The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Whoever Is Elected War Is the Policy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Exceptional America Believes That the Sovereignty of Other Countries Is Impermissible Unless It Serves Washington’s Interests

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells us that despite the record of destroying in whole or part eight countries in recent years, the US is a “force for good.” This is the Trump regime’s version of the neoconservative doctrine espoused by President Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” The notion that Iraq was a danger to the US shows imbecility. The inhumanity of Washington’s response to the “danger” was sanctions that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked on national television if a half million dead children achieved a justified purpose, the heartless Albright said that it was “a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

The neoconservatives, with their preference for war uber alles are running the Trump regime. It appears that the reelection of Donald Trump will be a continuation of the Bill Clinton presidency, the George W. Bush presidency, and the Obama presidency. Whoever is elected War is the policy.

Philip Giraldi tells us about it: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/leading-neocon-directs-pentagon-middle-east-planning/

What Giraldi forgets to mention is that the “terrorist” groups are Washington’s creations and serve as Washington’s tools to advance the war agenda.

Giraldi gives away too much when he characterizes the Hussein and Gaddafi governments as dictatorships. Authority was centralized, as it is in Washington, but the governments had to balance contending forces in the societies and were dependent on a large element of consent. It is not certain that both countries were ruled any worse than the US, a country’s whose FBI and Department of Justice (sic) does not hesitate to frame-up the President of the United States and his National Security Advisor. The extraordinary conflict that Democrats brought to US political life since 2016 exceeds the internal conflict that had to be managed by Iraq’s Hussein and Libya’s Gaddafi.

Washington is certainly exceptional, but not in a good way.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 2020 Election, American Military, Neocons 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The war party will have a rude awakening when China gets around to arming and funding US opponents. China can choose to evade any US embargo and supply goods and services. If the US retaliates against China, China can in turn do something like seize the Bain Capital (and Mitt Romney) assets in China–that will cause Washington to back down. The problem in the Middle East is that Israel trades extensively with China, which gives China good reason not to support Iran (too much). It’s a complex web.

  2. “It is not certain that both countries were ruled any worse than the US, a country’s whose FBI and Department of Justice (sic) does not hesitate to frame-up the President of the United States and his National Security Advisor.”

    Ask yourself: Why would anybody “frame-up the President of the United States” when they don’t seem to have a problem with his policies, especially his confrontational “foreign policy” and reckless militarism?

    You still won’t consider the possibility that the “anti-Trump” machinations you see are just political theater? You still won’t consider the possibility that Trump’s a con man whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait-and-switch scam from the beginning?

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Thomas Milton
  3. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Whoever Is Elected War Is the Policy”

    Well, duh! Of course!

    As Randolph Bourne famously said: “War is the health of the state”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

    In other words, Mr Roberts, if you have unlimited governments in the first place, you must have wars- wars on the American people [eg the war on drugs] , and wars on the governments outside of the US.

    The Articles of Confederation and then the US constitution and Bill of Rights were attempts to severely restrict/limit the governments powers to make war on its own citizens , and on other nations.

    A return of the federal government to its original size, functions, constitutional limits and prohibitions, plus the addition of new chains that would hopefully more effectively prevent it from its otherwise continual war-making than has the Bill of Rights, would be a start , [although a far from perfect solution].

    But I’m fully confident that that is not something you are in favor of, because, like most, you continue to suffer under the illusion that government is a cure for a disease, and not the disease itself. 🙂

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Why Government Doesn’t Work”: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

  4. Miro23 says:

    Something to keep in mind is that the US is as vastly corrupt and inefficient at war as it is at much else.

    The whole war complex is a special interest trough, and the pigs that are jostling at it are more interested in the $ billions than in building systems that work. Hence the carrier fleets (already vulnerable in 1945!) and an aircraft like the F35 – hyper expensive and riddled with problems.

    Military flaws are revealed when a country switches from 3rd world to 1st world opponents. For example the British Imperial military did fine in Africa, the Middle East and S.E.Asia but found all kinds if inadequacies fighting the Germans on the Somme in 1916.

    The US military are OK for Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan type conflicts but maybe doubtful above that level.

    • Agree: animalogic
    • Replies: @Republic
  5. Brendon O’Connell’s youtube channel whose videos YouTube periodically purges has some excellent research on the close relationship between China, Russia, Iran and dare I say it Israhell on China’s One Communist Belt and Road Project. He also has extensive information about Isrshell’s Project Talpiot, Unit 8200, the Microsoft-Israel Cloud Contract and the security threat it poses to the USSA. Enjoy.

  6. A few statements here are just gnawing at me; I have to reply to them.

    “Whoever Is Elected War Is the Policy”

    This is somewhat misleading. It would be more accurate to say something like:

    “Whenever a morally bankrupt, carefully-vetted “deep state” approved candidate (e.g. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) is elected, war is the policy.”

    This statement reflects the fact that our national political process has been subverted to the extent that only breathtakingly evil people have a chance to be elected to high political office.

    “The neoconservatives, with their preference for war uber alles are running the Trump regime.”

    This statement is also misleading, as it fails to properly emphasize the important points that Trump is not only a hard-core “neoconservative” himself, but he’s the one who set the whole thing up. The “neoconservatives…are running the Trump regime” not because “shit happens” but because that was the plan from the beginning; Trump’s plan.

  7. Trumpty Dumpty, rat on the wall,
    Trumpty Dumpty must have a great fall.

    In November, I mean. There are too many rats on the wall, but no other will be as ratty.

    I hope.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  8. U-turn says:

    When nothing changes regardless of who is elected to administer government, it signifies a defect not in the administrators but in the existing foundation and superstructure of our government.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  9. Miro23 says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Trumpty Dumpty, rat on the wall,
    Trumpty Dumpty must have a great fall.

    In November, I mean. There are too many rats on the wall, but no other will be as ratty.

    I hope.

    All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
    Couldn’t put Trumpty together again.

    Not that they’ll try. To get these rats off the wall, it’s necessary for the wall itself to come down.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  10. Franz says:

    Authority was centralized, as it is in Washington, but the governments had to balance contending forces in the societies and were dependent on a large element of consent.

    Exactly what the USA hasn’t had since the fabricated destruction of the Democratic Party in Chicago in 1968. Since the Republicans were half-bought already, they were left alone.

    The people who run the Blue & Red are just another set of Welfare Queens since neither party will change and they’re both just mirror imaging each other. One thing they do well, and agree on, is that no Third Force will ever be allowed. Protest tokens like the Libertarians excepted, of course.

  11. @Harold Smith

    “You still won’t consider the possibility that Trump’s a con man whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait-and-switch scam from the beginning?”
    I won’t deny the substance of your point — that Trump is a con’. However, that’s not to exclude the reality that the US ruling class is not capable of internecine warfare. There can be no doubt that Democrats & many Establishment elements (the MSM, the FBI etc) went on a destroy-Trump-at-any-cost campaign. That, indeed, Russia-gate WAS a genuine attempt to do down Trump. The fact that it was so laughable, so embarrassingly cheap, shoddy & ridiculous doesn’t mean that there was not a genuine attempt to fraudulently criminalise a sitting president.
    A disgrace — not b/c of Trump, but that the Ruling class would lower itself to such pathetic, cringe worthy behavior.

  12. @onebornfree

    ““Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere”
    And anarchy is answer, intrinsically lacking a coherent question….

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  13. @Miro23

    “Not that they’ll try. To get these rats off the wall, it’s necessary for the wall itself to come down.”
    Yes, & to come down on little joe-joe too.

  14. onebornfree says: • Website
    @animalogic

    From: “The Reluctant Anarchist” by Joseph Sobran:

    “…..the last thing I expected to become was an anarchist. For many years I didn’t even know that serious philosophical anarchists existed. I’d never heard of Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard. How could society survive at all without a state?

    Now I began to be critical of the U.S. Government, though not very. I saw that the welfare state, chiefly the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, violated the principles of limited government and would eventually have to go. But I agreed with other conservatives that in the meantime the urgent global threat of Communism had to be stopped. Since I viewed “defense” as one of the proper tasks of government, I thought of the Cold War as a necessity, the overhead, so to speak, of freedom. If the Soviet threat ever ceased (the prospect seemed remote), we could afford to slash the military budget and get back to the job of dismantling the welfare state.

    Somewhere, at the rainbow’s end, America would return to her founding principles. The Federal Government would be shrunk, laws would be few, taxes minimal. That was what I thought. Hoped, anyway…..” : http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  15. One of the most enfeebling things about US education is the mania for more and more abstractions for dealing with the concrete fix we’re in. Whenever anybody’s feeling sentimental, 5,000 people come out of the woodwork talking about America. Not the population, or the land mass, or the institutions, or the folkways or the specific assemblage of customs and procedures, but America, an abstraction on the level of the square root of negative 1, or transuent cauastion, or the categorical imperative. Angels on the head of a pin, medieval angels on the head of a pin. Pat Buchanan is the poster boy for that.

    And of course whenever anybody complains about state crime or predation, 6,000 people come over the top with their bayonets hating on government.

    There are governments and governments. Some are helpful. Some suck.

    U-turn gets it. The foundation and superstructure of our government changed radically in 1947. Pre-1947 was The ancien régime. The National Security Act and the Central Intelligence Agency Act changed everything with a CIA chartered with impunity. They have absolute sovereignty by definition – they’re in charge because they can torture you and kill you and get away with it. Section 202 changed your government into a totalitarian state. You don’t like it, then you have to decapitate it.

    The outside world will help you. You can bone up on the human right to solidarity and the NGOs that use it, like Malcolm X and Lech Wałęsa did.

  16. Realist says:

    The neoconservatives, with their preference for war uber alles are running the Trump regime. It appears that the reelection of Donald Trump will be a continuation of the Bill Clinton presidency, the George W. Bush presidency, and the Obama presidency. Whoever is elected War is the policy.

    I agree with your article, but you call the controlling establishment neoconservatives due to the political connotations of the term I think Deep State is more appropriate. There is nothing political about the Deep State, the interest of the Deep State is wealth and power. The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    • Agree: Miro23
  17. Republic says:
    @Miro23

    Yes,only good for bush wars

  18. exceeds the internal conflict that had to be managed by Iraq’s Hussein and Libya’s Gaddafi.

    Yet despite the internal conflict, which was primarily tribal in both, Hussein and Gaddafi were often filmed driving through the streets in open vehicles. I wonder how that would work in the US.

  19. @animalogic

    “I won’t deny the substance of your point — that Trump is a con’. However, that’s not to exclude the reality that the US ruling class is not capable of internecine warfare.”

    Perhaps, but to the extent anyone can convincingly argue that Trump is the subject of “legitimate” internecine warfare (and I’ve seen no convincing arguments so far), such “internecine warfare” can be compared to a spat between husband and wife, IMO. These disputes – if they actually occur in realty – seem to involve disagreements about things like “should we attack Iraq now or later”?

    (This is not to say that many powerful and influential people do not dislike Trump personally. Let’s face it, Trump is one of the most repulsive creatures ever to rise to political power in the U.S. But when it matters, it seems they hold their noses and support him, as they need him to do the essential dirty work that their less repulsive agents are not inclined to do, e.g., take action that risks WW3).

    “There can be no doubt that Democrats & many Establishment elements (the MSM, the FBI etc) went on a destroy-Trump-at-any-cost campaign.”

    I must strongly disagree; yes there can be doubt. First, there has been no meaningful political or legal opposition to anything he’s done, just talk, and talk is cheap. What would be the basis for their opposition to Trump? Does he want to stop Israel from having nukes? Does he want the American Zionist Council to be registered as an Israeli foreign agent? Does he want to investigate 9/11? Does he want to arm Iran and other “enemies” of Israel?

    If “they” wanted to “destroy-Trump-at-any-cost” they could’ve impeached and removed him. They didn’t. They could’ve included his war crimes in Syria among the impeachment charges, they didn’t. They did nothing but put on a show.

    “That, indeed, Russia-gate WAS a genuine attempt to do down Trump. The fact that it was so laughable, so embarrassingly cheap, shoddy & ridiculous doesn’t mean that there was not a genuine attempt to fraudulently criminalise a sitting president.”

    No; it was a show – pure political theater – and it was very successful in the sense that pundits like Paul Craig Roberts took it seriously (which he apparently still does) as did many others. The apparent purpose of it was twofold: (1) to maximize any geopolitical advantage by keeping Russia and China off balance (i.e. by prolonging the fantasy that Trump is not an inherently evil deep-state agent, but a naive-babe-in-the-woods-political-novice-good-guy-in-a-bad-situation); and (2) to teach an important propaganda lesson to Joe and Jill Sixpack, the lesson being: “See, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, even if you elect a solid America-first patriot like Trump (sic), we will attack and undermine him; we will manipulate and control him. So please just give up already and stay home next time, because as you can now clearly see, voting will change nothing” or something like that.

    You’re right that “Russia-gate” was “so laughable, so embarrassingly cheap, shoddy & ridiculous” but that’s par for the course. It was no more absurd than Hitlers “gas chambers”; Saddam Husseins WMD programs; Iran’s nukes; Hyman Brown as the “architect and project engineer” of the WTC towers; Bruce Ivins as the anthrax killer; the Tsarnaev brothers as Boston Marathon bombers; etc., etc., etc.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  20. @onebornfree

    I assume you know Lysander Spooner was a socialist in the early truest sense of the word, just as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the father of anarchy was.
    One of the greatest hoaxes in political history has been the conversion of Marx from a communist to a socialist, and the resulting poisoning of the of the original ideology.

  21. @onebornfree

    The government of 1789 had 3,893,000 people and today the population is 331,000,000 (estimated) or approximately 1.17% of today’s population. We have 85 times the population today that we had then. How in the world do you think we can have a small government like we did in 1789?

    Comparatively, in terms of representation, we are a much smaller government today. The House of Representatives in 1789 had 67 members. If you multiply that number by 85 the number of representatives we would have today would be 5,695 representatives instead of 435 if we had the same representation per capita.

    I would bet that the judiciary would also not have anything similar in terms of judges per capita.

    You simply can’t run a huge country with a small government.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. @U-turn

    There is nothing wrong with the foundation or superstructure of our government other than the fact that it is owned and run by a two-sided oligarchy.

    • Replies: @U-Turn
  23. Exile says:

    Paul, “Jews” is not spelled “W-a-s-h-i-n-g-t-o-n.”

    Blame the paymasters, not the Jannisaries.

  24. anonymous[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    But isn’t the point that the national government today controls more of our resources and lives than it did then? Your arithmetic is at best pointless, as is apparent if you replace “size” with “scope.”

    So why should the government “run [the] country”?

  25. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    War is baked into the American cake and is a fundamental feature of its economic and political system. Since it whetted its appetite in the so-called Spanish-American war the US has roamed the world looking for weakness and vulnerability. That’s its strategy, finding and forcing weaker countries to hand it over or get attacked. A fundamental revision of this isn’t in the cards since changing it would require such a drastic change that only a huge disaster would provide any impetus for such.

  26. Miro23 says:
    @Harold Smith

    You’re right that “Russia-gate” was “so laughable, so embarrassingly cheap, shoddy & ridiculous” but that’s par for the course.

    True, but it wasn’t cheap, shoddy and ridiculous to everyone. The MSM pushed the lie across the whole media spectrum – newspaper articles, TV interviews, radio, internationally. In Europe “Russian hacking” was in the media every day, and that inevitable percentage of the public who just repeat what the MSM tells them were shocked by “Russian hacking”. Unbelievable but true.

    The US Deep State/CIA/MSM combination is very powerful when they can blank out all media channels with propaganda.

    They did the same with their pathetic Venezuelan (attempted) CIA coup. The MSM account was a total fabrication, but the full set of European leaders parroted the lies and supported the few dozen insurgent CIA clowns. Now they find the whole thing embarrassing – particularly the Spanish government who should have known what was going on.

    Same with WMD and 9/11. The public has been 100% propagandized into viewing any factual discussion of 9/11 as a “Conspiracy Theory” to be rejected out of hand – and the person involved better socially excluded.

    The key to breaking the US Deep State/CIA dictatorship is the media. A popular mass circulation newspaper/web site with uncensored journalism presented in a simpler easy to read Daily Mail type format and combined with personalities, show business and entertainment – plus light moderation comments .

    The DM once questioned the 9/11 account through a personal interest angle, and received a tremendous positive response in the comments section.
    The DM

  27. U-Turn says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    Yes, and the phrase “existing foundation and superstructure” clearly implies the original form no longer exists. Furthermore, I would suggest that the fact that nothing changes regardless of who we elect is solid proof our government is now owned and operated by a single organization which perpetuates the illusion of itself as being a two-sided entity simply to deceive the public into believing their vote makes a difference.

  28. Power (manifested as interest) is the aim: war the means; regardless of party. It has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception – and is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. It cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. Power, not any of the above concepts, is the cause of war. And it has eventually brought every empire/civilization to its own destruction. It is bringing us to world war three.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  29. @animalogic

    Why? Because Trump’s campaign rhetoric was of bringing the troops home and isolationism. This did scare the warmongers. Little did they know they had nothing to fear as Trump did not drain the swamp or bring the troops home.
    He gave the military-industrial-complex the biggest budget in history and has dropped more bombs in Afghanistan than have been dropped in the last decade.
    However the Strzoks and Pages and Comeys did not know he would turn out to be one of them…. on steroids. All of their machinations and dossiers were for naught. Trump turned out to be one of them just not as pretty.

  30. @Harold Smith

    I think the “theater” aspect of our political and social culture may be paramount. Look at all the “staged” events, from terrorism to “shootings”, race-baiting hoaxes, all designed to leave the public divided and confused. Since it seems they love to stage “shows”, there is ample reason to look at Trump as just the latest scripted episode.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to 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 Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS