The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Tom Engelhardt Archive
War, What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing.
And No Kidding, That’s the Literal Truth When It Comes to War, American-Style

Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


It may be hard to believe now, but in 1970 the protest song “War,” sung by Edwin Starr, hit number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. That was at the height of the Vietnam antiwar movement and the song, written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong, became something of a sensation. Even so many years later, who could forget its famed chorus? “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” Not me. And yet heartfelt as the song was then — “War, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker. War, it’s got one friend, that’s the undertaker…” — it has little resonance in America today.

But here’s the strange thing: in a way its authors and singer could hardly have imagined, in a way we still can’t quite absorb, that chorus has proven eerily prophetic — in fact, accurate beyond measure in the most literal possible sense. War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. You could think of American war in the twenty-first century as an ongoing experiment in proving just that point.

Looking back on almost 15 years in which the United States has been engaged in something like permanent war in the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, one thing couldn’t be clearer: the planet’s sole superpower with a military funded and armed like none other and a “defense” budget larger than the next seven countries combined (three times as large as number two spender, China) has managed to accomplish — again, quite literally — absolutely nothing, or perhaps (if a slight rewrite of that classic song were allowed) less than nothing.

Unless, of course, you consider an expanding series of failed states, spreading terror movements, wrecked cities, countries hemorrhaging refugees, and the like as accomplishments. In these years, no goal of Washington — not a single one — has been accomplished by war. This has proven true even when, in the first flush of death and destruction, victory or at least success was hailed, as in Afghanistan in 2001 (“You helped Afghanistan liberate itself — for a second time,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to U.S. special operations forces), Iraq in 2003 (“Mission accomplished“), or Libya in 2011 (“We came, we saw, he died,” Hillary Clinton on the death of autocrat Muammar Gaddafi).

Of all forms of American military might in this period, none may have been more destructive or less effective than air power. U.S. drones, for instance, have killed incessantly in these years, racking up thousands of dead Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, Syrians, and others, including top terror leaders and their lieutenants as well as significant numbers of civilians and even children, and yet the movements they were sent to destroy from the top down have only proliferated. In a region in which those on the ground are quite literally helpless against air power, the U.S. Air Force has been repeatedly loosed, from Afghanistan in 2001 to Syria and Iraq today, without challenge and with utter freedom of the skies. Yet, other than dead civilians and militants and a great deal of rubble, the long-term results have been remarkably pitiful.

From all of this no conclusions ever seem to be drawn. Only last week, the Obama administration and the Pentagon again widened their air war against Islamic State militants (as they had for weeks been suggesting they would), striking a “suspected Islamic State training camp” in Libya and reportedly killing nearly 50 people, including two kidnapped Serbian embassy staff members and possibly “a militant connected to two deadly attacks last year in neighboring Tunisia.” Again, after almost 15 years of this, we know just where such “successes” lead: to even grimmer, more brutal, more effective terror movements. And yet, the military approach remains the American approach du jour on any day of the week, any month of the year, in the twenty-first century.


Put another way, for the country that has, like no other on the planet in these years, unleashed its military again and again thousands of miles from its “homeland” in actions ranging from large-scale invasions and occupations to small-scale raids and drone assassination strikes, absolutely nothing has come up roses. From China’s Central Asian border to north Africa, the region that Washington officials began referring to as an “arc of instability” soon after 9/11 and that they hoped to garrison and dominate forever has only become more unstable, less amenable to American power, and ever more chaotic.

By its very nature, war produces chaos, but in other eras, particularly for great powers, it has also meant influence or dominance and created the basis for reshaping or controlling whole regions. None of this seems in the cards today. It would be reasonable to conclude, however provisionally, from America’s grand military experiment of this century that, no matter the military strength at your command, war no longer translates into power. For Washington, war has somehow been decoupled from its once expected results, no matter what weaponry has been brought to bear or what kind of generalship was exercised.

An Arms Race of One

Given that, sooner or later, the results of any experiment should be taken into account and actions recalibrated accordingly, here’s what’s curious. Just listen to the fervent pledges of the presidential candidates in the Republican debates to “rebuild” the U.S. military and you’ll sense the immense pressure in Washington not to recalibrate anything. If you want the definition of a Trumpian bad deal, consider that all of them are eager to pour further staggering sums into preparing for future military endeavors not so different from the present ones. And don’t just blame the Republicans. Such behavior is now hardwired into Washington’s entire political class.

The essential failure of air power in these years has yielded the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a plane once expected to cost in the $200 billion range whose price tag is now estimated at a trillion dollars or more over the course of its lifetime. It will, that is, be the most expensive weapons system in history. Air power’s powerlessness to achieve Washington’s ends has also yielded the newly unveiled Long-Range Strike Bomber for which the Pentagon has already made a down payment to Northrop Grumman of $55 billion. (Add in the usual future cost overruns and that sum is expected to crest the $100 billion mark long before the plane is actually built.) Or at the level of planetary destruction, consider the three-decade, trillion-dollar upgrading of the U.S. nuclear arsenal now underway and scheduled to include, among other things, smaller, more accurate “smart” nukes — that is, first-use weaponry that might indeed be brought to future battlefields.

That none of this fits our world of war today should be — but isn’t — obvious, at least in Washington. In 2016, not only has military action of just about any sort been decoupled from success of just about any sort, but the unbelievably profitable system of weapons production woven into the fabric of the capital, the political process, and the country has also been detached from the results of war; the worse we do militarily, that is, the more frenetically and expensively we build.

For the conspiratorial-minded (and I get letters like this regularly at TomDispatch), it’s easy enough to see the growing chaos and collapse in the Greater Middle East as purposeful, as what the military-industrial complex desires; nothing, in other words, succeeds (for weapons makers) like failure. The more failed states, the more widespread the terror groups, the greater the need to arm ourselves and, as the planet’s leading arms dealer, others. This is, however, the thinking of outsiders. For the weapons makers and the rest of that complex, failure or success may increasingly be beside the point.

Count on this: were the U.S. now triumphant in an orderly Greater Middle East, the same Republican candidates would still be calling for a build-up of the U.S. military to maintain our victorious stance globally. If you want proof of this, you need only step into your time machine and travel back a quarter-century to the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Thought of a certain way, that should have been the finale for a long history of arms races among competing great powers. What seemed like the last arms race of all between the two superpowers of the Cold War, the one that brought the planet to the brink of annihilation, had just ended.

When the Soviet Union imploded and Washington dissolved in a riot of shock and triumphalism, only one imperial force — “the sole superpower” — remained. And yet, despite a brief flurry of talk about Americans harvesting a “peace dividend” in a world bereft of major enemies, what continued to be harvested were new weapons systems. An arms race of one rolled right along.

And of course, it goes right on today in an almost unimaginably different world. A quarter century later, militarily speaking, two other nations might be considered great powers. One of them, China, is indeed building up its military and acting in more provocative ways in nearby seas. However, not since its disastrous 1979 border war with Vietnam has it used its military outside its own borders in a conflict of any kind.


The Russians are obviously another matter and they alone at this moment seem to be making an imperial success of warfare — translating, that is, war making into power, prestige, and dominance. In Syria (and possibly also Ukraine), think of that country as experiencing its version of America’s December 2001 Afghanistan or April 2003 Iraq moments, but don’t for a second imagine that it will last. The Russians in Syria have essentially followed the path Washington pioneered in this century, loosing air power, advisers, and proxy forces on an embattled country. Their bombing campaign and that of the allied Syrian air force have been doing in spades what air power generally does: blow away stuff on the ground, including hospitals, schools, and the like.

Right now, with the Syrian Army and its Iranian and Lebanese helpers advancing around the city of Aleppo and elsewhere, everything looks relatively sunny for the Russians (as long as your view is an airborne one), but give it a year, or two or three. Or just ask yourself, what exactly will such “success” translate into, even if a Bashar al-Assad regime regains significant power in a country that, in most senses, has simply ceased to exist? Its cities, after all, are in varying states of destruction, a startling 11.5% of its people are estimated to have been killed or injured, and a significant portion of the rest transformed into exiles and refugees (with more being produced all the time).

Even if the Islamic State and other rebel and insurgent groups, ranging from those backed by the U.S. to those linked to al-Qaeda, can be “defeated,” what is Russia likely to inherit in the Middle East? What, in far better circumstances, did the U.S. inherit in Afghanistan or Iraq? What horrendous new movements will be born from such a “victory”? It’s a nightmare just to think about.

Keep in mind as well that, unlike the United States, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is no superpower. Despite its superpower-style nuclear arsenal and its great power-ish military, it’s a rickety energy state shaken by bargain-basement oil prices. Economically, it doesn’t have the luxury of waste that the U.S. has when it comes to military experimentation.

Generally speaking, in these last years, war has meant destruction and nothing but destruction. It’s true that, from the point of view of movements like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, the chaos of great power war is a godsend. Even if such groups never win a victory in the traditional sense (as the Islamic State has), they can’t lose, no matter how many of their leaders and followers are wiped out. In the same way, no matter how many immediate successes Washington has in pursuit of its war on terror, it can’t win (and in the end neither, I suspect, can Russia).

Has War Outlived Its Usefulness?

Relatively early in the post-9/11 presidency of George W. Bush, it became apparent that his top officials had confused military power with power itself. They had come to venerate force and its possible uses in a way that only men who had never been to war possibly could. (Secretary of State Colin Powell was the sole exception to this rule of thumb.) On the U.S. military, they were fundamentalists and true believers, convinced that unleashing its uniquely destructive capabilities would open the royal road to control of the Greater Middle East and possibly the planet as well.

About this — and themselves — they were supremely confident. As an unnamed “senior adviser” to the president (later identified as Bush confidant Karl Rove) told journalist Ron Suskind, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Ever since then, no small thanks to the military-industrial complex, military power has remained the option of choice even when it became clear that it could not produce a minimalist version of what the Bush crew hoped for. Consider it something of an irony, then, that the U.S. may still be the lone superpower on the planet. In a period when military power of the first order doesn’t seem to translate into a thing of value, American economic (and cultural) power still does. The realm of the dollar, not the F-35, still rules the planet.

So here’s a thought for the songwriters among you: Could it be that war has in the most literal sense outlived its usefulness, at least for the United States? Could it be that the nature of war — possibly any war, but certainly the highly mechanized, high-tech, top-dollar form that the United States fights — is now all unintended and no intended consequences? Do we need another Edwin Starr singing a new song about what war isn’t good for, but with the same punch line?

In fact, give it a try yourself. Say it with me: Absolutely nothing.

One more time and really hit that “nothing”: Absolutely nothing!

Now, could someone in Washington act accordingly?

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

[Note: Let me offer a deep bow of thanks to TomDispatch Managing Editor Nick Turse for helping, as he so often does, to talk me through this one! Tom]

(Reprinted from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)

57 Comments to "War, What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing."

Commenters to Ignore Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. It’s been a while since American bombs killed innocent Serbs: good to be reminded of Slick Willy’s unprovoked attack on Serbia.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. In the same way, no matter how many immediate successes Washington has in pursuit of its war on terror, it can’t win (and in the end neither, I suspect, can Russia).

    Get this through your head. Washington does not pursue a war on terror. Washington pursues a war of terror. If you want to see a war against terror study the Chechnya wars. The Russian policy was to run them down and kill them. All of them. They are doing the same thing in Syria. If Washington had conducted a war on terrorists there would long ago have been no more terrorists.

    • Replies: , , ,
  3. what a load of bs about Russia, re broadcasting the propaganda about them intentionally bombing hospitals. The tiny Russian force in Syria, supporting an extant state structure at the request of the government, is nothing like the massive regime change operation of the neocons. Once Assad has stabilized the country, Syria will gradually rebuild as oil revenues resume. The Russians have never assumed responsibility for that. And they will gain tremendous influence in the ME. It should also be stressed Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria are defensive in locations where there is a real national interest.

    • Replies: ,
  4. This is what I’m talking about. The bold is mine.

    Moscow is not discussing alternative plans for a political settlement in Syria, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov has said. The Russian-American peace initiative is going to be formalized through a UN Security Council resolution.

    “We’re perplexed by our Western partners, the US included, mentioning the existence of some kind of ‘Plan B,’ Nothing is known on that one, we are considering no alternative plans,” Bognanov told the ‘Middle East: From violence to security’ conference in Moscow.

    On February 22, Russian and American presidents simultaneously announced that an agreement on peaceful plan for Syria had been reached, coming into force on February 27, at midnight Damascus time.

    Terrorist organizations such as Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front are not included in the ceasefire and will continue to be attacked until their complete annihilation, the Russian president said in a statement dedicated to the Syrian truce.

  5. The Soviet Union and its international network was the last actual threat to the U.S. We have oceans and nonthreatening neighbors not to worry about. A strong but strictly continental defense is the optimum level of military strength.

    World War 1 and World War 2 were not American wars and should have been avoided. Whatever the outcomes would have been sans the U.S. it would have been likely no worse than what occurred. Like Stalin a triumphant Hitler would have been corrected in time. Vietnam would have opposed the Japanese empire as it did the French and American intervention. Such stresses are best addressed locally.

    Europe has somewhat learned this as evidenced by their low expenditures on armaments –save for export sales. Putin is a throwback to the sphere of influence, i.e. empire of a couple of centuries ago. But he will do less harm if not confronted by the U.S.

    During the days of empire foreign colonies were profitable. Now trade is more profitable –see China- without the overhead of empire. But old habits die reluctantly.

  6. I’m kinda glad we had that first one, though. America could’ve won big time in the Civil War, too, but unfortunately she lost.

  7. “It’s been a while since American bombs killed innocent Serbs: good to be reminded of Slick Willy’s unprovoked attack on Serbia.”

    But it hasn’t been long since American bombs killed innocent people.

  8. I don’t think he claimed the bombing of the schools and hospitals were intentional, I think he was just expressing the general truth that you can’t wage an air campaign without killing lots of innocents as well.

    Other than that though, I agree with your general view, the Russians have mainly been been reacting to the continued regime change plots of the neocons in charge of our Foreign Policy.

    • Replies:
  9. I think that if anyone ever writes a book about American contributions to military theory, it should be called “Death From Above”, because air power seems to be the only meaningful additions we’ve made. From WW2 to our current drones, it’s the only area we’ve made significant advances.

    Also, I’m beginning to wonder how well military spending is as a measure of military strength. White it’s definitely an important indicator, I feel like our system has become so corrupt that it may be possible that it might be possible to match us with maybe half the cost.

  10. If you want to see a war against terror study the Chechnya wars. The Russian policy was to run them down and kill them.

    Study also the Indian anti-terror campaign against Sikh terrorists in Indian Punjab in the 1980s using what they called a “bullet-for-bullet” policy. That’s democratic India that did that. Importantly, it was a police action, not a military response.

    As Yoda said “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

  11. Dear Tom,

    Certainly the 15 years of fraudulent and criminal war’s of aggression foisted on the American people by the Neocons and their Office of Special Plans, has not only been good for absolutely nothing….its proven to be nearly ruinous to our entire republic.

    Never in our country’s history, has the collective wealth of a nation been expended so recklessly and with such voracious speed and abandon then it has under the tutelage of the Neocons in their pernicious addiction to murder, fraud and perpetual war.

    They have stolen from every American, not only all the money we have, but an additional $19,000,000,000,000.00 we don’t.

    That ain’t just “nothin”, Tom, that is an obscene boatload of debt piled so high on the backs of all Americans and our future generations, one has to question, seriously, our ability to overcome it.

    Combine that with latest head count, (59 million), by UNRA ,of refugees from Neocon war-torn regions… and that ain’t just “nothin” either, Tom.

    Its another boatload of unconscionable suffering foisted on the backs of countless of innocent people, who never gave a hoot about attacking anybody, let alone us.

    The establishment elites, who run our country, have failed us (and all of humanity), in every which way til Sunday.

    Don’t think they don’t know it either, Tom, they do.

    There should be hell to pay for what they have done.

    Will there be ?

    I doubt it.

    • Replies:
  12. “Buy the Book”

    I don’t think so. I can explain in by far, far less than this articles 2,400 misleading words what drives war; it’s called economics:

    ^ There’s more good information in the (above linked) short piece than Englehardt typically would find room for in a half dozen articles

    What this CIA-liaised-FORD-Foundation-funded-Nation-Institute sponsored TomDispatch screed is really all about is sucking a bunch of ‘woe is me’ hand-wringing, duped liberals into this s**t:

    “The Russians are obviously another matter and they alone at this moment seem to be making an imperial success of warfare — translating, that is, war making into power, prestige, and dominance. In Syria (and possibly also Ukraine), think of that country as experiencing its version of America’s December 2001 Afghanistan or April 2003 Iraq moments, but don’t for a second imagine that it will last. The Russians in Syria have essentially followed the path Washington pioneered in this century, loosing air power, advisers, and proxy forces on an embattled country. Their bombing campaign and that of the allied Syrian air force have been doing in spades what air power generally does: blow away stuff on the ground, including hospitals, schools, and the like”

    But the reality is, Tom Engelhardt is lying to you:

    Yeah, let’s blame the Russians (that’s irony folks)

  13. Someone is benefitting from the world-wide employment of U.S. military forces, but it’s not the American people. Trouble is, even Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker remain reflexively patriotic, identify with their armed forces and want a military second-to-none. If Joe and Sally ever awaken to the fact that the military is in the control of people who wish them ill, then change might come. And a military coup, followed by a government of national reconstruction, is the one way that the entire rotten structure might be smashed.

  14. Russia’s activities in Ukraine are in no way defensive. They are entirely aggressive in nature. Putin is no better than the Neocons.

    • Replies:
  15. War works well enough when the country pursuing it has realistic goals, is willing to apply situationally appropriate methods, and has follow-through.

    If the goal is to introduce democracy and universal recognition of women’s rights under an alien form of government, and to achieve permanent peace in a given country/region thereby, well, no, war won’t work. The goal is stupid. It worked, sort of, in WW2 because America was dealing with otherwise very advanced countries [in the areas of law, institutions, and civilized social structures] it had totally and obviously defeated in all-out, open war [not without overwhelming help in the case of Germany, but then the alternative of the Soviet-style reconstruction only reinforced the appeal of the American model for those who had the choice]. Those countries had very advanced foundations for the kind of society America favoured and needed only a comparative nudge, and were neither physically nor psychologically in a position to deny that nudge. Once so directed, habits became a powerful motive to keep on. None of that applies in the Middle East or Central Asia.

    The usual goal of a superpower applying regional force with a professional, regular military is to defeat localized enemies in detail and understand that no settlement will ever be final. [No settlement ever is or will be final. History doesn't seem to work like that. Even Marxists should get that by now.] War is useful here as it always has been, and the Russians seem to understand this perfectly well. And once again, they seem to be advancing their interests quite well.

    The United States cannot do this properly because it is not Russia, or even France, or even Britain. Every war has to be World War 2. It must be fought as a crusade for liberty or peace or both, the enemy must be remade as Little America, there must be mass public support at home, etc.

    Still, if I could figure out what America’s goals were, I might even say war could work for the US in the Middle East. The Iraq war, at least as fought, was foolish in that it expanded the scope for Iranian power. On the other hand, the last decade of chaos has pit the region’s Sunni and Shia communities, and regional powers, at each other’s throats and it may yet get worse. If the EU wasn’t running such an idiotic immigration policy, I wouldn’t really see the downside from a Western point of view. The direct engagement of US military forces could have been going down and settling into very limited interventions by small forces or, sure, drone strikes.

    • Replies: ,
  16. Engelhardt does have a point, though: I would rather we had let the Nazis and the Soviets sort it out on their own.

  17. War, what is it good for?

    Homo homini lupus est.

    It will reduce human population.

    Nature bats last.

  18. if the Ukraine becomes a Western vassal state, Russia’s viability is seriously undermined. The Ukraine was subject to US sponsored regime change.

    • Replies:
  19. Tom criticizes Russia in Syria but would he then be happy to see all of Syria overrun by the jihadi head choppers? Incredible.

    His moral equivalence argument doesn’t wash. The US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals and proxies in the MENA started and support the war on Syria, the immense destruction, the terrible loss of life. So Russia comes to the aid of Syria to reverse it and Tom lumps Russia with the US?

    People in the West are all the same. Left or right, liberal or conservative, under their thinking lurks the same superiority, that no one else can be better than us.

    The western mentality can’t face the fact that the rest of world is outgrowing you, that after five hundred years of deceit and plunder the world is saying No More and saying it in Syria.

    The East will not longer bend its knee to the West. Those days are over. The East sees the West restarting another Cold War and arming for a first strike capability. The East knows the terrible suffering that would be caused by another world war but is forced to prepare for it.

    The East has checkmated the West in Syria. If the West will not back down then the unmovable will meet the unstoppable and the great catastrophe will be upon us. Hopefully the West will not destroy everything and in the future humanity will remember the childish stupidity of the last days of the Western mentality.

