EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Six Wars and Counting
Washington Reaches for the Record Book
President Obama recently reshuffled his top Washington warriors, sending CIA Director Leon Panetta, a man who knows Congress well, on to the Pentagon to replace retiring Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In turn, the president is bringing in General David Petraeus, present Afghan War Commander, former Centcom commander, and former Iraq War commander (as well as “Bush’s general”), to run the Agency.
Whatever the local politics involved, and the Petraeus appointment ensures that the potentially popular general will be on the political sidelines for campaign year 2012, these moves catch the zeitgeist of our Washington moment. Since the bin Laden assassination, in which U.S. military special operations forces “commanded” by Panetta took out the al-Qaeda leader, a new face of American war, “where sovereignty is irrelevant, armies tangential, and decisions are secret,” has been emerging according to Foreign Policy in Focus analyst Conn Hallinan.
With the latest news (revealed last week by the New York Times) that the U.S. has launched a significant “intensification” of its secret air campaign against Yemeni tribesmen believed to be connected with al-Qaeda, the U.S. is now involved in no less than six wars. Count ‘em, if you don’t believe me: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and what used to be called the Global War on Terror.
In anyone’s book, that certainly qualifies as a working definition of “endless” war, but that doesn’t mean endlessly the same kind of war. Let’s look at this, war by war:
Iraq: Now largely the dregs of a counterinsurgency operation, this war will not end in 2011. At his confirmation hearings, for instance, Panetta cited the existence of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a reason for U.S. troops to remain beyond an agreed-upon year-end withdrawal date. Should those troops actually leave, however, the war will still go on, even if in quite a different form. A gargantuan, increasingly militarized State Department “mission” in that country, complete with its own “army” and “air force” of perhaps 5,100 mercenaries, will evidently keep the faith.
Afghanistan: This remains a full-scale U.S. Army-run counterinsurgency war, backed by a major special operations/CIA counterterror war.
Pakistan: A full-scale CIA-run drone war in the Pakistani borderlands is actually expanding. In the post-9/11 era, this has been the first of Washington’s “covert” or "shadow" wars (which no longer means “secret” -- it’s all over the news almost daily -- but something closer to “off the books,” as in beyond the reach of any form of significant popular or congressional oversight or accountability). Panetta is calling for more emphasis on such off-the-books wars in which U.S. military operatives might, as in the bin Laden operation, temporarily find themselves under the command of the CIA.
Libya: Officially a NATO air war, this one is nonetheless partially run by the Pentagon with targeting assistance from various U.S. intelligence agencies. It involves both direct U.S. air strikes and support for strikes by various NATO and Arab allies fronting the operation. It is also, for Americans, a “war” in name only since, except in the case of engine malfunction, there is essentially no way the Libyans can harm a U.S. pilot. It is also an example of another air war that, while destructive, has proven itself incapable of fulfilling its stated aims. Months later, Gaddafi remains alive and more or less in power, while NATO flags.
Yemen: Another of those “covert” air wars, being run, according to the Times, by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, closely coordinated with the CIA out of a secret office in the Yemeni capital.
The Global War on Terror: While the Obama administration officially discarded the Bush-era name, it expanded the war and the forces meant to fight it in places like Somalia. U.S. special operations forces now pursue war-on-terror tasks in at least 75 countries and who knows how many CIA and other intelligence agents are involved as well.
Think of all this as a kind of mix-and-match version of war that increasingly integrates civilian branches of the government like the State Department, an ever more warlike CIA (once known as “the president’s private army”), the regular Army, Marines, and Air Force, ever-growing drone air power (split between an officially civilian intelligence agency and the military), and a secret combined military force of perhaps 20,000 special operatives.
With the face of American war changing in striking ways and at least six wars, none going particularly well, on or off the books, no one should be surprised if, as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian William Astore makes clear in his latest piece, Washington as a war capital increasingly looks like a new kind of town. In the meantime, when it comes to how many wars Americans can fight at once, Washington is reaching for the record books.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050. His other most recent book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books). Previous books include: The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
82 Comments so far
Show All"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
Excellent quote, and one you would expect to hear from a Nobel Peace Laureate not a general.
Not a quote you'd hear from our latest Nobel Peace Prize winning President, that's for sure.
Great quote. One we should expect from Nobel Peace Prize laureates, not generals. Only - as it's turned out with Obama - the best generals have wanted peace, while Peace Prize laureates make acceptance-speeches praising war.
all war - all the time
if only cheney could squeeze another five years out of his non-pulsing heart machine to see the fruition of all his evil hateful work over the years
Its true: only the good die young.
Could the power elite have access to information and technology, medical and otherwise, that is exclusive to the rest of us?
