, , , , ,

Here’s libertarian activist Julie Borowski talking about her transition from pro-war to anti-war:

After eleven year of war, it’s not unexpected or unreasonable to be questioning our “leadership” and their desire to murder more people around the world. My period of service saw the idiotic interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo — where we did pretty much nothing but watch the sides shoot at each other (Bosnia) or bombed the snot out of people until the local terrorist group wound up in control of the country (Kosovo.) Why were we at war? Because “smart folks” in Brussels and the capitals of Europe conjured up the image of World War I — after all the Great War started in Serbia, obviously we were on the verge of another global war.

Except we weren’t. There was no shadowy net of alliances that would oblige the European and Russian governments to throw themselves into the grist mill. There were no interfamilial competitions of pride that would pit the pretty armies and toy chest of warships of a couple of inbred halfwits against each other. the Bosnians and Serbians and Croatians weren’t going to be the trigger for a world war; they were settling scores going back to the Ottoman days. The reason for the Bosnian and Kosovar interventions was to get the money to the military industries in Europe and the United States flowing again after a few years of cutbacks after the end of the Soviet Union.

The War in Afghanistan was about as good an example of why you go to war: we were attacked by a terror group that was taking shelter in that nation, protected by a bunch of religious nuts living in the seventh century. Removing them as punishment and destroying al-Qaida made sense. Trying to install another group of drug-peddling religious nuts who live in the 19th Century was not. The moment the Afghan war should have been rolled up is immediately apparent — the moment we let the Afghans stop the attack on Tora Bora so their friends in al-Qaida could slip away into Pakistan. After that, the nation-building impulse took over from the act of punishment.

The war in Iraq was idiotic from the jump, but the supporters didn’t know that. The government and their sycophants in the media sold them a fight to preserve civilization from a madman (a correct assessment) who was on the verge of having nuclear weapons (incorrect, but that was not what Hussein wanted the world [and more specifically Iran] to think.) Intelligence suggested he was one violence-fueled binge from having nukes, but that was based on Hussein’s own over-inflated bullshit, designed to keep his real enemy — Iran — from rolling over his border.

But here in the States, the cronies under the thumb of the now unleashed military/law enforcement/intelligence industry, these disparate entities now united by the war on “terror,” wanted a war not to “avenge the first Bush’s failure” — he did exactly what the United Nations mandate in 1991 specified: ejecting Hussein from Kuwait. Period; full stop. The Iraq War was the culmination in “smart people” from Harvard and Yale playing our their fantasies of being the new British Empire. This time, however, they would mold a Middle East that was civilized and pliant. And key to that was bracketing Iran in a new version of containment — with Afghanistan and Iraq as the bulwarks against religious nuts that were one violent act away from having nuclear weapons (sound familiar?)

These people were not swept away with the election of Barack Obama. They still infest the government, from the White House to Congress, to the bureaucracy. They live in a world defined by their own ambitions and desire for power. They are supported by the vast industries created to fight terror and drugs, which funnel money from government contracts to the politicians’ political war chests (if you did this, they’d call it money laundering.) So it’s not surprising that Obama, faced with a disaster of the second term thanks to the Snowden revelations, the impending collapse of the medical industry thanks to Obamacare, and an job market and economy anchored by Progressive theories that haven’t matured since 1933, that the president would seek to pull a French Drop by launching a war on Syria.

Attacks on Syria mean more money for the war industry, another chance for the wannabe Teddy Roosevelts like John “Angry Gnome” McCain to vicariously pick up the White Man’s Burden, and a chance for the president — already a fan of log-distance murder in the service of Muslim Brotherhood interests (Libya and Egypt) — to kill more people to help his terrorist brothers. It’s not hard to see how someone might become jaded to the same damned arguments for war we’ve been hearing since 1918.

I would point out there’s one difference, this time — a Russia spoiling for a fight, led by a KGB killer that views Obama as an incompetent, at best. The saber-rattling has started already, and with the dispatch of Russian ships carrying marines, the ante has been upped.

I would suggest you bombard your representatives and senators with phone calls, letters, and emails giving them your opinion on the matter, but I somehow doubt your would-be masters are going to heed their obligations to represent the will of the people (currently polling at 80% against this lunacy.) You could vote the bastards out in 2014, but you’re just going to get the same people with different names.