    • Replies:
  20. IMHO, the US wars of the last 15 years do have a design to them, and that is literally to create chaos. Chaos is equivalent to failed states, and especially in the Middle East this results in tribal feifdoms. It makes it easier to manipulate the players for those playing the large scale economic game. And of course, a chaotic Middle East opens many doors for Israel.

    Because the Middle East is so tribal, the strong leader style of national government is pretty effective. It’s my opinion that Middle Easterners in there homelands want basic services, a roof over their heads, and a reasonably predictable tomorrow more than the ability to participate in some kind of New England town meeting.

    So, is US involvement in all this actually in our National Interest? I suppose it hardly matters if the best interests of the nation are not the decision criteria.

    • Replies:
  21. “People in the West are all the same…. superiority…. no one else can be better than us”.

    Actually people in the West not given to such overblown waffle – like my first boss, who was born in 1886 – have been engaged in joined up thinking without any of your suggested unanimity for a very long time – like especially the Russo-Japanese War of > 110 years ago which showed the East that what they might have thought of as the West – Czarist Russia!! – could be defeated.

  22. The “large scale economic game” you refer to could only have been about oil in the ME, but, even taking note of the fracking revolution having postdated 9/11, the tribalism which you assert would favour the big economic operators was apparently not seen as you allege. To my surprise successive American administrations have tried to keep Iraq going as a unitary state instead of allowing it to break up into three parts. The Balkanisation of ME countries could indeed be seen as an Israeli interest but that is another matter and not primarily economic.

  23. You are half right. The change of government in Kiev was primarily a(n Eastern) Ukrainian affair rather than one initiated and critically pushed by the US as your choice of the word “sponsored” seems to imply. Inasmuch as Ukraine thereby continuing its economically rational path of linking up with the EU was seen as contrary to Russia’s interests its moves were defensive. That doesn’t make them ipso facto acceptable or to be accepted despite comparisons which might be made with US “defensive” action in the Americas – think Grenada.

  24. I am relatively new to this site, but on others I have been writing for years that stopping terror is politically difficult, not militarily difficult. This is how you stop it: when you identify a terrorist you kill his or her entire family – spouse, children, parents, siblings, aunts and uncles. It won’t take long for terrorists to stop once they understand the cost to themselves and all that they love. No one in the West has the guts to do this, but the Russians do.

    • Replies:
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"]
    • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    50 yrs from now, when people remember the world today, what will be missing in the historical narrative?

    They will talk about Russian interests, Chinese interests, Iranian interests, Venezuelan interests, Ukrainian interests, Saudi interests, Japanese interests, German interests, French interests, Turkish interests, and etc.

    But what will be missing from the picture? No talk of Jewish Interests.
    Jewish Interests are hidden behind ‘American’ interests and ‘British’ interests and ‘German’ interests and ‘Japanese’ interests ‘Canadian’ interests and ‘Korean’ interests and ‘Saudi’ interests and ‘Swedish’ interests.

    Jews directly control the US and much of EU. Even though Jewish power is at loggerheads with Russia, there are powerful Jewish fifth column interests in Russia as well. Because Jews control the media and academia, they also control the unwitting minds of elites and masses of many nations.
    As for nations like Japan, Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and etc, they are ruled by their own people, but they are so dependent and so under the thumb of Jewish-controlled US that they are little more than proxy states of Jewish-American power.

    If we don’t name the Jewish Power, we won’t understand history and what is really happening.

    Suppose we discuss the British Empire without mentioning the British. Suppose we pretend that Brits ruling over India are ‘Indians’. Brits ruling over Kenya are ‘Kenyans’. Brits ruling over Malaysia are ‘Malaysians’. Brits ruling over Hong Kong are ‘Chinese’. Brits ruling over Egypt are ‘Egyptians’. And etc.
    Now, any honest observer would notice that all these regions seem to be working as a group and in mutual cooperation. Why would Kenya, India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Egypt, and etc, nations that are so different, be working toward the same goal and serve the same agenda?
    But suppose it is deemed ‘Anti-Anglite’ to mention Anglo power. We are supposed to believe, for example, that Anglos in India have no ‘dual loyalty’ and serve Indian interests. So, even though India is ruled by British minority, we are supposed to regard that ruling minority as just ‘Indian’ and ignore their Anglo identity or interests.
    What kind of a fool would fall for this?
    Well, the British Empire was honest about its imperial power and ambitions. It hid nothing. It proudly declared itself as a global power.

    But Jews are different. Even though Jews have their own identity and interests, they would have Americans believe that Jewish-American interests are just plain good ole ‘American Interests’ no different from those of white gentiles, black gentiles, brown gentiles, etc. Really? It was in the interest of white gentiles, black gentiles, and brown gentiles to mess up relations with Russia and mess up the Middle East? Really?
    Jews would have Europeans believe that Jewish interests and European interests are one and the same. So, if Jews say ‘European values’ are all about opening borders and letting in tons of migrants from the Third World who have no respect for Rule of Law, Europeans are supposed to believe that those are indeed what being ‘European’ is all about. Jews parasitically and zelig-ishly mimic the host and pretend to represent the host’s best interests all the while working to subvert and destroy it.

    We have to talk about Jewish Power as a separate and the most important player in World Politics. Unless we identify the Jewish Element and the Jewish Empire that is linked from nation to nation — US, Canada, Australia, EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc — , we will never understand the world or discuss world affairs honestly.

