The Long War: 2004 - 2054

[georgephillip]

In 2009 Tom Hayden warned US war planners were embarking an epoch of irregular warfare across an "arc of instability" stretching from Africa, South and Central Asia, and the New Middle East. Fifty years of killing patterned on the Indian Wars of 19th century North America.

"The concept of the 'Long War' is attributed to former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, speaking in 2004.

"Leading counterinsurgency theorist John Nagl, an Iraq combat veteran and now the head of the Center for a New American Security, writes that 'there is a growing realization that the most likely conflicts of the next fifty years will be irregular warfare in an "Arc of Instability" that encompasses much of the greater Middle East and parts of Africa and Central and South Asia...'"

"Like the Indian wars, winning the Long War will require taking advantage of the deep divisions that exist in tribal societies, along lines of religion, ethnicity, race and geography.

"The efforts of many Indian leaders to form effective confederations against US expansion never succeeded.

"On the other hand, US army strategies to pay tribes to deploy 'scouts' who would inform on and fight other tribes were successful.

"The main strategy of the Long War is to attract one tribal or ethnic group to fight their rivals on behalf of the foreign occupier."

During the last week we've watched ISIL roll through Mosul and take dead aim at Baghdad. Is it possible the Islamist's success has depended on US strategies similar to what occurred in the American west over a hundred years ago, or the same techniques that brought about the Sons of Iraq in 2006?

Fifty years of war will bankrupt the US morally and financially, and it will bring the terror we visited upon Iraq home to roost.

It is long past time to stop killing and dying for the richest 1% of humanity.

Understanding the Long War | The Nation

 

[MACAULAY]

I am dazzled by the velocity with which you move from solid predicate to irrelevant conclusion.

The story about the Indians was good, but in your story, the U.S. won, and became the greatest and richest society in the history of the world.

So, if we use it again...the Indian Strategy that is...why would it be expected to bankrupt us this time?

And villainous One Per Cent!

Its got to be an Obama-sheik thing to do...to work them into every Loon Post...because they just don't deserve to be drug into this with the predicate you've set.

Where they behind the Indian Machination too? That was over a century ago. I thought the One Per Cent was another diabolic Bush Concoction.

Why would the richest One Per Cent want the U.S. to go bankrupt? Wouldn't that bankrupt them too, or get them killed in a food riot?

The last really big rich country that went belly-up was France and all the aristorcracy (The One Per Cent) got their head chopped off, including the King and his fox Marie Antoinette.

I think you have strung together some Loon talking points and got them mixed up somehow.

But the story about the Indians was flat good.

 

[georgephillip]

I am dazzled by the velocity with which you move from solid predicate to irrelevant conclusion.

The story about the Indians was good, but in your story, the U.S. won, and became the greatest and richest society in the history of the world.

So, if we use it again...the Indian Strategy that is...why would it be expected to bankrupt us this time?

And villainous One Per Cent!

Its got to be an Obama-sheik thing to do...to work them into every Loon Post...because they just don't deserve to be drug into this with the predicate you've set.

Where they behind the Indian Machination too? That was over a century ago. I thought the One Per Cent was another diabolic Bush Concoction.

Why would the richest One Per Cent want the U.S. to go bankrupt? Wouldn't that bankrupt them too, or get them killed in a food riot?

The last really big rich country that went belly-up was France and all the aristorcracy (The One Per Cent) got their head chopped off, including the King and his fox Marie Antoinette.

I think you have strung together some Loon talking points and got them mixed up somehow.

But the story about the Indians was flat good.

Thanks, I think.
Actually Tom Hayden wrote the part about the Indians; however, it is hard to forget how the US became rich by employing slavery and genocide.

The point I wanted to make was this: arms sales and oil sales are the two biggest legitimate money makers on this planet. I think profits from the sales of illegal drugs comes third.

The US sells more arms than any other country, and its navy controls the sea lanes that transport the oil. The richest 1% of Americans are the biggest recipients of the private profits from oil and arms sales, yet the costs are socialized in blood and taxes of the other 99%.

Until peace is made more profitable than war, I don't see any conclusion that doesn't require mass murder.

 

[MACAULAY]

Thank you for this respectful explanation.

War has always been deemed profitable...all through history...buy at least one party to the War...else there would not be War. And War is mass murder. So, I agree with you, only...I would point out, for what its worth, that both the Indians and the Muslims were very busy killing each other for many centuries, before the Americans came along to help them out with the mayhem.

Regrettably, around WWII, we found ourselves dependant on Middle East Oil and have not been able to shake the addiction...but it is because us...the poor burdened taxpayer has demanded it....demanded the Middle East oil...to live the lifestyle that we have come to expect...and so we have paid the price necessary.

Now, through the miracle of technology, we have at our disposal, plenty of oil on the North American continent....enough to tell the Middle East to get fucked; enough to let them alone to kill themselves without our help...but Obama and his Loons just hate our Oil, and seek to stiffle its production at every turn.

Its like it was the Democrats who are making the profits from the arms sales to the Lunatic Muslims.

 

[georgephillip]

Thank you for this respectful explanation.

War has always been deemed profitable...all through history...buy at least one party to the War...else there would not be War. And War is mass murder. So, I agree with you, only...I would point out, for what its worth, that both the Indians and the Muslims were very busy killing each other for many centuries, before the Americans came along to help them out with the mayhem.

Regrettably, around WWII, we found ourselves dependant on Middle East Oil and have not been able to shake the addiction...but it is because us...the poor burdened taxpayer has demanded it....demanded the Middle East oil...to live the lifestyle that we have come to expect...and so we have paid the price necessary.

Now, through the miracle of technology, we have at our disposal, plenty of oil on the North American continent....enough to tell the Middle East to get fucked; enough to let them alone to kill themselves without our help...but Obama and his Loons just hate our Oil, and seek to stiffle its production at every turn.

Its like it was the Democrats who are making the profits from the arms sales to the Lunatic Muslims.

Speaking of Democrats, who have certainly done their part to make wars profitable, just as the US launched Operation Iraqi Liberation in 2003, Wesley Clark revealed a conversation he had in the Pentagon in the days following 911:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think Americans would ever agree to prosecute Republicans AND Democrats for War Crimes in Iraq, but I wonder how many would support criminal prosecution on fraud and corruption charges?

War and Occupation in Iraq - Chapter 9 English