The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
Forbidden Questions?
24 Key Issues That Neither the Washington Elite Nor the Media Consider Worth Their Bother
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_600773984
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Donald Trump’s election has elicited impassioned affirmations of a renewed commitment to unvarnished truth-telling from the prestige media. The common theme: you know you can’t trust him, but trust us to keep dogging him on your behalf. The New York Times has even unveiled a portentous new promotional slogan: “The truth is now more important than ever.” For its part, the Washington Post grimly warns that “democracy dies in darkness,” and is offering itself as a source of illumination now that the rotund figure of the 45th president has produced the political equivalent of a total eclipse of the sun. Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising campaigns are sounding an increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest you be personally responsible for the demise of the Republic that we are bravely fighting to save from extinction.

If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump’s ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that’s hardly the case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes — well, that’s more akin to sadism than reporting.

Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; “extraordinary” stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion — all served with a side dish of that day’s quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism’s stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two year old.

As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as “now more important than ever” ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media’s current obsession with Donald Trump — his every utterance or tweet treated as “breaking news!” — just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation’s political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to which you’re not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.

1. Accomplishing the “mission”: Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order — the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change — affect the U.S. approach to doing so?

2 . American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington’s stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?

3. America’s empire of bases: The U.S. military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?

4. Supporting the troops: In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.” Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation’s political priorities?

5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief: Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?

6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White House “disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?

7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on Terrorism”: What precisely is Washington’s present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of strategy — not to mention an agreed upon definition of “success” — doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?

8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history — having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?

9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?

12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

13. Peace in the Holy Land: What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a “two-state solution” offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.

14. Merchandizing death: When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn’t the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.

15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?

16. Our friends the Saudis (II): If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?

18. Free-loading Europeans: Why can’t Europe, “whole and free,” its population and economy considerably larger than Russia’s, defend itself? It’s altogether commendable that U.S. policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?

19. The mother of all “special relationships”: The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?

20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz: American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?

21. Double standards (I): American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong — in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?

22. Double standards (II): Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?

23. Double standards (III): The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with U.S. assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen?

24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.” Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action — typically advocating military intervention — argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn’t those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?

Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues — none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political mainstream — bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.

How much damage Donald Trump’s presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, now out in paperback. His next book will be an interpretive history of the United States from the end of the Cold War to the election of Donald Trump.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
86 Comments to "Forbidden Questions?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Hail says: • Website

    12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

    It’s funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    What pretense ?
    Avner Cohen,’Israel and the Bomb’, New York 1998
    If you read the book carefully you see that Kennedy was murdered two weeks after he threatened Israel to cut it off from USA weapons, if it continued building the atomic bomb.
    The book passed the Israeli censor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/forbidden-questions/#comment-1864073
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban.

    But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into place with ropes!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yup. US and Pakistan, partners in crime.

    US is no less a rogue state.
  3. Thank you Andrew Bacevich. As a former military man and present professor, you have elucidated many issues which as a layperson, I am not fully aware.

    However I have a question if you don’t mind. What is the real relationship between international banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the USA?

    Read More
  4. 15. Our friends the Saudis (I) ….
    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) ….

    Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    16. If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

    Iran, good or bad, has real sovereignty. Also, the current regime came to power by kicking out the US puppet Shah.

    In contrast, Saudi Royal Family are descendants of the very puppets that the West installed.

    And Saudis have complied with US demands.

    True, 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but that's proof of Saudi alliance with and loyalty to the US. It was precisely because the Saudis were so slavish to the US -- even allowing US troops to be stationed there -- that some Saudis rebelled against the family and decided to attack the US. The hijackers rebelled against Saudi servitude to the US empire. When US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, it was the last straw. Prior to that, the Jihadis were willing to hold their nose and work with the US cuz they saw USSR as the main threat to Islam and Middle East. But end of Cold War and Gulf War changed all that.

    Now, the Saudi regime has played it both ways. It has whored out to the US but it has also funded terrorists. Saudi elites are devious weasels and snakes, two-faced hucksters.
    Sometimes, these terrorists or Jihadis(funded by Saudis) have been useful to the US: against Soviet-backed Afghanistan regime and against current Syrian regime of Assad. But 9/11 was blowback when the terrorists turned on their masters, US and Saudis. Osama Bin Laden was once allied with CIA.

    Anyway, the longevity of the Saudi family shows that it's safer to play 'religious' and 'pious' in the region than secular. If the Shah has masqueraded as a religious leader of Iran, he might have lasted longer. Just like secular Shah fell, so did secular Najibullah in Afghanistan. In the case of Iran, US backed the secular leader against Islamic revival. In Afghanistan, US backed religious zealots against the secular Marxist regime. US is now using religious fanatics against Assad.

    As for Erdogan, he is like a religious Hussein. That aura of piousness has been useful to him.

    One danger of being a secular leader is that an attack on you is just an attack on a political figure. Like when US attacked Hussein or Gaddafi.
    But if you shroud yourself with Islam and play role of religious leader, an attack on you is an attack on Islam itself.

    Saudi family is clever.
  5. Ben Frank says:

    “Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? ”

    Why is your own father more important than Narendra Modi? Great Britain gave us our laws, religion, language, and the Founding Fathers, and more. India gives us H1-B’s.

    One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Trim your list and throw out the stupid items.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • LOL: Kiza
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    Exactly.
    Nicely put. Careless denigration if the crucial Five Eyes can be done without.
    ( the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglosphere ... what does that mean, lads? ).
  6. This notion of Afghan War as the ‘longest war’ in US history.