    Without the global reach of Jewish power, all those European nations would not be working with US to destroy Russia. The massive anti-Russian coordination owes to Jewish interests and networks. It is because Jews want to destroy Russia for not putting out to Jewish Supremacist Power. Since Jews control the US and have links with Jews all over EU(and even Russia), Jews can do stuff like this. Also, Jews have the financial power to destroy anyone. They also have the dirt on everyone and blackmail anyone who won’t go along.
    Also, homo agenda as the New Western Imperialism is the doing of Jews. (Jews cleverly promoted the homo agenda as ‘leftist’ and anti-American in the EU and Latin America. Since the cause was identified with the anti-American Left — esp. as America was depicted by World Jewry as far-right ultra-Christian nation — , many Europeans and Latinos fell for it. But in the US, the homo agenda was promoted as a part of American Exceptionalism and New Civil Rights Movement, and dumb Americans fell for it.)

    It makes more sense to see US and the entire Anglo world, along with EU and Japan, as part of the Empire of Zion than as independent sovereign powers.

    • Replies:
  26. Yeah, right.

    And just imagine all the subsequent handwringing about how, if those poor downtrodden PTSD-suffering mass murderers and sadists had just been hugged between the thanatos-juiced thighs of an SJW female with MotherGoddess-Whore-Savior pretensions, and allowed to nurse at her ample bosom in the form of a few millions’ worth of social programs (paid for by others of course), they all could have been Saved.

    The (((MSM))) have so amply feminized public opinion since the 1960s that intelligent solutions involving surgical strikes against the enemies of civilized people are absolutely off the table.

    For chrissakes, SJW’s CELEBRATE when their own kids are killed by thugs and terrorists, because it gives them the ultimate opportunity to convert their lifestyle accoutrement (the offspring) into Virtue Signalling and Fifteen Minutes of Fame.

    • Replies:
  27. The United States cannot do this properly because it is not Russia, or even France, or even Britain. Every war has to be World War 2. It must be fought as a crusade for liberty or peace or both, the enemy must be remade as Little America, there must be mass public support at home, etc.

    Excellent point. I have always believed that the U.S. should have either nuked Afghanistan and Iraq into glass parking lots and then built Disneylands in Kabul and Baghdad — or just stayed home.

    If you’re gonna do it, do it right or don’t do it at all. That was always the American Way. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have taught us to stay home and re-institute the Monroe Doctrine if we’re not willing to go whole-hog. Unfortunately, we have learned nothing.

  28. “I don’t think he claimed the bombing of the schools and hospitals were intentional”

    The destruction of the infrastructure: schools, hospitals, bridges etc was certainly intentional.

    How deluded are you?

  29. “intelligent solutions involving surgical strikes”

    That’s a good one! A bit like the old one of Military Intelligence. Sometimes comedy just writes itself and comedy is usually funniest when the lines are delivered by an unaware individual as in your case.

    The only kind of surgery that might benefit the American people would be the kind that removes the cancer that has infected and diseased the entire body from within.

    Relatively minor surgery might have done the job following 22/Nov/1963 but by the time 11/Sept/2001 came around major amputations were required but still not carried out.

    The situation is likely now terminal.

  30. Let’s grant that there is a well financed Israeli lobby that is and has to be particularly effective in the US although by no means representative of all Jewish opinion, would you not still concede that your assertion that Jews “directly [sic] control the US and much of EU” is such an inaccurate overstatement (not even the authors of the Protocols of Zion would have said “directly”) that you gravely undermine your case?

  31. Now, when Russia is winning in Syria suddenly the question: War, what is it good for?

    • Replies:
  32. Junior [AKA "Jr."]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Enough already with the bullshit of pretending that the Psychopathic Thieves that we have running this country don’t know EXACTLY what they’re doing. It is ALL by design.

    The full scale looting of America has begun and they are trying to get every blood-soaked penny that they can get their grubby little hands on before the 20-Trillion-Dollar-Debt-Bubble that they created bursts.

    Incompetence? Kiss my ass. Conspiracy Theory? Kiss the other cheek.

    How many times are you going to believe the “Oops! We didn’t think THAT was gonna happen!” bullshit before you open your eyes, Mr. Engelhardt?

    • Replies: ,
  33. One more murderous piece of sub-human filth.

    • Replies:
  34. Yeah, the whole conspiracy of waging war to make defense contractors rich never took hold with me. Wars, militaries, and tyrannical dictators all need arms, somebody has to step up to provide e materiel for them. It’s just simple economics, where there is a need, there is a probably provider.

  35. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yes indeed. What short memories Americans have.

  36. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Jewish lobby, the military-industrial complex and the desire of American politicians to strut on a world stage explain just about all of America’s military activity. Moated by two huge oceans and with only two very weak neighbors, America is totally safe, hence all of her wars are wars of choice.

  37. Just say it:

    The “neocons” are those who advocate and profit from violent Jewish supremacist policies.

    Now, was that so hard?

  38. You deny incompetence in the “psychopathic thieves” whom you see as running countries for their private economic benefit. How do you explain that people with such abilities and interest in pecuniary gain have not emulated the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Henry Ford l, Thomas Edison, and many others in making large fortunes out of creating and/or running businesses which are much less complex organisations than governments?

    • Replies:
  39. Bingo!

    And with Russia winning we suddenly hear calls for a ‘cease fire’.

  40. And the bogus 9/11 ‘terrorist attack’ put in into full swing.

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

    “Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security”

    ‘Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings’×293.jpg

    Pregnant women and children being targeted.

    Two teenage Israeli girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: “Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values.”

    • Replies:
  41. Drones have become a new weapon for the coward imperial powers that are too scared to fight conventional wars. However, when some weaker or non-nuclear state or anti-imperial group get hold of drones – they cry WOLF.

    On March 10, 2014, commander of Israel Air Force air defense array, Maj-General Shachar Shohat, told a security conference at the Institute for National Security Studies Strategic, Innovative Policy-Oriented Research (INSS) that in the next war with Hizbullah or Hamas – Israel would have to face enemy drone carrying explosives.

    Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlim, President of INSS, said that in the last 30 years nothing has challenged Israel air superiority, but now the civilian home front faces military-grade threats such as ground to ground missiles, rockets, UAVs and in the future cruise missiles. I suppose, Yadlim doesn’t know that Lebanon has no air force but Hizbullah still defeated Jewish army in 34-day war in 2006.

    Brig. Gen. John S. Shepland (USAF), military attache at the US embassy in Tel Aviv, talked about the strategic cooperation between the two states, including that involving air defense. Shepland complimented Israel’s impressive air defense capabilities, developed in close cooperation with America – the Arrow missiles, for example, and other projects. A major US- Israeli military exercise, Jeniffer-14, will take place soon, proving America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s capabilities. Shepland also described a possible regional air defense system in the Middle East, operated by Israel and its Arab allies Jordan and Egypt.

    The Zionist entity itself is one of world’s largest producers of drones. It has used drones for espionage in Lebanon, Sudan, Syria and Somalia.

  42. I doubt that you really need to kill all of the terrorists’ relatives. Deprivation of property and deportation in summary proceedings would probably achieve 95% of the results with much less brutality and adverse publicity. When Achmad Jr. goes jihadist, Achmad Sr. loses his fruit and vegetable stand and the entire Achmad extended family goes back to Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or any country that will have them. In such circumstances, I suspect Achmad Sr. will crack the whip and tell Jr. to knock it off or Jr. will be the one calling for the police to protect him from Dad and his uncles.

  43. Your answer proves that you don’t get it.

    • Replies:
  44. “Your answer proves that you don’t get it.”

    No, Diversity Heretic is right. You aren’t.

    • Replies:
  45. The Hundred Years War was also greatly destructive and equally pointless. But it went on for over a hundred years because there was little to no real cost to those who prosecuted it. It only really ended with the onset of the Wars of the Roses when the English nobility turned on each other for control of England.

  46. “What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7″

    No, that isn’t “what science says”. It’s what is said by a website put together by a few people (none of whom are particularly knowledgable about any of the relevant details) retailing the same old tired 911 conspiracy theories.

    • Replies:
  47. As responsible world leaders – the problem of peace is our problem – the problem is not Russia, and it is not China.

    Our Constitution says the government is responsible for our – “defense” not “offense.” Listen to Trump – he says he will build a “defense” that no other country will dare attack. He has got it right. Clearly America needs to build up its defense against cyber war – not waste our resources on military bases all over the world.

    The American people’s mind has been under attack by the Jew MSM. They have pumped fear into us – 9/11 is the bloody flag they wave at us – they use it to control us – they used it to push us into an “offensive mindset.” A strong offense begs war. When faced with a strong offense – other countries do what comes natural – they prepare for war.

    Our offense must be truth. When every human being has a cell phone – then truth will have a chance – then we and the world – will have peace.

    We are doomed to more and more war, as long as the Jew control our media – end of story.

  48. Junior [AKA "Jr."]
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    To be sure, in an example of an all too close relationship between the state and private wealth we have a number of instances where the very people making decisions about waging the war on Iraq were also financially benefiting from the initiation and continuation of the war. For instance, the largest contracts awarded for work in Iraq were to the private military corporation known as Halliburton (and more specifically, its subsidiary KBR). The former-CEO of Halliburton was none other than George W. Bush’s vice-president, Dick Cheney. KBR was awarded contracts for work in Iraq in excess of $40 billion dollars. Contracts which were often “no-bid” (or formally, sole-source) contracts, meaning that there was only one individual or company bidding on a given project. Though illegal and unethical, then Vice-President Dick Cheney continued to hold more than 400,000 shares of stock in Halliburton during the course of the war worth millions of dollars which he eventually sold for his own personal profit.

    That’s not all, Project Censored which monitors the corporate media and routinely exposes the major stories they suppress. One such story is the Congress critters investing in stock of the defense contractors making billions on the bogus War on Global Terrorism wrecking havoc around the world. In their book Censored 2010 The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008-09, number 14 was Congress invested in Defense contracts. “The nonpartisan Center for Responsible Politics has calculated that more than 151 members of Congress have up to$195 million invested in major defense contractors that are earning profits from the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    When General David Petraeus, the top US military office in Iraq, went to Capital Hill to brief Congress in April 2008, he was addressing lawmakers wh had a lot more than just a political stake in the Iraq occupation. Along with their colleagues in the House and Senate the politicians who got a status report from the general and he US Ambassador to Iraq had millions of dollars of their own money invested in companies doing business with the Department of Defense.” Censored 2010 The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008-09 page 63

    So here we have our elected representatives making huge profits off of the laws they pass. This is a clear conflict of interest if not outright unethical. It shows just how morally bankrupt this country has become and how deeply the rot is spreading throughout this society.

    And here’s a list of the 50 richest members of Congress:

    So as you can see, Wiz, when you ask “How do you explain that people with such abilities and interest in pecuniary gain have not emulated the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Henry Ford l, Thomas Edison, and many others in making large fortunes”, my answer to you is that it CERTAINLY is NOT from lack of trying.

    Just because they aren’t the head pigs at the trough getting the fattest off of the looting of America, does NOT mean that they aren’t still the thieving swine that they are.

  49. Neither of you is right. The Israelis already destroy terrorist homes and it does nothing to stop terrorism.

  50. One more murderous piece of sub-human filth.

    Well, no. I don’t think we should be killing anybody, unless we have a damn good reason to do it, and if so, then do it right. That was MacArthur’s view: the object of war is to end it as quickly and conclusively as possible. This business of endless, inconclusive wars of imperial policing seems to accomplish little to nothing in terms of U.S. interests, yet we manage to kill plenty of people anyway. For what? “Democracy”?

    I say, let them murder each other, and we’ll mind our own business instead of killing them for 15 years straight to convince them they adopt gay marriage and elections.

  51. America is getting ready .So is China .
    Yr is 2025

    Trade Wars and Air/Sea Battles

    To frame the earth-shattering process in a strategic perspective, from the Chinese point of view, it’s enlightening to revert to a very important speech delivered last summer by General Qiao Liang at the University of Defense, China’s top military school. It’s as if Liang’s formulations would be coming from the mouth of the dragon – Xi – himself.

    Beijing’s leadership assesses that the U.S. won’t get into a war against China within the next 10 years. Pay attention to the time frame: 2025 is when Xi expects China to have turned into a “moderately prosperous” society as part of the renewed Chinese Dream. And Xi for his part would have fulfilled his mandate – arguably basking in glory once enjoyed only by the Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping.

    The secret for the next 10 years, as General Liang framed it, is for China to overhaul its economy (a work in progress) and internationalize the yuan. That also implies striking an Asian-wide free trade pact – which is obviously not the Chinese-deprived American TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), but the Chinese-driven RCEP.

    General Liang directly connects the internationalization of the yuan to something way beyond the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road, according to the official Chinese denomination. He talks in terms of a Northeast Asia free trade agreement, but in fact what’s in play, and what China aims at, is the trans-Asia free trade agreement.

    As a consequence, a “ripple effect” will divide the world:

    “If only a third of the global money is in the hands of the dollar, how can the U.S. currency maintain its leadership? Could a hollowed out United States, left without monetary leadership, still be a global leader?”

    So the decline of the U.S. dollar is the key issue, according to the Beijing leadership, of China’s “recent troubles” under which loom “the shadow of the United States.”

    Enter the U.S. “pivot to Asia.” Beijing clearly interprets its goal as “to balance out the momentum of China’s rising power today.” And that leads to the discussion of the former AirSea Battle concept (it has now “evolved” into another mongrel), which General Liang qualifies as an “intractable dilemma” for the U.S.

    “The strategy primarily reflects the fact that the U.S. military today is weakening,” said Liang. “U.S. troops used to think that it could use airstrikes and the Navy against China. Now the U.S. finds neither the Air Force nor the Navy by themselves can gain advantages against China.”

    Only this previous paragraph would be enough to put in perspective the whole, tumultuous cat and mouse game of Chinese advances and American bullying across the South China Sea. Beijing is very much aware that Washington cannot “offset some advantages the Chinese military has established, such as the ability to destroy space systems or attack aircraft carriers. The United States must then come up with 10 years of development and a more advanced combat system to offset China’s advantages. This means that Americans may schedule a war for 10 years later.”

    Have War, Will Plan

    So, no major war up to 2025, which leaves Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership free to advance like a juggernaut. Observers who follow the moves in Beijing in real time qualify it as “breathtaking “ or “a sight to behold.” The Beltway remains mostly clueless.”

  52. Common sense says that the official narrative is blatantly false and provably so. Start from there.

  53. November 18, 2012 Israel and the U.S. CREATED Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda

    Creating the Enemies We Now Fight Against We’ve extensively documented that the U.S. and Israel created Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in an attempt to fight other enemies.

    Jan. 24, 2009 How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

    “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.


    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

  55. war is and always be a constant in human affairs. War exists for biological reasons, like protection of territory, sometimes aggressive desire to acquire more territory and resources, and so on.

    War is part of our human nature. The only thing that can be done is to seek to limit it thru Reason and Negotiation. This will only go so far.

    You don’t stop muzzies with Reason, nor do you stop lots of folks with Reason, because passions prevent trump Reason.

    So much junk has been written by bleeding hearts.

    Then there are the occasional psychos, like the North Korean maximum Leader….

    There are, finally, enemies that no reason will ever influence. Make up your own list. A Realism today is to recognize that certain leaders who you or I may like to get rid of, will be replaced by worse leaders, etc. So, just leave them alone….like in the ME. We need Saddam back, etc.
    Then there is Israel. Nothing to do but outlast it, contain it, and let it rot of its own peculiar psycho-dynamics.

    The first principle is every race in its own land, and no immigration. That takes care of about 80% of it.
    Joe Webb

Current Commenter

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

My Information

 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 Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower