In 2011, I attended an event at George Mason University that had two US ambassadors, Robert Geers Loftis and Robert W. Farrand, who spoke on topics concerning “Reconstruction and Stabilization” and “Peace Operations Policies”, respectively.
Of course, the Iraqi War and the Afghan War represented the US interventionist backgrounds for both speakers. As expected, both provided justifications for America’s intervention in both countries. The audience, I came to learn, was mostly a group of ‘true believers.’ A mixture of military personnel and government workers primarily from the Pentagon.
How did I learn of this audience’s characteristics? Well, it all became quite apparent to me during the often unpredictable and dangerous Q & A session. Especially within the vicinity of Washington, DC, where politics has become a virtual blood sport.
Over seven decades ago, President Harry Truman once quipped, “If you want a friend in Washington, DC, get a dog!”
By 2011, the Iraqi and Afghani wars were viewed by a strong majority of Americans as being failed military ventures. It was this public judgement, that represented one of the primary reasons in 2008, that got a young liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, a mere first-term US senator from Illinois, elected president over the staunch pro-war Republican Party nominee, John McCain.
It was during the subsequent contentious Q & A session, at George Mason University, that I quickly surmised what the political mood of the room was. Put simply, the majority of the audience was in no mood to question our presence in these two nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was meant to be. There were no doubts on one primary reality. We were the ‘good guys’ and Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were the ‘bad guys’. Be that as it may, America’s “mission” was a righteous one.
After a number of questions were asked, primarily to justify our military presence in both countries, I was recognized. I did not want to create or instigate a verbal brawl throughout the classroom. So, I approach my moment and opportunity to ask a question with great care, but with a distinct purpose. I was not going to let these Pentagon flaks off the hook. I wanted to find exactly where these fervent warmongers were coming from — philosophically.
I asked the speaker, US Ambassador Ferrand, directly, which geopolitical camp did he belong to. Was he a subscriber to the philosophical underpinnings represented by the Peace of Westphalia? Created in 1648, after the infamous and highly destructive 30-years war amongst German provinces, causing the deaths of approximately 30% of the Germanic population. It stated that all nations’ sovereignty must be respected. Simply put, external interference in a nation’s domestic business was not allowed.
Or, did US ambassador Ferrand believe that the Wilsonian philosophy (created and promoted by President Woodrow Wilson during the deliberations of the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference that occurred after WWI) was the better idea in handling international affairs? That being, a country could find itself invaded by a foreign power(s) to resolve its domestic dispute. Why?
If a neighbor-state, or a region of states, or perhaps the global community itself, strongly believed that a specific state’s domestic turmoil could directly spill over into another state’s sovereignty, and perhaps created an even greater threat to world peace, the international community had the authority, if not an obligation, to resolve a possible crisis as quickly as possible.
When I presented my question with these two alternatives, the ambassador and the majority of the audience came down on the side of Wilsonian. I blurted out, “Are you sure?” The Ambassador and the pro-interventionist audience verbally lashed me due to my heretical uncertainty concerning this geopolitical matter. I stood my ground. But I was a bit taken aback. I felt that I had accidentally stumbled into some cult-like gathering of true believers.
I wrote of this experience because I still feel that the “cult” of interventionism still reigns supreme in Washington. Even though, the US military has had a dismal record since the end of WWII. Other than the first Gulf War, that ended in February 1991, after only 43 days, the US military has experienced one setback after another. If you include the Korean Armistice (1953) and the final defeat in Vietnam (1975), the US had experienced only (1) minor military win since 1945.
Yet, in 2022, the US government and the Pentagon are at it again. The war between Russia and Ukraine has, once again, drawn in America. Putin and Russia are portrayed as “evil” and literally no debate concerning the war has taken place in America. None. None is allowed. Those like John Mearsheimer, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago, Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to the former Soviet Union, and the late Stephen Cohen, a professor of Russian history at Princeton and Columbia Universities. Their voices are not heard on corporate television in any capacity.
Professor Cohen’s wife, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the brilliant and talented editorial director and publisher of The Nation, has constantly expressed the need to have a debate about the US role in the Russia-Ukraine War. This has not happened. It will not happen. Why?
The White House, the Pentagon and the boys (and a few women) on K Street have decided that there is only one narrative to be heard by the American people. Theirs.
History be damn. The late George F. Kennan, the godfather of Russian expertise and the creator of the ‘Containment Theory’ that helped to end the Cold War in 1989, repeatedly told US officials that Russia would never allow Ukraine to be a part of NATO. To have NATO’s military forces and missiles to be situated upon Russia’s southern border was simply unacceptable. No matter who the leader of Russia was at the time.
US Secretary of State James Baker III and US President George H. W. Bush promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin that this would never occur. It did.
US Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden have broken America’s verbal promise to the Russian government to keep and maintain a degree of neutrality on Russia’s southern border.
Whereupon, we are now involved in another stupid damn war that could have (should have) been avoided. Too late. Too many dead Russians. Too many dead Ukrainians. No winners. Only US arms manufacturers are making billions.
President Joe Biden knows damn well that the US did indeed promise Russia to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and to negotiate its involvement with the European Union.
Instead, we told the Russians to go fuck themselves. So, what did the Russians do? They have created a worldwide shortage of energy. They have created a worldwide food crisis. US sanctions have not worked. Inflation is destroying the income purchasing power of customers throughout the world. The world is literally stumbling into a nasty recession — if we are lucky. Another Great Depression (1929) is no longer out of the question. Why?
Because the US decided to save the world again! The American Messiah Complex is once again on full display. Sadly, but truthfully, nobody will be saved.
Everyday thousands of Americans are being robbed and assaulted; Everyday hundreds still die from Covid-19; Everyday mass shootings are occurring at a record pace; America’s school children are being slaughtered; food prices soar — millions are going hungry in the US; gas prices are soaring — millions will drop out of the work force due to their inability to pay for gas to get to work; Wall Street is slowly tanking.
Yet, we continue to spend billions on another Messiah War.
But no one dares to ask the ultimate question:
How the hell can we save Ukrainians or anybody, if America can’t save itself?