    I disagree. I think it’s better to see it as an Occupation.

    The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They are just waiting for the US to leave.

    There are skirmishes here and there, but nothing that could be called a war.

    The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy and installed a puppet regime.
    Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale.

    Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq.

    The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation, like Israel’s occupation of West Bank.

    Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might break out with the Taliban regaining power.

    Read More
  7. 9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their… way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    Why? Because Gulf Oil is still the lifeblood to Asia and Europe. So, if the US is to be the preeminent superpower, it has to control the energy that its vassals and rivals depend on.

    Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil.

    10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

    Because if a real big one hits, like 9/11, it can mean major disruption. Also, it could mean political death for whoever’s in charge.

    11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs?

    A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere?

    Never mind ‘caring less’. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sowhat
    The bankers of the world, Israel AIPAC an the MIIC lobby irrationally control our embarrassingly failed failed foreign policy. Observed for decades, unchanged, it's disgusting.
  8. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Robert Magill

    17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
     
    But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into place with ropes!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Yup. US and Pakistan, partners in crime.

    US is no less a rogue state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Not at all.
    When Obama decided to have Osama killed he did not inform Pakistan, for fear that Pakistan would warn Osama.
    Even helicopters with devices to make them invisible to Pakistan radar were used.
    At a cost, one of them was shot down or crashed, Pakistan allowed Chinese technicians to inspect the helicopter.
    One wonders if these technicians were aboard MH370.
  9. @The Alarmist
    15. Our friends the Saudis (I) ....
    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) ....


    Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.

    16. If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

    Iran, good or bad, has real sovereignty. Also, the current regime came to power by kicking out the US puppet Shah.

    In contrast, Saudi Royal Family are descendants of the very puppets that the West installed.

    And Saudis have complied with US demands.

    True, 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but that’s proof of Saudi alliance with and loyalty to the US. It was precisely because the Saudis were so slavish to the US — even allowing US troops to be stationed there — that some Saudis rebelled against the family and decided to attack the US. The hijackers rebelled against Saudi servitude to the US empire. When US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, it was the last straw. Prior to that, the Jihadis were willing to hold their nose and work with the US cuz they saw USSR as the main threat to Islam and Middle East. But end of Cold War and Gulf War changed all that.

    Now, the Saudi regime has played it both ways. It has whored out to the US but it has also funded terrorists. Saudi elites are devious weasels and snakes, two-faced hucksters.
    Sometimes, these terrorists or Jihadis(funded by Saudis) have been useful to the US: against Soviet-backed Afghanistan regime and against current Syrian regime of Assad. But 9/11 was blowback when the terrorists turned on their masters, US and Saudis. Osama Bin Laden was once allied with CIA.

    Anyway, the longevity of the Saudi family shows that it’s safer to play ‘religious’ and ‘pious’ in the region than secular. If the Shah has masqueraded as a religious leader of Iran, he might have lasted longer. Just like secular Shah fell, so did secular Najibullah in Afghanistan. In the case of Iran, US backed the secular leader against Islamic revival. In Afghanistan, US backed religious zealots against the secular Marxist regime. US is now using religious fanatics against Assad.

    As for Erdogan, he is like a religious Hussein. That aura of piousness has been useful to him.

    One danger of being a secular leader is that an attack on you is just an attack on a political figure. Like when US attacked Hussein or Gaddafi.
    But if you shroud yourself with Islam and play role of religious leader, an attack on you is an attack on Islam itself.

    Saudi family is clever.

    Read More
  10. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.” … But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? … Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?…

    Because all nations have blood on their hands, it’s best that US not judge other nations.

    Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene.

    There are rare cases when genocide is so horrible that action should be taken, like what happened in Rwanda.
    On the other hand, the US public and ‘progressives’ are fickle too.
    When Johnson and Nixon said US must stay in Southeast Asia to prevent communism barbarism, the progressives mocked the rationale. They said US must leave and let the Asians sort it out. Given that logic, how could US re-enter to save Cambodians from communists?

    Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse.

    The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too.

    It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii.

    So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins.

    But those with Power can do anything.

    It’s good to be the king.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Don't read the Good Book too much, eh, Anon?

    The "woman taken in adultery" has no connection to Mary Magdalene. And nowhere does the Book say she was a "harlot" or Jesus's "girlfriend", even by implication.

    Once a cultural error gets "stuck" in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.

  11. JoeCbart says:

    Andrew J. Bacevich:

    “2 . American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything?”

    1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader)
    2) In order to win you have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground)
    3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters. (You fill in the blanks)

    Read More
  12. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    A very good share and thanks'. This what the government indoctrinated do not know from their government schooling. February 23, 2015 America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776

    The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth. Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of America’s wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm
  13. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    It is more than simply this. As if this isn’t enough.

    There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory), could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of weeks — but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth.

    The fact that ISIS was anxious to sell oil on world markets is a good indication that there is only one use for oil and that is to sell in global markets. We are stuck with WW 2 as the bedrock of strategic thinking. Hell yes, our current carrier task forces would have been decisive in WW 2, but now are just a high value targets with no proven survivability against cruise missile based attack. If they are simply for show, a WW 2 era battleship is more impressive to sail into port.

    Why fight for a commodity that you can simply purchase? And now, it is on sale. This is like fighting a war for access to strategic coal.

    Read More
  14. Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever rubric is expedient).

    Using the word ‘war’ itself (as in the Afghanistan War) seems to give it some kind of credibility. It this case it would be ‘the foreign war to re-establish opium production in aid of the domestic war on drugs”.

    That truly brings to mind my favorite Bronstein quote ” You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”. The choice for you young man is to put on the camo uniform or the orange jumpsuit. Some lucky lads get to do both.

    Cheers-

    Read More
  15. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “… Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad…” Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete, L.K
    • Replies: @Kiza
    You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies.
    , @tjm
    You hit the nail right on the head, this artile is typical controlled oposition.

    The media's "attacks on Trump" are nothing other than contrived distraction, by the same people that own trump and the media.

    Trump and the media are one in the same, all pat of the propaganda machine.

    The media and trump play this "fight" all the while Trump continues the Zionist activities that Obama and Bush started. These men are all paid actors for the zionist machine.

    The media is noting but actors wqho push a narrative of lies to support Zionists wars and divode and conquer...
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Agreed. Some useful perspectives, certainly, but Bachevich knows exactly what lines not to cross.
  16. @Anon
    24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.” ... But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? ... Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?...

    Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations.

    Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene.

    There are rare cases when genocide is so horrible that action should be taken, like what happened in Rwanda.
    On the other hand, the US public and 'progressives' are fickle too.
    When Johnson and Nixon said US must stay in Southeast Asia to prevent communism barbarism, the progressives mocked the rationale. They said US must leave and let the Asians sort it out. Given that logic, how could US re-enter to save Cambodians from communists?

    Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse.

    The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too.

    It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii.

    So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins.

    But those with Power can do anything.

    It's good to be the king.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg

    Don’t read the Good Book too much, eh, Anon?

    The “woman taken in adultery” has no connection to Mary Magdalene. And nowhere does the Book say she was a “harlot” or Jesus’s “girlfriend”, even by implication.

    Once a cultural error gets “stuck” in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.

    Read More
  17. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?

    You call that a fact? On what basis?

    I call it BS. On the basis of that ain’t how stuff works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    ...

    call it BS. On the basis of that ain’t how stuff works.
     
    Au Contrar Barnie! '' The bigger the lie the more will believe it!''

    It is how stuff works, more than ya think!

    This magazine needs some new material, gettin' a little ho hum lately.

    Well what the hell is news anyways? If it is better than gossip, it might be true, might be fake, that's the fun of reading more than one version, what a bunch of rot it is to make an assertion that this or that, is ''Fake'' news or not, that is idiotic. So, not only is the Big Lie in play (always), but the actual intent to lower intelligence (the nuts and bolts and tools of critical thinking,) is an on going successful enterprise. It might be worse than gossip.
  18. “15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?”

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The passport of one of the sept 11 hijackers was on top of the Twin Towers rubble.
    What more proof can one want ?
    , @jacques sheete
    NtD, Notice my comment #16...

    Others have also noted foolishness in this article.

    I wonder if Sir Bacevich will come here and defend himself or whether he'll lay low and not add more damage to his credibility.

    Where do we get these scribblers? Reading such compost sure gets old. doesn't it?
  19. anarchyst says:

    American law prohibits “foreign aid” to any country which has not signed the “Nuclear Non-proliferation Act” treaty and to any country that will not abide by “International Atomic Energy Agency” guidelines on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities.
    Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition, all paid for by the American taxpayers.
    In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is not required to register as an “agent of a foreign government”…WHY??
    It appears that our “foreign policy” is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C.
    Look at the 40 or so “dual-nationality” Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli “policy wonks” who are infesting and infecting the federal government State Department.
    I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America.
    When discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their “marching orders” from…

    Read More
  20. Kiza says:

    The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first.

    I am guessing that in such imaginary situation the US would get rid of its own nuclear weapons by dropping them all on Russia and China, if those two were as foolish as to get rid of their own first. Obviously, US was the first country to develop them, US is the only country which has used the nuclear weapons to kill, and the only country which could use them at almost any moment again. Obviously, if US, and its owner Israel, got rid of their nuclear weapons, then there would be a very good chance that everybody else would and in a peaceful way. Therefore, this sentence pretends irony, but does a deliberate logical obfuscation. In other words, even when a US person tries to criticise US, he remains a mental slave of his own tribe. This kind of article is good for academic circles in US – to show the intellectual bravery to criticise whilst staying within the confines of the permitted narrative.

    There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet.

    Read More
  21. Logan says:

    “When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones.”

    We are pretty clearly at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Or at least they are at war with us.

    Attacking the enemy’s command and control is a pretty obvious and generally considered entirely legitimate military tactic in time of war.

    So is this “assassination” or “murder?” Where is the line between legitimate killing of enemies and “politically motivated murder” to be drawn? Why?

    Generally a good article.

    Read More
  22. fitzGetty says:

    The special relationship with Great Britain needs to be expanded, and not only in the intelligence sphere – not sneered at so carelessly … GB is to formalise a link with the Anglosphere nations – Oz, Canada, NZ – as part of life after Brexit … as an extension of the 5 eyes .

    Read More
  23. Kiza says:
    @anonymous
    "... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    You are not the only one – read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like – to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell – how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood what was really going on?

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.
  24. fitzGetty says:
    @Ben Frank
    "Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? "

    Why is your own father more important than Narendra Modi? Great Britain gave us our laws, religion, language, and the Founding Fathers, and more. India gives us H1-B's.

    One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Trim your list and throw out the stupid items.

    Exactly.
    Nicely put. Careless denigration if the crucial Five Eyes can be done without.
    ( the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglosphere … what does that mean, lads? ).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere … what does that mean, lads?"

    That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.

    That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten wealth, oils the system really well.

    Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary corruption within it diminishes. That doesn't mean that the moral corruption required for looting other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.

    The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense of millions of lives, is just one example.

    Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don't go around invading other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.

  25. Z-man says:

    Weak.
    What about The Fed, the bull shit ‘Debt crisis’, the 1% who should be all taxed to the hilt, the almost total control by the 2% (that infestation of ‘you know who’). The working class that is being screwed by all of the above. The Republitards defending the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, LOL! Then there is the mention of The Zionist State in only one or two items. Well it should be in at least items 1, 3, 5. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24! Oh, I forgot item 22, lol!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You also forgot item 15.

    The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security was down (on purpose).

    That's why Israeli "art students" were caught red-handed celebrating after the Towers went down.

    These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee (it's tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can't make a better start than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.

    Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.
  26. The thinking people in Europe, a growing number, just want to defend ourselves against NATO, in order not to become a battle field for a nucleair war between Russia and the USA.

    These thinking people are quite happy with Russia as a supplier of natural gas, have no desire to make our houses some 40.000 euro’s more expensive, in order not having to import Russian gas, as former EU chairman Van Rompuy wants us to do.

    These thinking people fear Groenlinks, the green leftists, whose objective seems to be, in order to save the planet, to destroy our country.

    These thinking people want an end to ME and N African wars, to save us from yet more immigration, that makes our social security systems a financial nightmare, and brings us on the brink of civil warfare.

    We also want sanctions against Russia to end, so that we again can export flowers and vegetables.

    And these thinking people do not want an European army, that might be used to suppress insurrections against Brussels, therefore they disapprove of the Ukraine association treaty.

    Read More
  27. @NoseytheDuke
    "15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?"

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    The passport of one of the sept 11 hijackers was on top of the Twin Towers rubble.
    What more proof can one want ?

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, passports that survived fires capable of disintegrating steel. Perhaps some secret Nazi technology?
  28. Agent76 says:

    January 5, 2017 US SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES DEPLOY TO 138 NATIONS, 70 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S COUNTRIES

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38993-the-year-of-the-commando-us-special-operations-forces-deploy-to-138-nations-70-percent-of-the-world-s-countries

    Pentagon: One of World’s Largest Landowners

    Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries! Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide!

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners

    Read More
  29. @Z-man
    Weak.
    What about The Fed, the bull shit 'Debt crisis', the 1% who should be all taxed to the hilt, the almost total control by the 2% (that infestation of 'you know who'). The working class that is being screwed by all of the above. The Republitards defending the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, LOL! Then there is the mention of The Zionist State in only one or two items. Well it should be in at least items 1, 3, 5. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24! Oh, I forgot item 22, lol!!

    You also forgot item 15.

    The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security was down (on purpose).

    That’s why Israeli “art students” were caught red-handed celebrating after the Towers went down.

    These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee (it’s tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can’t make a better start than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.

    Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man, Druid
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ?
    The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.
  30. @NoseytheDuke
    "15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?"

    Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?

    NtD, Notice my comment #16…

    Others have also noted foolishness in this article.

    I wonder if Sir Bacevich will come here and defend himself or whether he’ll lay low and not add more damage to his credibility.

    Where do we get these scribblers? Reading such compost sure gets old. doesn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    He'll lay low, happy in knowing that he's subtly reinforced the big lie while conceding some smaller points. Classic disinfo. He doesn't really care about influencing the likes of you or me and the many unz readers who do understand, his target market are those for whom the "legitimacy" of the message is determined by the high profile of the medium.

    I'm amazed and disappointed that there are any unz readers who still go along with the 19 high-jackers nonsense but sadly there are and far too many.
  31. Kiza says:
    @Kiza
    You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies.

    Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood what was really going on?

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tjm
    All sites that are critical of the zionist war machine that runs washington is subject attcks from hasbara...

    Many if not most commentors are often paid by Zionist organizations to push their lies, fake narratives.

    These people are very good at false truths and half truths, Trump and the media are just playing a role, meant to allow for the continued zionist aggenda.
    , @utu

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.
     
    When Prof. Bacevich was picked up by my radar he made me think of parents who lost their son on the Eastern front during WWII (Every Man Dies Alone by Hans Fallada). There is some similarity between them and Prof. Bacevich. The process of opening eyes to the reality was extremely slow in both cases. It is slow learning curve for Prof. Bacevich but I am glad it is still on a positive ascent. But he has a long way to go. Perhaps after he retires his rate of ascent will increase.
  32. Agent76 says:
    @Anon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69A8OPQ8Rg

    A very good share and thanks’. This what the government indoctrinated do not know from their government schooling. February 23, 2015 America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776

    The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth. Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of America’s wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm

    Read More
  33. tjm says:
    @anonymous
    "... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    You hit the nail right on the head, this artile is typical controlled oposition.

    The media’s “attacks on Trump” are nothing other than contrived distraction, by the same people that own trump and the media.

    Trump and the media are one in the same, all pat of the propaganda machine.

    The media and trump play this “fight” all the while Trump continues the Zionist activities that Obama and Bush started. These men are all paid actors for the zionist machine.

    The media is noting but actors wqho push a narrative of lies to support Zionists wars and divode and conquer…

    Read More
  34. tjm says:
    @Kiza
    Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood what was really going on?

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.

    All sites that are critical of the zionist war machine that runs washington is subject attcks from hasbara…

    Many if not most commentors are often paid by Zionist organizations to push their lies, fake narratives.

    These people are very good at false truths and half truths, Trump and the media are just playing a role, meant to allow for the continued zionist aggenda.

    Read More
  35. @anonymous
    "... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.

    Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment?

    Agreed. Some useful perspectives, certainly, but Bachevich knows exactly what lines not to cross.

    Read More
  36. @Logan
    "When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones."

    We are pretty clearly at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Or at least they are at war with us.

    Attacking the enemy's command and control is a pretty obvious and generally considered entirely legitimate military tactic in time of war.

    So is this "assassination" or "murder?" Where is the line between legitimate killing of enemies and "politically motivated murder" to be drawn? Why?

    Generally a good article.

    Sorry, what “enemy”? What “war”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    You may have noticed some 3000 Americans were killed 16 years ago in NYC.

    Also, Muslims have been, by their own declaration, at war with all non-Muslims from about 630, so closing on 1400 years.
  37. @jilles dykstra
    The passport of one of the sept 11 hijackers was on top of the Twin Towers rubble.
    What more proof can one want ?

    Yes, passports that survived fires capable of disintegrating steel. Perhaps some secret Nazi technology?

    Read More
  38. @Hail

    12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
     
    It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.

    What pretense ?
    Avner Cohen,’Israel and the Bomb’, New York 1998
    If you read the book carefully you see that Kennedy was murdered two weeks after he threatened Israel to cut it off from USA weapons, if it continued building the atomic bomb.
    The book passed the Israeli censor.

    Read More
  39. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You also forgot item 15.

    The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security was down (on purpose).

    That's why Israeli "art students" were caught red-handed celebrating after the Towers went down.

    These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee (it's tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can't make a better start than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.

    Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.

    That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ?
    The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're quite right about Bush's security firm having had the time and opportunity. They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise, and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might have left an unnecessary "paper trail" in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern itself with.

    We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events, with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.
    , @L.K
    Because Zio fingerprints are ALL OVER it.
    Read investigative journalist C. Bollyn's excellent book 'Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World', which he has made available online too;
    http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/
    For a primer, this article 'The Israeli Origin of 9/11 and the War on Terror';
    http://bollyn.com/#article_15904
  40. @Anon
    Yup. US and Pakistan, partners in crime.

    US is no less a rogue state.

    Not at all.
    When Obama decided to have Osama killed he did not inform Pakistan, for fear that Pakistan would warn Osama.
    Even helicopters with devices to make them invisible to Pakistan radar were used.
    At a cost, one of them was shot down or crashed, Pakistan allowed Chinese technicians to inspect the helicopter.
    One wonders if these technicians were aboard MH370.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Obama decided to have bin Laden killed"?

    Seriously?

    Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces. None.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

    https://www.rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/
  41. “The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history — having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?”

    As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for those involved.

    Read More
  42. Can’t we read anything without it being filled with Cultural Marxist hooey?

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @fitzGetty
    Exactly.
    Nicely put. Careless denigration if the crucial Five Eyes can be done without.
    ( the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglosphere ... what does that mean, lads? ).

    “the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere … what does that mean, lads?”

    That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.

    That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten wealth, oils the system really well.

    Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary corruption within it diminishes. That doesn’t mean that the moral corruption required for looting other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.

    The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense of millions of lives, is just one example.

    Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don’t go around invading other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    You only forgot that what you call the Anglo-sphere created and marks the said corruption index. Their corruption index is as reliable as their MSM.
  44. OJ says:

    The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything should be clear now.

    Read More
  45. edNels says:
    @jacques sheete

    Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?
     
    You call that a fact? On what basis?

    I call it BS. On the basis of that ain't how stuff works.

    call it BS. On the basis of that ain’t how stuff works.

    Au Contrar Barnie! ” The bigger the lie the more will believe it!”

    It is how stuff works, more than ya think!

    This magazine needs some new material, gettin’ a little ho hum lately.

    Well what the hell is news anyways? If it is better than gossip, it might be true, might be fake, that’s the fun of reading more than one version, what a bunch of rot it is to make an assertion that this or that, is ”Fake” news or not, that is idiotic. So, not only is the Big Lie in play (always), but the actual intent to lower intelligence (the nuts and bolts and tools of critical thinking,) is an on going successful enterprise. It might be worse than gossip.

    Read More
  46. It’s downright depressing.

    We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen, and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That’s just recent memory.

    The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending most of it without the constitutional footing to do so.

    Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can’t trust anything coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization.

    Read More
  47. Logan says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Sorry, what "enemy"? What "war"?

    You may have noticed some 3000 Americans were killed 16 years ago in NYC.

    Also, Muslims have been, by their own declaration, at war with all non-Muslims from about 630, so closing on 1400 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yeah, I noticed the whole thing in NYC, but it was a while ago. Thanks for the warning about Muslims, I shall be ever vigilant.
  48. Kiza says:
    @Anonymous
    "the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere … what does that mean, lads?"

    That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.

    That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten wealth, oils the system really well.

    Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary corruption within it diminishes. That doesn't mean that the moral corruption required for looting other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.

    The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense of millions of lives, is just one example.

    Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don't go around invading other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.

    You only forgot that what you call the Anglo-sphere created and marks the said corruption index. Their corruption index is as reliable as their MSM.

    Read More
  49. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Don't read the Good Book too much, eh, Anon?

    The "woman taken in adultery" has no connection to Mary Magdalene. And nowhere does the Book say she was a "harlot" or Jesus's "girlfriend", even by implication.

    Once a cultural error gets "stuck" in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.

    Watch LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. It’s her.

    Read More
  50. Tomster says:

    Another one: Why has the US put the Saudi caliphate in charge of human and womens’ rights at the UN?

    Read More
  51. @jilles dykstra
    That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ?
    The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.

    You’re quite right about Bush’s security firm having had the time and opportunity. They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise, and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might have left an unnecessary “paper trail” in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern itself with.

    We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events, with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Some of the Israeli "art students" posted pictures online that they'd taken themselves inside the office space they were squatting in inside the WTC. There are cardboard cartons visible in the pictures that bear the logo of a company that produces detonators. I can't remember where I saw them but I doubt they'd be hard to find.
  52. Logan says:

    “Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?”

    A darn good question. My understanding is that the theory is that, while we don’t really need their oil anymore, our allies such as Europe and Japan do.

    You may or may not consider this reasonable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    But since we export oil, as do seemingly countless other countries, why would Europe then "need" Persian Gulf oil?

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.
  53. Logan says:

    “How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? ”

    A reasonable question. However, given the period, the choice was not between independence and American empire.

    It was between incorporation into the American empire or into the British, French or German versions.

    Unless we wanted to assume a protectorate over the islands and protect them from conquest. Something like we did with the Monroe Doctrine.

    It is also reasonable to note that the “American empire” over the Philippines almost immediately began the process of working towards independence, unlike any of the other empires.

    Read More
  54. utu says:
    @Kiza
    Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood what was really going on?

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.

    I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.

    When Prof. Bacevich was picked up by my radar he made me think of parents who lost their son on the Eastern front during WWII (Every Man Dies Alone by Hans Fallada). There is some similarity between them and Prof. Bacevich. The process of opening eyes to the reality was extremely slow in both cases. It is slow learning curve for Prof. Bacevich but I am glad it is still on a positive ascent. But he has a long way to go. Perhaps after he retires his rate of ascent will increase.

    Read More
  55. “By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today?”

    Barrel bombs were called ‘blockbusters’ or ‘cookies’ in WW2.

    “The 4,000 lb high capacity design was little more than a cylinder full of explosives—it was unaerodynamic and did not have fins.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb#Design

    Read More
  56. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Not at all.
    When Obama decided to have Osama killed he did not inform Pakistan, for fear that Pakistan would warn Osama.
    Even helicopters with devices to make them invisible to Pakistan radar were used.
    At a cost, one of them was shot down or crashed, Pakistan allowed Chinese technicians to inspect the helicopter.
    One wonders if these technicians were aboard MH370.

    “Obama decided to have bin Laden killed”?

    Seriously?

    Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces. None.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

    https://www.rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    No proof he had anything to do with knocking down the Twin Towers either.....or even existed. Anyone actually believe a 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, attached to an artificial kidney machine, surrounded by many wives and an elaborate porn collection, honking on a hookah pipe, communicating with the outside world via a ? (satellite link, cell phone tower, donkey courier?) destroyed three sky scrapers in NY?
    , @anarchyst
    Bin Laden is working in a 7-Eleven in Bakersfield California lol
  57. Wally says:
    @Logan
    "Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?"

    A darn good question. My understanding is that the theory is that, while we don't really need their oil anymore, our allies such as Europe and Japan do.

    You may or may not consider this reasonable.

    But since we export oil, as do seemingly countless other countries, why would Europe then “need” Persian Gulf oil?

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.
     
    True. The total paralysis of American foreign policy, to our detriment, because of bowing down to the interests of that dirty, little, most artificial country.
    , @Anon
    You're oversimplifying.

    We are indeed a net exporting nation but only because it's currently cheaper for us to ship out our own oil and get oil from elsewhere in return. It was the opposite way around five years ago.

    In addition, the cost of shipping oil is sunk into what is paid overall. Therefore, it is far cheaper for Europe to import from OPEC countries in the Middle East than from us. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, for instance, with smaller amounts from Nigeria (next closest exporting state) and Saudi Arabia (probably as a result of backroom agreements, although it's a small percentage).
    , @Logan
    Sorry, bubba.

    World oil prices are unbelievably sensitive to slight changes in production or distribution. Presently the Middle East produces around 30%.

    Reducing this percentage even slightly causes oil prices to spike, with resultant drastic effects on economies throughout the world.

    Since US oil prices are tied to world prices, they spike here too, and our economy goes in the tank.

    What do you think happens if oil goes to $150, even if it all comes from US? Except of course for oil companies and landowners suddenly getting very, very rich.
  58. Agent76 says:

    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington.

    Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

  59. Z-man says:
    @Wally
    But since we export oil, as do seemingly countless other countries, why would Europe then "need" Persian Gulf oil?

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.

    True. The total paralysis of American foreign policy, to our detriment, because of bowing down to the interests of that dirty, little, most artificial country.

    Read More
  60. nsa says:
    @Wally
    "Obama decided to have bin Laden killed"?

    Seriously?

    Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces. None.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

    https://www.rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/

    No proof he had anything to do with knocking down the Twin Towers either…..or even existed. Anyone actually believe a 6 1/2′ arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, attached to an artificial kidney machine, surrounded by many wives and an elaborate porn collection, honking on a hookah pipe, communicating with the outside world via a ? (satellite link, cell phone tower, donkey courier?) destroyed three sky scrapers in NY?

    Read More
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    But since we export oil, as do seemingly countless other countries, why would Europe then "need" Persian Gulf oil?

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.

    You’re oversimplifying.

    We are indeed a net exporting nation but only because it’s currently cheaper for us to ship out our own oil and get oil from elsewhere in return. It was the opposite way around five years ago.

    In addition, the cost of shipping oil is sunk into what is paid overall. Therefore, it is far cheaper for Europe to import from OPEC countries in the Middle East than from us. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, for instance, with smaller amounts from Nigeria (next closest exporting state) and Saudi Arabia (probably as a result of backroom agreements, although it’s a small percentage).

    Read More
  62. Lot says:

    Who cares about Israel’s official no-comment policy on its nukes. It has no effect on any nation’s actual policy.

    A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference?

    Arabs place a low value on each others’ lives, which is why they kill each other so often, over such petty reasons, and with no remorse.

    Copts should move to Lebanon in my opinion to create a safe Christian majority country in the middle east. They are not safe in Muslim countries.

    Read More
  63. @Logan
    You may have noticed some 3000 Americans were killed 16 years ago in NYC.

    Also, Muslims have been, by their own declaration, at war with all non-Muslims from about 630, so closing on 1400 years.

    Yeah, I noticed the whole thing in NYC, but it was a while ago. Thanks for the warning about Muslims, I shall be ever vigilant.

    Read More
  64. @Agent76
    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn’t read past the second paragraph: why bother? It’s a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the “war to end all war” and “good war” square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America’s mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of “saving the world for democracy” to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington.

    Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    SC: "It’s a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history."

    Exactly.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Set aside the Lebensraum issues for the Nazis, how can Italian fascism be absolved of ambition for international conquest in Africa? And why did it start a Balkans campaign?
  65. Jake says:

    These are all great questions in the realm of foreign policy. Each is not asked because the Elites want it that way.

    We have at least that many questions relating to race and ethnicity and religion and immigration and crime rates that need to be asked but are not because our Elites do not want them asked.

    Read More
  66. L.K says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington.

    Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

    SC: “It’s a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.”

    Exactly.

    Read More
  67. L.K says:
    @jilles dykstra
    That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains why most of the steel melted.
    But why Mossad ?
    The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.

    Because Zio fingerprints are ALL OVER it.
    Read investigative journalist C. Bollyn’s excellent book ‘Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World’, which he has made available online too;

    http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/

    For a primer, this article ‘The Israeli Origin of 9/11 and the War on Terror’;

    http://bollyn.com/#article_15904

    Read More
  68. My nephew just signed the ROTC contract……I am devastated to the point of not posting on UNZ Review anymore….inconsolable grief….so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I'm sorry, I know how you feel about the military. Maybe if he takes a lot of programming courses he can sit in an office in the states.

    Pls keep on posting.
  69. L.K says:

    Although there are several good questions in the piece, there are also many problems, as others have noted.
    Perhaps the most bizarre is number 19, The mother of all “special relationships”.

    Now, Mr. Bacevich, the current mother of all “special relationships” ain’t the one with ZUK, no, no… it’s the one with Israel and its zionist 5th column within ZUSA.

    “18. Free-loading Europeans”;

    This one could be extended to the ‘free-loading’ Koreans, Japanese , etc. But in reality, ZUSA is not in ANY of these places to “defend” them, rather ZUSA is there for all the bases and hegemony, which includes these countries as ZUSA’s vassal states, greatly enhancing US imperialism trough an appearance of multilateralism.

    Mr. Buchanan is another one who uses this less than honest formulation.

    Read More
  70. @jacques sheete
    NtD, Notice my comment #16...

    Others have also noted foolishness in this article.

    I wonder if Sir Bacevich will come here and defend himself or whether he'll lay low and not add more damage to his credibility.

    Where do we get these scribblers? Reading such compost sure gets old. doesn't it?

    He’ll lay low, happy in knowing that he’s subtly reinforced the big lie while conceding some smaller points. Classic disinfo. He doesn’t really care about influencing the likes of you or me and the many unz readers who do understand, his target market are those for whom the “legitimacy” of the message is determined by the high profile of the medium.

    I’m amazed and disappointed that there are any unz readers who still go along with the 19 high-jackers nonsense but sadly there are and far too many.

    Read More
  71. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're quite right about Bush's security firm having had the time and opportunity. They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise, and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might have left an unnecessary "paper trail" in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern itself with.

    We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events, with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.

    Some of the Israeli “art students” posted pictures online that they’d taken themselves inside the office space they were squatting in inside the WTC. There are cardboard cartons visible in the pictures that bear the logo of a company that produces detonators. I can’t remember where I saw them but I doubt they’d be hard to find.

    Read More
  72. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Comparing the long ago white settlement of almost uninhabited America (funny how Cortez and company always get a pass) with the modern settlement of largely already occupied Palestine is ludicrous.

    Other points are very good. America should abandon its empire.

    Read More
  73. Logan says:
    @Wally
    But since we export oil, as do seemingly countless other countries, why would Europe then "need" Persian Gulf oil?

    More mythology used for Israeli interests.

    Sorry, bubba.

    World oil prices are unbelievably sensitive to slight changes in production or distribution. Presently the Middle East produces around 30%.

    Reducing this percentage even slightly causes oil prices to spike, with resultant drastic effects on economies throughout the world.

    Since US oil prices are tied to world prices, they spike here too, and our economy goes in the tank.

    What do you think happens if oil goes to $150, even if it all comes from US? Except of course for oil companies and landowners suddenly getting very, very rich.

    Read More
  74. @SolontoCroesus
    The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism harbored goals of international conquest.

    Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.

    If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something like,

    America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly from Washington.

    Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.

    Set aside the Lebensraum issues for the Nazis, how can Italian fascism be absolved of ambition for international conquest in Africa? And why did it start a Balkans campaign?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    I don't think Mussolini's Italy can be excused for those ventures. Neither did my grandfather; he lost his home & farm in Italy & came to USA rather than allow Il Duce to draft his sons, my uncles, for the Ethiopia campaign. Another uncle was drafted; he spent 7 years as POW.

    otoh, I think Mussolini's attempt to unify and revitalize Italy into a prosperous country should be more realistically understood. The Italians were hoodwinked by Wilson (see Woodrow Wilson and the American Myth in Italy: Culture, Diplomacy, and War Propaganda, by Daniela Rossini), and again by the competing forces of Churchill vs Communists vs FDR and Bernard Baruch. The latter duo won out. It's usually said that Communists killed Mussolini, but I suspect OSS was working with them.

    btw Vladimir Jabotinsky admired Mussolini enormously and modeled many of his methods and ideals.
  75. Alden says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    My nephew just signed the ROTC contract......I am devastated to the point of not posting on UNZ Review anymore....inconsolable grief....so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel...

    I’m sorry, I know how you feel about the military. Maybe if he takes a lot of programming courses he can sit in an office in the states.

    Pls keep on posting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Terribly grief stricken at the moment...but if I can convince my nephew that signing an ROTC contract is a bad idea.....how the hell does he get out of his contract...
  76. @Wizard of Oz
    Set aside the Lebensraum issues for the Nazis, how can Italian fascism be absolved of ambition for international conquest in Africa? And why did it start a Balkans campaign?

    I don’t think Mussolini’s Italy can be excused for those ventures. Neither did my grandfather; he lost his home & farm in Italy & came to USA rather than allow Il Duce to draft his sons, my uncles, for the Ethiopia campaign. Another uncle was drafted; he spent 7 years as POW.

    otoh, I think Mussolini’s attempt to unify and revitalize Italy into a prosperous country should be more realistically understood. The Italians were hoodwinked by Wilson (see Woodrow Wilson and the American Myth in Italy: Culture, Diplomacy, and War Propaganda, by Daniela Rossini), and again by the competing forces of Churchill vs Communists vs FDR and Bernard Baruch. The latter duo won out. It’s usually said that Communists killed Mussolini, but I suspect OSS was working with them.

    btw Vladimir Jabotinsky admired Mussolini enormously and modeled many of his methods and ideals.

    Read More
  77. “Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?”

    It’s difficult to continue with the article after reading that………the answers are so obvious it’s laughable.

    Read More
  78. @Alden
    I'm sorry, I know how you feel about the military. Maybe if he takes a lot of programming courses he can sit in an office in the states.

    Pls keep on posting.

    Terribly grief stricken at the moment…but if I can convince my nephew that signing an ROTC contract is a bad idea…..how the hell does he get out of his contract…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Have him say something 'racist' and/or 'anti Semitic'.
  79. 20. Because the world is full of atomic weapons we should allow ours to decay to the point that they are useless, making us slaves to those who still have them. –In truth, the MAD Mexican standoff is the only safe strategy, but focus on Iran and the Norks.

    Read More
  80. Z-man says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Terribly grief stricken at the moment...but if I can convince my nephew that signing an ROTC contract is a bad idea.....how the hell does he get out of his contract...

    Have him say something ‘racist’ and/or ‘anti Semitic’.

    Read More
  81. Sowhat says:
    @Priss Factor
    9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their... way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    Why? Because Gulf Oil is still the lifeblood to Asia and Europe. So, if the US is to be the preeminent superpower, it has to control the energy that its vassals and rivals depend on.

    Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil.

    10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

    Because if a real big one hits, like 9/11, it can mean major disruption. Also, it could mean political death for whoever's in charge.

    11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs?

    A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere?

    Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine.

    The bankers of the world, Israel AIPAC an the MIIC lobby irrationally control our embarrassingly failed failed foreign policy. Observed for decades, unchanged, it’s disgusting.

    Read More
  82. The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest”

    Since this statement is obviously “very true” – it must be very disturbing to the write (AB) – that since 1945, (1) – the American armed forces have undertaken numerous missions all over the globe – without ever successfully concluding any of them (2) the United States armed forces have only ever been success against mostly unarmed men / women / children – / or / huge countries like Grenada and Panama or maybe Viet Nam / et al / – The facts are hat the missions conducted by American armed forces in fa away places were all based on / Lies / Greed / Envy / and as such has no hope in hell of succeeding – T read such mindless / puerile / rubbish – is an insult to me extremely limited intelligence – It is equally distressing when one considers that (AB) gets paid to write such rubbish…(AB) is simply another wallah – feeding off the fat that is the American democracy – It is extremely SICK – because it has absolute NO MERIT – it is only words for MONEY -

    Read More
  83. anarchyst says:
    @Wally
    "Obama decided to have bin Laden killed"?

    Seriously?

    Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces. None.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

    https://www.rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/

    Bin Laden is working in a 7-Eleven in Bakersfield California lol

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.