The Heavy Hand Of The U.S. Government
SEARCH BLOG: WAR
A letter from an anarchist:
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
U.S. politicians have, for at least a century, viewed the military as a tool for foreign relations... a reminder that the U.S. has the capability to inflict severe harm when threatened or attacked. It is an unreasonable position and often leads those who have no such arsenal to adamantly denounce the U.S. for using that tool.
Part of the problem is that the military is supposed to be used in defense of the U.S. and forays into other areas of the world open the U.S. to charges that its actions are not for defense, but for aggression. From a military point of view, it makes no difference why a battle is being fought... only that there is a battle. However, the military is directed by politicians who have motives and concerns beyond any immediate battle.
Many enlightened individuals, such as myself, have drawn the conclusion that the war in Iraq was a mistake. What happened in the Middle East under the regime of Saddam Hussein is irrelevant. "It was all about oil." Certainly, Hussein's grab for Kuwait oil triggered a reaction... overreaction... from nations heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Obviously, the issues were more far-reaching than the simplistic mantra of "going to war for oil." It was more than going to war to ensure we were not deprived of our free-trade rights as individuals by a despot who had killed a half-million of his own people to get his way.
But it was still wrong. We could have worked out some trade deals with Hussein. No problem.
[It was a mistake because the U.S. had allowed itself to become energy-dependent on suppliers from a politically unstable part of the world. It was a mistake because the allure of cheap foreign supplies blinded the U.S. to larger issues than saving a few dollars on trade deals. The kind of short-sighted thinking that continues to this day elsewhere. Sorry, I should not interject personal thoughts into this.]
Many have drawn the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake. There was no direct threat from the Taliban... only the harboring of those who were directly responsible for attacks on the U.S. It was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend... until the enemy of my enemy became the friend of another enemy. But those doing the harboring were not attacking us so there was no justification to attack them.
[Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems.]
Does the U.S. have legitimate interests in the Middle East. No. Only individual traders and day traders and those, like myself, who hope the price of gold keeps increasing.
From a purely military perspective, the military threat is minimal and the reasons for military involvement certainly do not justify any notion of "nation building." The military could handle any Middle East based threat without putting one ground troop in place. That might offend the sensibilities of some, but the reality is that the U.S. military is quite capable of disrupting military operations anywhere at any time without setting one foot in the area. Sure, there may be political and trade consequences, but that's not the concern of the military.
From a trade point of view, we have no national interests and it is just a matter of individuals making deals. There is no reason to deploy U.S. forces simply because sources of strategic supplies are threatened. What's so strategic about Middle Eastern oil? Individuals can trade with Venezuela.
After all, its just individuals who are trading for Middle Eastern oil who would be affected... and that's just their money, so let them take their losses and certainly don't provide military involvement to ensure that individual trade deals for oil are protected. Those not directly involved in the Middle East trade deals would simply trade for their oil elsewhere and nothing else would be affected.
So, you see, from a military and trade point of view, there is no reason whatsoever for the U.S. government to be involved. There really is no reason for a U.S. government. All we need are individuals who trade freely and deal with bad trade on their own. That includes all of you.Yeah, we don't need any Socialist government ruining our lives. Read the link before you comment... BUT DO READ THE COMMENT.
From 
