The present-day U.S. military qualifies by any measure as highly professional, much more so than its Cold War predecessor. Yet the purpose of today’s professionals is not to preserve peace but to fight unending wars in distant places. Intoxicated by a post-Cold War belief in its own omnipotence, the United States allowed itself to be drawn into a long series of armed conflicts, almost all of them yielding unintended consequences and imposing greater than anticipated costs. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. forces have destroyed many targets and killed many people. Only rarely, however, have they succeeded in accomplishing their assigned political purposes. . . . [F]rom our present vantage point, it becomes apparent that the “Revolution of ‘89” did not initiate a new era of history. At most, the events of that year fostered various unhelpful illusions that impeded our capacity to recognize and respond to the forces of change that actually matter.

Andrew Bacevich


Thursday, September 21, 2017

Update for Thursday, September 21, 2017

Iraqi forces launch offensive to retake Hawija. Once again, civilians are in danger, including some 30,000 children. Food, water and medicine are already in short supply in the city, and many children are malnourished.

The town is mostly Arab, but it lies near territory which is disputed by Kurdistan. The operation occurs amidst ongoing conflict over the planned Kurdistan independence referendum. The prospect of allies in the war against IS turning on each other is very concerning. Peshmerga are not taking part in the Hawija offensive.

Russia has not called upon Kurdistan to cancel the vote and has become a major investor in the Kurdistan oil industry.

In a weird twist, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been hired by Iraqi Kurdish leaders to promote the referendum. As readers presumably know, Manafort is under investigation by the FBI and special prosecutor Robert Mueller for possible collusion with Russia during the presidential campaign, and perhaps other violations concerning his representation of the pro-Russian Ukranian government.

0 comments: