Almost a year ago the Booby posted his first instalment of “In the News”, a series of musings on current events and their significant to you, the Booby’s readers. That post was titled, “A Syrian Bombshell” (see here). At the time, following President Trump’s stated intention that he would remove US ground forces from Syria, it truly seemed like a bombshell. After all, the deescalation of US military actions would be a major departure from US policy since the end of the Cold War.
Fast forward to today and we realize that things have changed far less than we were led on to believe. Nearly a year after Mr. Trump’s supposed announcement, and mere days after appearing to finally follow through with it, the president has – yet again – changed course. Those US troops which were supposedly withdrawing from Syria are now not only turning back, but they are turning back in the company of tanks, armoured vehicles, and Apache helicopters (see here ). Combat operations are reportedly even happening on the ground, like the killing a major ISIS commander.
So much for an end to the ceaseless wars.
The stated purpose for Trump’s policy reversal is “to protect Syrian oilfields”. This is bizarre on many levels, not least of which is the fact that the president essentially admitted that oil reserves – not peace, love, democracy, and human rights – are the most prominent, if not the only, motivation for US actions in the Middle East (see here). Of course, unless you believe what you hear in the mainstream media, or unless you’ve had your head up your ass for the last 100 years (like there’s a difference), you knew this already. What’s bizarre is the matter-of-fact manner in which a sitting president just declared it.
What’s also bizarre is that these are SYRIAN oilfields. Exactly where the US gets a mandate to “protect” – i.e. seize – these oilfields is scarcely discussed, and the mainstream media is surprisingly quiet about such a mission being carried out by a Republican president. One can only surmise the reason for the media silence is that the current Syrian quagmire was President Obama’s making, and therefore no amount of lies, bloodshed, death, or skullduggery is too much if it means preserving the Messiah’s legacy.
The Booby has no idea whether President Trump was sincere when he indicated that he intended to put an end to the ceaseless wars, starting with Syria. If he was sincere then he has clearly caved to the US military establishment. If he was insincere then throw this president on the pile of lying politicians who have graced the White House since independence.
Actually, there’s one other possibility, and it’s probably the most likely. And that’s what makes it all the more terrifying: it’s very possible, maybe even probable, that neither President Obama nor President Trump (or any other politician) possesses the practical ability to overrule the groupthink coming out of the military establishment. It’s not a matter of “caving in” but one of complete impotence, which of course has stark implications for democracy.
Why does this seem most likely? Well, for starters here’s a picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting Syrian President Assad in 2007, a visit in which she expressed “great hope” for peace and better relations (see here). This was, of course, very embarrassing to the Bush administration which was doing its best at the time to foment confrontation with Syria, a logical decision, given how swimmingly well the Iraq conflict went.
All well and good. And here’s a picture of Nancy Pelosi in 2013. The main difference? This time the Democrats are in the White House, and this time she’s urging President Obama to launch an attack on Syria (see here) based on reports of a gas attack carried out by Syria, whose actual culpability remains at best unproven (see here and here).
In light of the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco that presaged the 2003 Iraq invasion one would expect a modicum of skepticism from the mainstream media, but nothing of the sort emerged once a Democrat was in the White House.
What is starkly evident is that the vitriolic infighting between Democrats and Republicans has far more to do with internal political grandstanding than with genuine differences in actual US foreign policy. We should remember that President Clinton ordered multiple air and missile attacks on Iraq between 1993 and 1999, sometimes with “weapons of mass destruction” offered as justification (see here, here, and here).
But that was then. We’ll likely never know what President Trump’s true intentions were or are. But that no longer matters. War is back on the agenda. What’s most important, fellas, is what this means to you:
The Booby has always been very upfront with his readers. He doesn’t pretend to know what goes on in the secret closed door meetings between diplomats, generals, and technocrats. What he has always been consistent about, however, is the fact that great powers and empires never – EVER – fight wars for human rights, democracy, or niceness for everyone (see here). This is historically self-evident.
All you young men who are currently of age to fight the US’s wars are (for now) still free to choose whether you really want top take part in this.
The Booby can’t make that decision for you. What the Booby wants to make clear to you is that you will not – under any circumstances – be fighting for the territorial defence of your country. The US is not threatened in any realistic way by Syria, Turkey, Russia, or any other actor in the Middle Eastern, or any other, theatre. You will be fighting for the survival, prosperity, and legitimacy of your ruling class. Period.
To make a long story short, the Middle East is the primary source of oil for the world’s developed economies, and comprises most of the major choke points and trade routs through which that oil is delivered. From the early 20th Century to today these facts, and these facts alone, explain the obsession of world powers with this region. That includes the US, which after World War II assumed the role of the head outfit in this geopolitical protection racket.
Without oil, industrial economies cannot run, function, or grow economically. Without constant economic growth modern banking systems cannot stay solvent. Without the flow of liquid capital via banking systems modern economies cannot keep the lights on, the trains running, or the people fed. Without a growing, functioning economy the political class cannot impose its ideology upon those same people.
There was a time, not so long ago… say, pre-1970, when a young man in the Western World could make an argument in favour of fighting for empire. It’s a morally contentious argument, to be sure – after all, maintaining empire requires the spilling of much blood, including that of foreign civilians – but it’s an argument nonetheless. In other words, in a realpolitik sense, you could take the amoral standpoint that the needs of your people and your empire justified the means of maintaining or growing it.
For you young men of the West today this is no longer the case. This is especially true if you are a white male, but have no illusions, as young men of any race you are now fighting for a political intelligentsia that sees you with contempt, if not outright hatred (see here), though your blood and taxes are still very much wanted.
The new political class has stripped you of any benefits that marriage and fatherhood once accrued. Today, you are nothing more than a chequebook utilized to fund a feminist, post-family childrearing model.
If you are of European descent – or the parlance of identity politics, white – you are expected to accept personal responsibility for every historical sin committed by Europeans in human history, but you are simultaneously forbidden from taking any pride in the numerous achievements of Europeans and peoples of European descent.
If you still “cling” to the religion of your parents, grandparents, or ancestors – i.e. Christianity – you are now fighting for a country that seeks to eliminate that religion’s presence from history, the social scene, and the language, even to the point of discouraging such vile utterances as “Merry Christmas”.
We inch closer, day-by-day, to a society in which men accused of “sex crimes” have no legal recourse, due process, or right to a fair trial. In some countries, like Spain, that is already the reality (see here). It is for this kind of society, fellas, that Hillary wants you to die on the steppes of Ukraine, lest a weakened empire beget a weakened economy, and a de-legitimized political class.
The international competitiveness of corporations, and the banks to which they are indentured, require that money be mobile across borders, that jobs can be replaced on a jurisdictional basis, and all without interference from national governments. It is for this that conservatives insist we tear down national borders even as they hypocritically wave their country’s flags.
You will not be fighting for the country or the civilization of your ancestors, or in many cases your parents. That country is gone forever. Today you will be fighting for reparations, bank bailouts, transgendered washrooms, a Mother Earth cult, rabid feminism, and open boarders (i.e. cheap labour)… not to mention the banks, corporations, and multinationals who have completely bought-in to the new religion… as have, not coincidentally, their main customers and legal overseers.
It is for this that those of the political class now want you to die in Syria, or Ukraine, or Libya, or Iran, or…
Whether we’re talking about Elizabeth Warren or Ted Cruz or Uncle Joe or apparently Donald Trump, it makes no difference. No candidate from either party, we must now assume, would be particularly saddened if a few thousand deplorable males failed to return from Syria, or Ukraine, or Iran, or…. well, you get the idea.
Once upon a time, the radical left campaigned against war, fled the draft, and took to the streets against an establishment that wanted them to die for the empire. Today that same left has become the new establishment. It’s intelligentsia now depends upon the empire, and the dominance of its military machine.
This is why President Obama wanted regime change in Ukraine, in Syria, in Libya…. This is why candidate Hillary was so gung-ho in favour of war with Russia. This is why the mainstream media no longer questions why US troops are “protecting” Syrian oil fields, or supporting coups in foreign countries. The former hippies have inherited the empire, they lap up the gravy of its might, and use its riches and largesse to impose a new age religion upon the masses.
So ask yourselves, young men: do you really wish to die for this? Or, if you’re the father of a young man, ask yourself if you really want him to die for the political scene we have now bequeathed. Others are perhaps better qualified than the Booby to help you decide (see here). But better yet, ask yourself if your country is even still a democracy in anything but name, or if it has become an empire even though no Caesar has crossed any rivers.
The actions of the current US president, despite all the sound and fury to the opposite, suggest that the age of democracy has long since passed, and yet we have no discernible emperor, no king, no Tsar. Just a fat, contented political establishment that insists we still go to the polls as if doing so really matters.
Time to start think about yourselves, fellas.