While the effete Republican gang of idiots debate about how to bury government regulation, the Obama gang leads the nation of the US into hell. I gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing I ever do.
Republicans want big government in certain areas. In pearticular, the wars on terror and drugs. They also love the patriot act and warrantless surveillence.
Yes. The Rethuglican battle-cry of "small government" is a lie. They LOVE big government when it comes to stifling freedoms, civil liberties, launching wars, corporate welfare, international free trade agreements, and expanding the intelligence community apparatus and growing police state. They do NOT like big government when it comes to regulations on corporations and industry, taxing the well-to-do and the corporations, and environmental laws. Because all of those things get in the way of the only thing that matters: profit.
Rich, are you going to Kathmandu?
The slide into the abyss is paved with the suffering that fascist amerika has caused. continues to cause !
Agreed. I have been saving for a couple of years now in earnest. As soon as I get the means, I'm outta here.
.......
As writer and historian Gore Vidal pointed out from the title of one of his books:
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
The rulers of this country learned the lesson of the Vietnam conflict quite well as they realize that Americans will utter nary a peep in protest against their government's bellicose policies as long as a military draft is no longer in effect in this country thereby ensuring that less than 2 percent of Americans will continue to shoulder the burden of America's less than legitimate wars and military conflicts.
There is a seventh war. It is the "war on drugs". That one began with Nixon.
Then add an eighth one: the war on the working class and the poor in the name of deficit reduction. It's insane. The only thing it would appear we are not at war with is the greed and corruption.
Ditto
Ditto.
I'm actually thinking this is WW II, with multiple fronts.
And as both Napoleon and Hitler learned, you can't fight a war with two (or more) fronts.
This continual warfare is going to bleed the US economy drier than a Bush family reunion open bar.
Great analogy. It is very difficult to win a war fighting on two or more fronts when the fronts are non-contiguous with an area that you hold. Julius Caesar famously was successful on two fronts in his conquest of Gaul.
Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolph Hitler's made major mistakes with their invasions of Russia. Bush's mistake which Obama has continued was the invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. The US and NATO forces in Afghanistan face the same logistic problems that Napoleon and Hitler experienced on invading Russia.
The continued involvement of the US in Afghanistan and the widening of the war to Pakistan pose the greatest threats to the national security of the US. The continued occupation of Afghanistan could be the death knell of the American Empire.
galenwainwright... what a risible, wit-drenched recusant you are! many thanx for the most belly-jiggling guffaw i've had in months. that final declarative re. the bush-ganglanders is ingenious. there is nothing more salutary than your brand of humour, particularly when all the metaphoric 'fans' in DC are blowing shitola and hot air rather than cooling zephyrs.
Ditto
Ditto
Is there an echo in here??
Quite true, KeLeMi, let's never forget the bloody mayhem and ongoing tragedies perpetrated by that war. Once we accepted the outlawing of drugs in the first place a century ago, the people were well conditioned to accept the ludicrous War on Drugs, and from there the War on Terror could make sense to many.
The War on Drugs conditioned people into accepting that moral imperatives trump both basic freedoms and copious evidence that the War is counterproductive. It helps that the middle class is still allowed to consume drugs—alcohol and a fascinating array of prescription drugs, plus laxity on persecuting the middle class for even the illegal ones. Those that are thrown in prison for drugs are the people the middle class want there anyway.
And so it is with this War on Terror, which is still the impetus despite what they happen to be calling it or not calling it. I can’t help reaching the conclusion that most people ignore the killing of innocents and the destruction of their infrastructures because they want them dead, they want their land destroyed and plundered. Fear, vengeance, ignorance, and greed, all bleeding into a powerful, upside down Christianity—our standard for morality—is a heady mix for tyranny. Onward Christian soldiers!
KELE: I hadn't scrolled down... before posting. And now see we were thinking along similar lines in response to this article. Other wars, indeed...
Then there's the war on the Fake Sioux, of course...
Don't forget the "war on poverty" which is a textbook example of how to lose wars without Congress doing anything about it.
Then there's the war on poverty, meaning war on the poor.
"There's always one more war
and it's always on the poor"
The war in Korea is still ongoing - only armistice there.
The sad part of all this is that the branch of government charged with the responsibility of controlling such excesses: congress, is in collusion to facilitate such actions and not performing as the check and balance it was designed to be by the constitution. They've abdicated their powers, I would guess to placate the moneyed interests of the global elite. Sad way really for our republic to end.
There's also a ninth war. It's the war that is being waged on the civil liberties of US citizens under the guise of national security.
There will be no peace in the United States until there is a lawyer, politician, general, CEO, or Bankster hanging from every lamp post!
Gardenernorcal,
You are absolutely correct in your assessment that Congress has abdicated it's constitutional responsibility to act as a check on unrestrained executive power. These times are shades of the late Roman Republic. Just as the Roman Republic, the American Republic is deteriorating into a dictatorship. Rather than an emperor the United States has an authoritarian unitary executive.
An authoritarian unitary executive, yes, but one who is merely a puppet to the corporations and, by extension, the Pentagon.
"Rather than an emperor the United States has an authoritarian unitary executive."
One that is obviously controlled by global financial interests. And the Supreme Court and the Legislative Branch have sold out or into to that new matrix, into which they wish to bind the rest of us on lesser terms and compensation than what they received.
And we are supposed to be happy about it and compliant. Sorry if I choose to decline that offer.
It must hurt Oblahblah, Killary, and their friends to no end that they haven't managed to start a real war with Iran yet.
They and Netanyahu are optimistic they can still bring it off. Thing is Iran isn't an uncivilized nation. They are worldly and educated and so far they have been able to sidestep the warmongering of the US and Israel.
While we aid Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear power we condemn Iran. It's amazing actually considering the majority of the hijackers on 09/11 were not Iranians, they weren't Iraqis, Pakistanis, Yeminis or Afghans they were Saudis.
Good point. Yet if you were to walk up to 20 Americans on any street in any town today and tell them that the hijackers of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, most of them would not believe you. I've actually done that (I asked 20 co-workers where the majority of the hijackers came from, 15 of them said Iraq, 2 said Iraq and Iran, and the other 3 said they didn't know).
Never underestimate the ignorance of the average American.
Maybe they're reserving it for next year's October Surprise.
Trick or treat!
the greatest war was the one for the land...
they won that one when we agreed to financial terms, and went to work...
this powderkeg is the one we must reignite...
the rest are 'subwars' of this one...
Interesting how pro-war chickenhawks commentators like WayneRW never post on threads like these, which lay bare the truth of the U.S. War Machine's true raison d'etre. Of course, chickenhawks like WayneRW and his ilk don't approve of "all" wars - Wayne, for example, thinks we should get out of Iraq now that we have killed the evil, horrible Sadaam - but are instead very good at justifying WHY the U.S. "should go to war" in whatever country you choose to name.
The usual spiel is "we must help the poor people of X, who are being oppressed by their horrible leader," or "we must spread democracy there," or "insert-lame-ass-justification-for-war-here." What people like WayneRW can never seem to justify is how every time the US invades/bombs/launches a war against another country we wind up killing thousands (or hundreds of thousands, in the case of Iraq) of innocent civilians, which pretty much nullifies whatever lame "justification" they used to tout the war in the first place.
When you add the financial factor of all these "justifiable" wars into it - trillions of dollars, bankrupting the U.S. while American citizens become jobless and homeless - their lame-ass justifications just become downright silly.
Demonstrom,
Please don't use the term chicken hawk to refer to pro-war advocates. It is an insult to real chicken hawks. As humorist Calvin Trillin wrote:
"Chicken hawk actually means a hawk that preys on chickens rather than a chicken that acts like a hawk."
A more appropriate term might be what Calvin Trillin has termed a "sissy hawk". A sissy hawk is someone who urges others on to fight wars he is unwilling to fight himself. The individuals of the Bush and Obama administrations who have embroiled the United States in wars in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are sissy hawks. So are those members of the American public who support perpetual warfare and urge others to fight in wars that they are unwilling to fight in themselves.
When I served in the US Army we had an axiom that stated: "When the bugle calls, you never know who will step forward". When the bugle calls during a generation's time of war, it is usually the sissy hawks who do not step forward.
I voted third party. I didn't expect much from Obama but I didn't realize what a freaking full-blown CIA-trained fascist he really is.
I gloat about my recognizing ObomberBush as a phony and voted for Bob Barr. i guess I'm a Libertarian Socialist like Noam Chomsky
Perfect !
A war criminal as the head of the Corporate Intelligence Agency !
Even in these dark times I still have hope. Because I remember the words of an audacious black man that won the Nobel Peace Prize before it became nothing more than a political toy.
"I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. "And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid." I still believe that We Shall overcome!
This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance.html
Wow... I wonder if the speech writer is gagging now?
Elizabeth H & Gonzo: You both said a lot in few words. Thank you.
That's Martin Luther King's speech. I think not.
7 wars. Should have listed the US war against the United States. The opening salvo was the US demolition of the three buildings at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon shooting a cruise missile at the Pentagon. The anthrax attack using US military supplies was icing-on-the-cake. Since then, economic warfare has successfully destroyed the US economy, and psyops have successfully obliterated Constitutional rule-of-law. Probably the US war against the United States is the most successful of the current 7 wars. Unfortunately, we are winning the war against ourselves.