbing resources from the society (Americans) in its taxing grasp, and since American government officials have never been held responsible for the slaughters they instigate, these two factors contribute also to the irrational decisions that are made.
Consequently, sticking to the bald goal of maintaining worldwide dominance, while having the resources to carry out such a broad dream and while facing corruption in devising and executing such schemes of intervention, the U.S. government has produced one immoral folly and slaughter after another.
I should add that those slaughtered or those against such slaughter or with other political beefs against U.S. policies were generally and widely unable, with the notable exceptions of terror attacks, to direct comparable damaging or mass retaliations against America. The U.S. has chosen weak peoples to slaughter, which shows all the more that they present no real threats to America. Recent U.S. actions against a foe that is fully capable of nuclear retaliation, namely Russia, show a higher degree of irrationality under the Wolfowitz Doctrine than anything previously exhibited.
I
will also add that when it comes to bombarding people who have no votes
or influence in American politics, more nearly the opposite holds.
Foreign and domestic killers have influence that ordinary Americans
lack. This is especially the case with Israel, whose influence on
American policies is notable. It is the case with Saudi Arabia, which
has oil that the U.S. government has sought to make secure for the sake
of supplying its military. Foreign ethnic and national blocs have
influence in Congress (and in Canada) when they concentrate their money
flows and can sway voting groups. The democratic-republican political
system with its huge powers lodged in national governments clearly is
geared to outcomes that are far from what the median voter might want,
assuming that he or she was well-informed, which unfortunately they are
not. Systematic misinformation is also a prevalent feature of this
dysfunctional system.
The worst ramifications of the State have been realized again and again in foreign policy. The same can be said domestically, which is a related but different story. In both cases, the excessive powers of the federal government are a curse upon Americans. In the foreign policy case, they have been a curse on the millions of people that the U.S. has harmed and slaughtered.
The immorality of the U.S. role is evident by the fact that none of these wars were or are defensive. None involved or involve today even a remote possibility of the supposed foes acting against America.
The irrationality of the U.S. role in these slaughters under the Wolfowitz Doctrine is also evident. They all sought to maintain regional dominance of the U.S. in various areas of the globe. That policy is ill-fitted to any realistic attempt to secure America, simply because it has no criteria of benefit and cost. Markets for security from foreign enemies are non-existent, having long ago been pre-empted by government monopolization of war-making and foreign policy. Lacking such criteria, policymakers do not know how to shape the interventions that are supposed to bring security. They don’t have answers to all the relevant questions: where, who, when, how much. They can’t foresee the results. Furthermore, government is ill-suited to act upon these questions rationally, if only because of the competition within and without government for profits and power that government actions bring. In addition, since government can finance its ventures and interventions by absorbing resources from the society (Americans) in its taxing grasp, and since American government officials have never been held responsible for the slaughters they instigate, these two factors contribute also to the irrational decisions that are made.
Consequently, sticking to the bald goal of maintaining worldwide dominance, while having the resources to carry out such a broad dream and while facing corruption in devising and executing such schemes of intervention, the U.S. government has produced one immoral folly and slaughter after another.
I should add that those slaughtered or those against such slaughter or with other political beefs against U.S. policies were generally and widely unable, with the notable exceptions of terror attacks, to direct comparable damaging or mass retaliations against America. The U.S. has chosen weak peoples to slaughter, which shows all the more that they present no real threats to America. Recent U.S. actions against a foe that is fully capable of nuclear retaliation, namely Russia, show a higher degree of irrationality under the Wolfowitz Doctrine than anything previously exhibited.
I
will also add that when it comes to bombarding people who have no votes
or influence in American politics, more nearly the opposite holds.
Foreign and domestic killers have influence that ordinary Americans
lack. This is especially the case with Israel, whose influence on
American policies is notable. It is the case with Saudi Arabia, which
has oil that the U.S. government has sought to make secure for the sake
of supplying its military. Foreign ethnic and national blocs have
influence in Congress (and in Canada) when they concentrate their money
flows and can sway voting groups. The democratic-republican political
system with its huge powers lodged in national governments clearly is
geared to outcomes that are far from what the median voter might want,
assuming that he or she was well-informed, which unfortunately they are
not. Systematic misinformation is also a prevalent feature of this
dysfunctional system.The worst ramifications of the State have been realized again and again in foreign policy. The same can be said domestically, which is a related but different story. In both cases, the excessive powers of the federal government are a curse upon Americans. In the foreign policy case, they have been a curse on the millions of people that the U.S. has harmed and slaughtered.
Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.
Previous article by Michael S. Rozeff: The US Lost Its Wars on Iraq and Afghanistan
No comments:
Post a Comment