In all fairness, Wars are no longer about winning, it's merely War for War's sake, or War without end. Winning would necessitate finality, and we can't have finality of War, can we now?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | May 9 2011 14:20 utc | 1

"I, for one, fail to see why the U.S. military and security services continue to enjoy such a privileged position in the United States. Has it escaped the notice of the U.S.'s 300+ million people that since 1945 their proud, pampered army has never actually won a war? Or that it committed horrific war crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (en route to defeat, naturally)? Or that its support for Mujaheddin against the Soviets endangered the security of every U.S. man, woman and child by risking a massive counterstrike which came on 9/11 and which cost you $3 trillion?"

All true b, but the purpose of the US military isn't about winning anything. It's about sending messages so the US trans-nationals can gain hegemony around the globe.

The corporate onslaught against humanity will continue.

To coin MB's phrase: The "Global Plantation" is being built.

Posted by: ben | May 9 2011 14:44 utc | 2

great answer, b

war is about winning, although it's true that the empire thrives on destruction and indirect control, not wars;

that's why the Us doesn't want any more real wars, only special ops / long-range bombardments, etc

every time the Us thought it could wage a real war, it regretted it

I'd make an exception for the Gulf war in 1991, because its objective (free Kuwait, restoring the status quo) was achieved precisely because it was so remarkably "humble"; the "sane" part of the empire was in command at the time, and knew that overthrowing Saddam was an entirely different matter than governing an occupied Iraq;

the war against Saddam (to "finish the job") became the rallying cry of the neocons, eager to fight the war that Bush sr and then Clinton had been afraid to fight

Posted by: claudio | May 9 2011 15:57 utc | 3

Today is the anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany.

I agree that the USSR gets too little credit for the victory, and I would add, too much blame for the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, its August 1939 non-aggression pact with Germany.

It seems to me that the USSR’s relationship with Nazism and fascism was more principled than that of most of the West.

Beginning in 1935, the USSR was urging the West to join in a united front against Nazism and fascism. Only after the West had ignored the conquest of Ethiopia and abetted the overthrow of Republican Spain; after Stalin offered military help to Czechoslovakia; after Chamberlain and Daladier went to Munich seeking 'appeasement'; after it became clear that the Western establishment didn’t have a problem with the Nazis’ racial theories, and hoped that Hitler would effect regime change in the USSR; only then did the soviets finally arrange a separate peace.

When war broke out, well-placed Nazi-sympathizers kept the Greatest Generation on the sidelines until Pearl Harbor. Churchill and Stalin begged Roosevelt to open a western front, but the US didn’t enter Europe until the horrific battles at Stalingrad and Kursk had turned the tide against the White Hope. Ninety per cent of German casualties were on its eastern front. Ford and Coughlin, Quisling and Vichy are not Russian names.

The ‘Hitler-Stalin’ agreement certainly wasn’t the USSR’s finest hour, but it was justifiable, particularly because it can be fairly said that the West didn’t ignore the plight of Europe’s Jews; it sacrificed them on the altar of anti-communism.

Posted by: Watson | May 9 2011 18:24 utc | 4

it does not matter now. there is no "win" in history. I guess b. likes the b. because of b.b.

so

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F8kTyENBVI

"Deep down in the Moldau the pebbles are shifting
In Prague three dead emperors moulder away.
The top can't stay top while the bottom is lifting
The night has twelve hours
And then comes the day, and then comes the day!"

Posted by: somebody | May 9 2011 18:38 utc | 5

Payback starts.

Leak of C.I.A. Officer’s Name Is Sign of Rift With Pakistan

Posted by: ThePaper | May 9 2011 19:05 utc | 6

so, where is the moral high ground now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOFy1PIsc4o&feature=related

Posted by: somebody | May 9 2011 20:18 utc | 7

Watson @4

it can be fairly said that the West didn’t ignore the plight of Europe’s Jews; it sacrificed them on the altar of anti-communism

anti-communism fueled by a specific classist mentality, of course; the real problem of Jews in central and eastern Europe was that they were poor; with £1000 in the pocket, they were welcomed in England (or anywhere else)

always in the spirit of placing communism and the Ussr in perspective (and understand its role and attraction in those years and beyond), it must be mentioned that the only mass anti-racist demonstrations in that part of Europe were organized by socialists, communists and labor unions, and that the Soviet Union was fiercely anti-racist (in the name of the unity of the world proletariat)

rich westerners (Jews or Christians alike) were wary of sustaining an open, direct resistance of persecuted Jews, afraid of strengthening their "real" enemy, the proletariat

a quantity of precious information in "Zionism in the age of the dictators" by Lenni Brenner

Posted by: claudio | May 9 2011 21:19 utc | 8

FYI:
Libya-France: French lawyer to prosecute NATO for 'crimes' in Libya

French lawyer to prosecute NATO for 'crimes' in Libya - A complaint will be filed in the coming days in Brussels, Belgium, against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for 'crimes' committed in Libya, including the killing of the Libyan leader's son and his three grandchildren, French lawyer Philippe Missamou, announced Thursday to PANA. 'This is a complaint for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am filing it in Belgium because it is the headquarters of NATO. The Belgian court is competent to assess this complaint,' said the lawyer, who is known for handling political issues. He openly accused NATO of violating the rules of armed conflict in its actions in Libya particularly the protection of civilians.

'For instance the attack of the residence of the son of Libyan leader: it is absolutely not a military objective. It's a murder that should not go unpunished. We will use all legal means to obtain redress', said Missamou.

'What is happening in Libya has nothing to do with events in Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya, we are witnessing an armed insurrection. Insurgents loot, kill, burn. It is the duty of the Tripoli regime to respond by all means. What do we want authorities to do? Idly standby? It's unthinkable,' added the lawyer.

Several organizations from the diaspora, including the Federation of African Workers in France (FETAF), and the Association of Guineans residing abroad (AGRE), have recently expressed their outrage about the NATO air strikes on Libya.

The heads of these organizations have mainly sought a cease-fire while demanding immediate acceptance of a political solution under the auspices of the African Union (AU).
http://www.afriquejet.com/news/africa-news/libya-france:-french-lawyer-to-prosecute-nato-for-%E2%80%99crimes%E2%80%99-in-libya-2011050610957.html

Posted by: brian | May 9 2011 21:38 utc | 9

b on who defeated Germany.

Yes, provided one recognises the Soviet represented Great Russian military socialism, not international working class revolutionary Trotskyism or anything kindred to it, then and,in large part after.

Posted by: Ken Hoop | May 9 2011 23:06 utc | 10

B - there are those who argue quite convincingly that the Soviet Union finally defeated the Japanese as well. The Japanese always had a deep respect for the military skills of the Red Army after Japan's crushing defeat at the Battle of Khalkin Gol. After the US dropped their two nuclear bombs, the Japanese army was prepared to continue the fight as they did not regard a large number of civilian casualties as significant (the Tokyo fire bombing killed 500,000, the two nuclear bombs killed 150,000 - 240,000). It is only when they heard that the Soviet Union had invaded Manchuria did the Japanese Army change its mind as it knew that what Stalin captured, Stalin kept and the Japanese army really did not want the disgrace of losing Hokkaido for ever to the Soviet Union/Russia. The Japanese are still trying to get the southern Kurils back from Russia. Oh, and the Kurile Island Dispute is a significant demonstration of American imperialism (wikipedia):

During the 1956 peace talks between Japan and the Soviet Union, the Soviet side proposed to settle the dispute by returning Shikotan and Habomai to Japan. In the final round of the talks the Japanese side accepted the weakness of its claim to Etorofu and Kunashiri and agreed to settle for return of Shikotan and the Habomais, in exchange for a peace treaty. However, the Americans intervened and blocked the deal The United States warning to Japan that a withdrawal of the Japanese claim on the other islands would mean the United States would keep Okinawa caused Japan to refuse these terms.

And then fifty years later, the EU, no doubt with US backing, sticks its nose in:

On July 7, 2005, the European Parliament issued an official statement recommending the return of the territories in dispute, which Russia immediately protested.

Posted by: blowback | May 10 2011 2:41 utc | 11

It is, for me, at least, extremely funny that the paper's link @5 to the
U.S. newspaper of record's article on the outing of the Islamabad CIA station chief does not contain his name (Mark Carlton), which is, of course, readily available to anyone with a minimum of curiosity and access to Google or any decent search engine. (I found it here (albeit with some question as to whether the correct spelling of the last name is Carlton (as in the led of the article in The Australian, or Charlton, as in the URL pointing to that article. The name may appear in the comments to the article, but not in those highlighted by the NYTimes comment ranker, at least when I glanced at it.
It also appears that there have been "official denials" of the correctness of the identification (e.g. in The Guardian), but it seems that someone has been tampering with that link (or at least when I tried to follow it I found myself at a "reverse gravity" site.
As an exercise, one might try to identify Carlton's predecessor at the Islamabad station, who is frequently cited without being named in the articles on Carlton.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | May 10 2011 5:02 utc | 12

Solution to exercise suggested above, with a bonus including an earlier, and now very well-known Islamabad station chief.

As I side remark, I beg indulgence for my 3 unbalanced parentheses in the earlier post.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | May 10 2011 5:16 utc | 13

Kuwait was a win. It achieved the stated objectives. Those didn't include getting rid of Saddam. And rightly not. Look what happened when regime change was tried.

Posted by: alexno | May 10 2011 8:20 utc | 14

B. You are very hard on the US Army. 40 warriors (OK, plus a few resources plus a little money) killed one old man. All on their own. Shows how good they are. They even got a medal for bravery. Wow. Surely that is a victory.

Posted by: boindub | May 10 2011 9:12 utc | 15

@14, you could hardly call Kuwait a War. It was a pseudo fabricated skirmish against a Strawman opponent who was easily blown over with merely a mild exhalation.

It wasn't so much a War Victory as it was a success in meeting its stated objectives.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | May 10 2011 11:11 utc | 16

@14, you could hardly call Kuwait a War. It was a pseudo fabricated skirmish against a Strawman opponent who was easily blown over with merely a mild exhalation.

You are wrong there. The fact that the Iraqi army didn't want to fight, doesn't get away from the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and wouldn't leave.

The fact is that the US is capable of winning a war where everything can be achieved by aerial bombardment, but that is only few wars. American troops are not great on the ground, and need to be preceded by vast barrages, so they can just walk in.

The case of the Bin Ladin raid was typical. An unarmed man could easily have been taken prisoner by any other skilled troops, but not by Americans. It has to be claimed that he was killed "resisting", which has always sounded to me improbable. That leaves aside the question of whether there was a straight kill order, which could be the case, but it is not what they said.

Posted by: alexno | May 10 2011 12:16 utc | 17

alexno @14

the Us super-powerful war machine largely precludes comparisons with "traditional" wars; but every time the military effort resembled a traditional war, the Us lost

to be fair, you can't say that the Us Army "isn't good" on the ground; it did win battles; it only lost the wars ...

Posted by: claudio | May 10 2011 13:37 utc | 18

alexno @14

the Us super-powerful war machine largely precludes comparisons with "traditional" wars; but every time the military effort resembled a traditional war, the Us lost

to be fair, you can't say that the Us Army "isn't good" on the ground; it did win battles; it only lost the wars ...

Posted by: claudio | May 10 2011 13:37 utc | 19

Morocco Bama’s top post 1, was my first reaction to b’s post.

War is just a business, and increasingly the dominating, armed, threatening, etc. are just offshoots of many different actors - overwhelmingly corporate interests.

As ben, 2, more or less says, the purpose of the aggression is to show force, threaten to use back-up might in any situation. Wild bombing, killing, takeover, etc. has to be implemented from time to time - not to win anything, or conquer any territory, but simply to show it can be done, any time, any place, for any reason.

Part of the reason US-poodle uk - EU - NATO (rough..) powers intervene, in Lybia for ex. right now, is that letting events unfold without showing one’s power creds, intervening, is not an option.

How it all turns out is not of much, or any, importance.

Tunisia was ‘let go’ because Ben Ali and 'mafia' family were the ultimate horrendous thieves and they had the balls, Gasp! to steal from Big Corps and seemingly ignore who the real overlords were.

The whole International Corporate circuit wanted the BenAliGroup (TM, joke) gone. (Gossip I heard; Mubarak was by contrast a legalist and faithful servant.)

The threat of military aggression is covertly used in board rooms, in international meets, at the UN, in hotel room deals, in Corp meets, in many venues - the US is the military hegemon and if you don’t bend you will no longer have a living, as all the ppl who worked for you will de deaded, or your area will be turned into WasteLand, your contacts, markets, workers, voters - ghosts, all.

If that seems outlandish and needlessly extravagant or unsubtle, laughable, well, there is always extra-judicial murder.

Obama just demonstrated that he can order killings of any kind and be applauded for it.

The US+allies are implementing a policy of de-development where ‘natives‘ no longer have access to energy, food, social/med services, jobs, they become non-consumers without any claims or rights, as in Iraq and Afgh, and, increasingly, in the US itself.

Posted by: Noirette | May 10 2011 16:15 utc | 20

The focus here is too narrow. The US is kicking some major ass in the "War on the Poor." Credit where it's due, people.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 12 2011 2:21 utc | 21

And no, Grenada does not count.

Ohhhhhh... c'mon dude, at least give us Grenada.

And you got'a admit, we're doing a mop up job destroying the environment... looks to me like Mama Nature's going to be eating some crow!!!

Posted by: jdmckay | May 13 2011 21:36 utc | 22