WHY USA POLITICIANS WANT WAR STALEMATE, NOT VICTORY! 2 Voices Of Reason In The Wilderness Of American Middle East ‘Foreign Policy’: AKA Destabilization, Militarism, War & ‘No Boots On The Ground’ & UNWINNABLE WAR Or Just Plain OPEC Capitalism! Is It A Failed Foreign Policy? No! Only The Naïve & The Mendacious Would Call It That! These Politicians Know What They Are Doing, And They Know The Likely Results. Genocide Is Fine So Long As It’s Not Us! Al Qaeda & The Taliban Were A Dream Come True For George W. Bush! ISIS Or ISIL Is A Dream Come True For Obama! On Top Of That, Now Putin Has Resuscitated That Old Bugaboo, The Russian Hammer & Sickle, To Facilitate American Abominations As ‘Necessary’ If Not Sufficient. Militarism As Solution To Greed Is As Old As Time Itself. Endless Mid East Wars Are Both Unwinnable & Profitable! Why Would America Want To Win Wars & End Wars When It’s Wars That Create Humongous Profits! Kill The ‘Golden Goose’? I Don’t Think So! When Will People Wake Up & Smell The Coffee? From Past History, The Answer To That One Is, ‘Never’!






Send the kids to this site to get them out of your hair – all day long!


Don’t forget to Click on Image to Increase Reading Size!


Please note Initiating an ‘Unwinnable War’ is defined as IMMORAL!


GOP QUESTION, as Usual, misses the POINT – DELIBERATELY: Is President Obama doing enough to WIN THE WAR ON ISIS (ISIL)?

(Ask the Wrong Question; You Get the WRONG ANSWER)




But Politicians don’t worry about that, now do they!


Incidentally, there’s another Example of Where WINNING is POSSIBLE, but NOT DESIRABLE:

DC’s “dirty little secret” – It’s NOT That ‘Revolving Door’ – Everybody Already Knows That! ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington’, It Ain’t! But If You Missed The California Gold Rush Of 1849, Washington Politics Is The Next Best Thing. Dems & GOPers All Agree With Gordon Gekko’s Aphorism ‘Greed Is Good’! Why Little Ole You Cannot Compete With The Conspiracy Of Wall Street, Mainstream Media, A Packed Supreme Court, The Legal System, Corporatists, DC Lobbyists & Dem/GOPer Coalition Of Former Elected Officials! ‘One Stop Shopping’: Blue-Red Lobbying Firms! This Is No ‘Conspiracy Theory’; This Is ‘Conspiracy Fact’! (Hint About ‘Secret’: 1 – To Effect Game, The 2-Parties Must Play, And 2 – Republican Obstructionism Is Not Just To Placate TeaPartyers!)


(Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve Major Problems such as Immigration, Healthcare, War, Poverty, Medicare, Social Security & Public Education! Why not? Read the Post above to find out ‘Why Not!’ Hint: Solving Immigration Problem would stop Flow of Hispanic Dollars to Dems & Bigot Dollars to GOPers – Can you tell me why either side would want to do that?)



The U.S. deployment of a team of special operations forces to Syria comes after the first U.S. combat casualty in Iraq in four years. Just last month, President Obama reversed course in Afghanistan, halting the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. troops fighting in the nation’s longest war. In an escalation of the air war in Syria, the United States has also announced plans to deploy more fighter planes, including 12 F-15s, to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. On top of the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the U.S. continues to carry out drone strikes across the globe from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia. “[Obama’s] policy has been one of mission creep,” says Andrew Bacevich, retired colonel, Vietnam War veteran, and international relations professor at Boston University. “The likelihood that the introduction of a handful of dozen of U.S. soldiers making any meaningful difference in the course of events is just about nil.”


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: During the news conference at the White House on Friday, Press Secretary Josh Earnest repeatedly refused to describe the newly deployed U.S. Special Forces in Syria as combat troops.


PRESS SECRETARY, JOSH EARNEST: The president has been quite clear about the fact that they have a—they do not have a combat mission. They have a training, advising and an assist mission. … Our military personnel will be in a train, advise and assist mission. And it means that it will not be their primary responsibility to lead the charge up the hill. … This is a mission to support the efforts of moderate opposition fighters on the ground as they take the fight to ISIL in their own country. That is the—that is what they’re trying to do, to offer training, to offer advice and to offer assistance. … And one of the options the military came back with was putting a small number, fewer than 50, special operations forces on the ground inside of Syria in a train, advise and assist role. … The president of the United States delivered a televised address in prime time on September 10th of 2014, where he made clear that there would be U.S. military personnel on the ground in the region in a train, advise and assist capacity to build up local forces.


AMY GOODMAN: Excerpts of clips of the White House news conference, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.


To talk more about Obama’s endless wars, in addition to Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, we’re joined by Andrew Bacevich, retired colonel and Vietnam War veteran, professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University. His new book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, will be published in April. He’s the author of several other books, including Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. In 2007, Andrew Bacevich’s son, First Lieutenant Andrew John Bacevich, was killed in action in Iraq by an improvised explosive device south of Samarra. One month before his son was killed, Professor Bacevich wrote, quote, “The truth is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of events there. Iraqis will decide their own fate. We are spectators, witnesses, bystanders caught in a conflagration that we ourselves, in an act of monumental folly, touched off.”


Professor Andrew Bacevich, welcome back to Democracy Now!


ANDREW BACEVICH: Thank you very much.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what is happening today? As the major networks poll-dance—right?—sort of dance around the polls in the national elections for president, the focus on this, the U.S. government is increasingly entrenched in wars around the world—the latest, the announcement of increased involvement in Syria. Of course, we know about Iraq and Afghanistan. Your response?


ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think the way you posed the question; you’re really putting your finger on the main issue. And it is an issue that gets largely ignored by the media, and certainly ignored by those aspiring to be the next president. We have been engaged militarily in an enterprise that, by my telling, has now gone on for 35 years, beginning with the promulgation of the Carter Doctrine back in 1980, a project that assumes that somehow or other the adroit use of American military power can bring order, pacify, democratize, somehow fix large parts of the Islamic world that are increasingly enveloped in turmoil. And yet, when we look at U.S. military actions across this entire span of time, what we see is that however great U.S. military power may be, it does not suffice to achieve those objectives that our leaders claim they seek to achieve. And I think that the present moment in the Obama administration is simply a further affirmation of that larger point.


I hate to agree with the White House press secretary, but I do agree that the introduction of 50 special operations forces really does not constitute a major change in policy, because the policy of the Obama administration, since the rise of ISIS and since we began to involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war, has been one of incrementalism. Earlier you played that clip of the president warning against mission creep. His policy has been one of mission creep. And the likelihood that the introduction of a handful of dozen of U.S. soldiers, regardless of how skillful they are—the likelihood of that making any meaningful difference in the course of events is just about nil.


AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Bacevich, you hear the White House press secretary, not even the president, because the president has said no boots on the ground—whether or not the policy is different, as you point out, there are probably many more special ops forces on the ground. But it’s what the Obama administration is admitting to that’s different.


ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, that’s true, but the point I’m trying to make is that when we focus on these inconsistencies—the president, you know, a year ago said X, and now the policy seems to be Y—that’s an important—it’s important to note the inconsistency, but my argument would be it’s far more important to take stock of the dimensions of this administration’s military efforts in that part of the world, and then to connect them to the military efforts undertaken by his several predecessors. Only then, it seems, do we get an appreciation of the magnitude of our military failure. And only by taking stock of the full magnitude of our military failure can we come to an appreciation of how—of the imperative of beginning to think differently about our approach to the region.


AMY GOODMAN: How do you end war? How does—I mean, I’m putting this question to a military man—right?—professor and a retired colonel, Andrew Bacevich. But talk about the different approach that could be made—for example, the Iran nuclear deal as a model.


ANDREW BACEVICH: Great question. There are two ways to end a war. The one way is to win it. And here is where I’m again taking issue with the president’s incrementalism. If one were to posit—and this is not my view, but if one were to posit that the United States has a vital U.S. national security interest in destroying ISIS and a vital U.S. national security interest in bringing a prompt end to the Syrian civil war, then it would necessarily follow that instead of this minimalist approach to waging the war, which is what we’re doing, then one ought to go all out and win it, make it—make it a big war. And yes, make it a big war, understanding that if we look at the consequences that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a big war will once again, almost assuredly, lead to unintended and undesired consequences. But if this is an important thing, one way you end the war is to go win it.


The alternative, it seems to me, is to recognize that there are some wars that are unwinnable and should not be fought, and where the—if there is a solution to the problem, it has to come from nonmilitary means. The president has repeatedly, as president, argued that he has no desire to see this country perpetually engaged in war. And yet his actions—and you earlier cited many of the different cases—his actions have belied that claim, have instead had the effect of perpetuating the war, but perpetuating them in a sense that they continue to simmer, that they do not result in any kind of a resolution. So the answer to the question, again: Either you win it, or you get out.

Andrew Bacevich is NOT Stupid! Nor does he believe that Obama is Stupid! I am 100% certain that Andrew has reached the same Conclusion that Tabacco has reached – UNWINNABLE WAR IS THE GOAL! You could very well call it CAPITALISTS’ TIC-TAC-TOE except those Players don’t get Filthy Rich from STALEMATE Or Give-Away Checkers!


AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, one of the things that Professor Bacevich just said is that the U.S. wars are intended to fix part of the Islamic world in turmoil. Do you think “fix”, or do they “send” the Islamic world into turmoil?


PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, I think, clearly, they have sent much of the world—not only the Islamic world, but that’s the part that we’re looking at right now—into far worse than turmoil, into absolute abject tragedy, when we see the results of these wars at the human level, when we see what it’s doing to the social fabric of these societies, that is going to take generations to repair.


I think that one of the things that’s so important, we hear from President Obama, over and over again, there is no military solution. And other times we hear the military side is not enough, it’s not sufficient. That’s where it’s just wrong. The first statement is right: There is no military solution! So when you look at what President Obama is doing militarily, I think it’s important to recognize it’s not just insufficient, it’s making impossible the kinds of diplomatic and negotiated and humanitarian and other kinds of efforts that could have a chance of ending these wars.

Tabacco: Well, she said it well; question is, “Does she understand what she herself has said?”


So, for example, if you’re in Iraq and the U.S., say, they get it right for one time—this almost never happens, but say they did—they identified a camp of ISIS fighters, there were 20 of them, and they’re really bad guys, they’ve done bad things, they’re going to do more bad things. They send a drone after them. There’s no civilians anywhere in the area. Only those 20 guys get killed. And the response in the U.S. is, “Yeah! We got the bad guys.” The response in Iraq is, “Yes, once again, the U.S. is bombing Sunnis in the interests of the Shia and the Kurds.” And then you have those in the Sunni community that used to be in the military, who lost their positions when the U.S. destroyed the Iraqi military in 2003. You have the leaders of the Sunni militias, who are looking for some way to challenge this incredibly sectarian, Shia-dominated government that the U.S. has now put in power, is paying and arming. So, you have these scenarios where everything the U.S. does militarily is not only insufficient to end the war, it prevents those things that could have a possibility of winding down and ultimately ending this set of interrelated wars.


There are now eight wars being fought in Syria, all to the last Syrian. There are wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia, wars between the U.S. and Russia. There’s a host of wars being fought. But those on the ground—the people of Syria—are the ones paying the price. And all of these U.S. military actions are making it impossible to do the other things that might make possible an end to this war.


AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Bacevich, in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history, that President Obama has just promised to make much longer by reversing the withdrawal, the Taliban control more of the country of Afghanistan than they did when the U.S. first attacked in 2001, and at the same time you have the Taliban, who is avowed enemies of the Islamic State.


ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly. You know, Phyllis and I have appeared on a few panels from time to time, and I have to say, we frequently disagreed, but I agree 100 percent with everything that she just said. To say that American decision makers have sought to “fix”—and I use that term in quotes—parts of the Islamic world where they intervened, whatever their intentions, the consequences have almost without exception been catastrophic.


Tabacco: It’s Q & A Time, Class!

1- Was Reagan’s War in Grenada a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

Answer 1: Reagan’s War in Grenada was a DUMB WAR because it was easily WINNABLE! Not much Profit in a WINNABLE WAR, is there!


 2- Was George H. W. Bush’s War In The Dessert a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

Answer 2: George H. W. Bush’s War In The Dessert was a Great Idea. The Problem occurred when he pulled up stakes and left before his own Reelection, which he lost after having a Humongous Approval Rating during the Conflict!


3- What was the Worst Day in George W. Bush’s (the son) life?

Answer 3: If you answered, “9/11”, you are DEAD WRONG! Just like Declaring War on Iraq, 9/11 was a ‘Dream Come True’ for the whole GWB Administration! Weren’t GWB’s Approval Ratings in the Toilet prior to 9/11/2001! Didn’t he win Reelection in 2004! And didn’t GWB leave the White House FILTHY RICH because he did what? DECLARED UNWINNABLE WAR ON IRAQ & DID NOT LEAVE!


So why do Republicans & Dummies keep urging Obama to ‘Up The Ante’ so America can ‘DEFEAT ISIS’? GOPers in Leadership Positions aren’t STUPID, despite what you might think; but publicly embarrassing Obama plays right into their hands because 24% of Republicans are STUPID! When those Idiots go a’votin’, they will know to push ONLY REPUBLICAN LEVERS!


The GOAL has NEVER been to WIN & DEFEAT ISIS on either side of Political Spectrum; the GOAL is PERPETUAL WAR leading to PERPETUAL PROFITS!



Now do you understand?



If you want Profits to Roll In & CONTINUE TO ROLL IN UNABATEDLY, the Only Wars worth fighting are – What, Class?






If You Want The Truth About Peter, Ask Paul! Complete Text Of Putin’s Speech On Crimea And USA! Yes, It’s A Case Of ‘Pot Calling The Kettle Black’, But It’s About Time We Bypassed US MSM (Spin Doctors) And Faced The Truth About Ourselves, Americans! Who Better To Ask Than Vladimir Putin, Russian President! USA Crimea Response 180-Degrees From 1982 Falklands War Policy – Why? UK: Si!; Russia: No! Q: What Is The Genesis Of USA & Russian Foreign Policy Diplomacy? Answer Inside!




FAILURE STANDARDS! Brilliant Political Concept From 1982 British Sitcom “Yes, Minister”: Major Legislation Such As War Funding Must Include Parameters Which Signify Its Own Failure – It Could End OPEC Profit Wars & T.A.R.P.s! From The Mouths Of British Sitcoms!



Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.



If Tabacco is talking about a subject that nobody else is discussing, it means that subject is more, not less important, and the Powers-That-Be are deliberately avoiding that Issue. To presume otherwise completely defeats my purpose in blogging.



Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!


In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People


To Read Comments On This Post, Go To:



To Go To The Tabacco Main Page

Listing All Posts, Go To:



To Read Posts On My Wyandanch Blog, Go To

Wyandanch Main Page:


Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community








Anyone may Comment here, but if you want your Comment published, you must obey the TABACCO RULES as stipulated in:


TABACCO’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT! Most Comments Here Don’t Get Published. This Post Is Not Aimed At Those Charlatans; It is Intended To Edify My Veto Stance To The Intellectually Honest Readers Among You.



Because of Spam, Capitalists attempting to gain Free Advertising on my Blogs and other irrelevancies, Tabacco no longer reads Comments on Posts.


Relevant Post or Post URL must appear as e-mail SUBJECT!


To register a Comment, e-mail Tabacco at:





This entry was posted in Bush, class war, compromise, Democrats, deregulation, disaster capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge is power, Obama, outsourcing, political ping pong, Politics, Republicans, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to WHY USA POLITICIANS WANT WAR STALEMATE, NOT VICTORY! 2 Voices Of Reason In The Wilderness Of American Middle East ‘Foreign Policy’: AKA Destabilization, Militarism, War & ‘No Boots On The Ground’ & UNWINNABLE WAR Or Just Plain OPEC Capitalism! Is It A Failed Foreign Policy? No! Only The Naïve & The Mendacious Would Call It That! These Politicians Know What They Are Doing, And They Know The Likely Results. Genocide Is Fine So Long As It’s Not Us! Al Qaeda & The Taliban Were A Dream Come True For George W. Bush! ISIS Or ISIL Is A Dream Come True For Obama! On Top Of That, Now Putin Has Resuscitated That Old Bugaboo, The Russian Hammer & Sickle, To Facilitate American Abominations As ‘Necessary’ If Not Sufficient. Militarism As Solution To Greed Is As Old As Time Itself. Endless Mid East Wars Are Both Unwinnable & Profitable! Why Would America Want To Win Wars & End Wars When It’s Wars That Create Humongous Profits! Kill The ‘Golden Goose’? I Don’t Think So! When Will People Wake Up & Smell The Coffee? From Past History, The Answer To That One Is, ‘Never’!

  1. admin says:


    Suppose the shoe was on the other foot! What if one, two or three Anti-Communist Terrorist Groups were using the United States & Canada as their Bases of Operations! And suppose these same Groups were murdering Chinese people inside China and elsewhere! And suppose the Communist Chinese were sending Aircraft, Guided Missiles and Killer Drones at predetermined Targets inside America to kill these Terrorists! Naturally there would be American Collateral Damages such as women, children, old men, hospitals, day nurseries etc. But you know how it is in Modern Warfare – Collateral Damages are unavoidable despite China’s most careful targeting. We can’t expect the Chinese to be any better at it than we are, now can we!

    Then the Chinese Leader meets with the American President and states on Fox and CNN that China is doing the best it can NOT to kill Innocent Americans, but Collateral Damages are just unavoidable. Do you like them apples!

    What’s worse is the Communist Chinese are doing this stuff to pacify their own citizens and their War Profiteers, who have been complaining about how peaceful China has become and how they must donate million$ to defeat the current Communist leadership and get some Hawks elected, who will declare Wars on American and Canadian Anti-Communist Terrorists.

    The Communist Chinese are not at War with the United States. They constantly tell us how much they like Americans. But those Darn Terrorists must be defeated to protect China’s NATIONAL SECURITY.

    You see the Chinese have never read the ‘Golden Rule’ in the Bible – but we have!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>