Why does the US Need Wars and Armed Conflicts?
During the last thirty years after the collapse of the USSR, the world, renamed by the West into a “Euro-Atlantic” one, began to change drastically, giving itself a completely different substance than Washington and the “renewed Europe” organized by America wanted it to be. It began to swell with a completely different meaning, the balance of forces in it began to change, and the East, together with Russia and China, announced that a new future was coming. Even India, Iran, Brazil, and South Africa have grown economically and militarily and politically aware of their place in modern history, demonstrating to the West that their time is running out. Completely different countries, previously classified by the West as the so-called “third world”, are determined to define a new world order.
Realizing its collapse, the US and NATO countries dependent on the USA now see the unleashing of world military hysteria as the only chance they have to retain at least some influence on the minds of the international community by actively engaging in an information war and unsuccessfully trying to present Russia and China as the main adversaries and “axis of all evil in the world.” Hence the recently intensified attacks by the West on Beijing and Moscow, the active sabre rattling by the United States and NATO on the borders of China and Russia, and the involvement of various countries in new military alliances, the latest of which was AUKUS.
Although Washington is aware of its inability to win any direct military action against Russia or China, and even more so against these two countries simultaneously with their advanced weapons) it is nevertheless carries on the strategy of unleashing wars far away from its borders. Against the background of the devastating loss of the leading position in the world economy and high-tech technologies for the country of the Stars and Stripes, the militant sentiment is fueled by the deepening significant economic crisis in the United States. The turbulent transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one and the large-scale spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Unleashing another war, Washington primarily thinks not about victory but the profits of the military-industrial complex. Whenever there is a war in the name of national security of the United States, the Pentagon, waving its stars and stripes, throws away taxpayer money on weapons and development. After all, the war gives lucrative contracts for the supply of weapons, which can be promoted by Congress’s corrupt henchmen. Military conflicts automatically postpone difficult decisions about cutting defence spending and closing excessive military bases.
Nor should it be forgotten that, as shown by historical experience, launching a military machine has always been a way to gain popularity for leaders of states and to present the outbreak of foreign wars as a concern for the peace and safety at home. American presidents often used this factor to improve their public image. Over the past 120 years, 21 presidents have been elected in the United States, 12 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Of the 55 wars, armed conflicts and military operations unleashed by the United States or with American participation, 33 began under Republican presidents, 23 under Democrats. On average, there are 2.75 – 2.88 wars for any American president. Of the 12 leaders of State elected from the Republican Party, only three have not unleashed a single war or conducted a single military operation: Warren Harding (held office from 1921 to 1923), Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) and Gerald Ford (1974 -1977).
Eight Democratic presidents used military force one way or another against other countries. It was often under the Democrats that Washington entered into the longest and bloodiest armed conflicts. So, under the democrat Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), the United States entered the Vietnam War in 1964, while under him, the Americans invaded Laos (where they remained until 1973). By bombing the border territories, they dragged Cambodia into the Vietnam War and once again occupied the Dominican Republic.
Under Democrat President John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), perhaps one of the most dangerous and large-scale military and political crises after World War II occurred. The Cuban Missile Crisis, preceded by the Bay of Pigs Invasion, was a disastrous operation in 1961, which John F. Kennedy gave an order to initiate.
Under Democrat Bill Clinton, the United States bombed Yugoslavia. Under Barack Obama (who even became a Nobel Prize winner, being awarded by the politically spineless Nobel Committee), the war began in Libya.
As for the rating of the current US President, Democrat Joe Biden, only 44% of Americans declared their support for his policies in December, according to a poll conducted by NBC. His rating fell back to 46% in the fall against the backdrop of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In December, it fell by another two percentage points. Moreover, as the German Der Spiegel emphasizes, according to a survey conducted by Axios and the Momentive center, more than 40% of Americans do not believe that Joe Biden came to power legally.
Therefore, Biden also has a special interest in unleashing another war. However, only time will tell whether he is going to take advantage of this opportunity.
But we must not forget that besides the US President, there is a lot of “lesser men” surrounding him interested in unleashing armed conflicts. First of all, this is the so-called community in Washington, particularly intellectuals speaking on television or giving lectures. Congressmen and those who consider themselves politicians follow the news about enemies, and those who do not join this paranoia may be condemned for aiding the enemy. Television and the media are basking in profits on such news. Significant funds are allocated from the national budget for travel with significant retinues to the theater of war. Recall, particularly, the recent trips of Antony Blinken, or Josep Borrel from Europe to Ukraine, while demonstrating their alleged peacekeeping intentions. They were openly scared to meet with residents of the DPR or LPR who were subjected to armed aggression by Kyiv to condemn the recent outright fascist torchlight march in the Ukrainian capital. The main thing is that such trips can be used for advertising: more viewers, more income.
And on the hype and such “advertising”, you can “play” with the prices of oil and gas resources on the stock exchanges or other securities of gullible shareholders.
Against this background, private “contractors” profit from the ongoing military crises, the military make a career: some soldiers and officers are killed, others take their place.
At the same time, it is noteworthy that people who did not serve in the army have become US presidents over the past decades. So, when his draft-age approached, Clinton was afraid to go to Vietnam and at first joined the officer’s school, but soon his high-ranking uncle promised him an excuse from the army in general. The son of a World War II hero, George W. Bush, chose the same path of evading service in Vietnam as Clinton: he entered military school, and while he was studying, the war ended. Although he was obliged to do so, Barack Obama did not bother to register. Donald Trump became the most hyped mower from the army with his alleged heel spur (this diagnosis was made to a young graduate of the University of Pennsylvania by a doctor who, by strange coincidence, rented an office in a building owned by Trump’s dad). Joe Biden also avoided military service because he was in law school and was diagnosed with asthma.
But all this did not prevent the highest representatives of American society, who did not have their own army experience, pouring rivers of blood over the whole world, blessing the US Army to participate in wars around the world: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Syria, Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of people perished everywhere, and countries were destroyed.
By and large, all of them are puppets in the hands of moneybags who earn their capital in wars. Hence their carefree attitude to new military conflicts.
