I am tired of endless war.
Think about it. Any child born after September 11, 2001 has witnessed our nation in a perpetual state of combat somewhere around the globe. On top of that, name one conflict in the past two-decades or so the US can chalk up as a win.
I’ll wait.
I confess that back in 2003 I supported the Iraq invasion. It was General Colin Powell who appeared in front of the UN Security Council and a rapt global audience promising Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein possessed a robust and dangerous weapons of mass destruction program. It turns out he did not. Or perhaps he did, but he spirited much of it away. This may be a topic of a future column.
What we’ve learned since 2003 is President George Bush had every intention of toppling Hussein from power despite no connections to the terror attacks. He reached this decision not in months or weeks, but in mere days after 9/11. The reader can find countless references of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussing military operations against Iraq while the twin towers wreckage was still smoldering.
The US fighting abroad has not stopped since.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya … pick a success story. You cannot.
The Afghanistan mission quickly transformed from punishing Al Qaeda to ousting the Taliban to nation-building. It became our nation’s longest military war. Afghanistan today is a carbon copy of Afghanistan on September 10, 2001 except the Northern Alliance is virtually non-existent. The Afghans who allied with us were abandoned and sacrificed to the Taliban during President Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal. We spent a couple trillion dollars (around $8,300 per US taxpayer) at a human cost of about a 243,000 lives (of which about one-third were civilians) to make absolutely zero progress in 20 years.
Ironically, the Nobel committee awarded the peace prize to Barack Obama because he “created a new climate in international politics.” Quite an achievement in just eleven days of presidential service (January 20-31, 2009). The nomination deadline was February 1st. The reality is the award was likely given as a rebuke to Bush.
Obama answered the award with not closing Guantanamo Bay detention center on his first day, as he promised. (It’s still open today.) He supported Saudi attacks in Yemen and launched wars in Libya and Syria. Obama approved more drone attacks in his first year in office (including those in Yemen that killed American citizens) than Bush did in his entire presidency. That’s okay because Obama won the Nobel peace prize.
The Obama administration agreed to support Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen in return for grudging Saudi support for Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. The Obama administration wanted to give Iran the resources to become a nuclear power and it was the Saudis who were staunchly opposed. This should make heads explode. Of note, the Nobel prize committee specifically lauded “Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Yet, here was Obama helping Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability.
Libya may have been the only success story after 9/11. At least, initially. Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi watched what happened to Hussein and in December 2003 decided it was the time to end his special weapons development program and welcome inspectors into his country. The US responded years later by encouraging a NATO-led operation to attack Libya. This was ostensibly to enforce a UN Security Resolution to end its civil war. By the way, why was NATO launching a war on the African continent against a country not even accused of attacking a NATO member? This doesn’t comport with the NATO charter.
The greater reality is the US lobbied for military action against Libya for the sole purpose of padding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s resumé for an expected 2016 presidential run.
Gadhafi did what the US requested of him: end his weapons program. The US responded by adopting a belligerent attitude toward him and eventually scheming to bomb his nation. Libya is another nation that has since plunged into absolute chaos in the dozens years since the NATO bombing campaign with a growing humanitarian crisis. Why would any nation trust what we say?
(Speaking of promises, in a recent column I documented numerous US promises to not expand NATO. But those promises became lies. Admittedly, I was surprised at the number of social media commenters who argued the US has no obligation to honor its promises. Really?)
During my career in the intelligence community I spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East. I worked with Israeli military and intelligence, among other nations in the region. I’ve spent time in Syria. I also visited the Golan Heights separating parts of Israel and Syria. Much of the Golan Heights is occupied by the Druze. The Druze are the region’s Swiss. They avoid taking sides and they don’t want any fighting going on. They merely want to farm in peace.
One point Israeli military and intelligence emphasized again and again. They were not concerned with military action from Syria. Those days had long passed. The “war” between the neighbors had merely been jaw-jacking for several years. It was in the best interest of both sides to keep a tense peace. And they did.
Obama’s little war against Syria has led to a pair of catastrophic consequences few people realize. One, it gave rise to the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS) and all the human cruelty that resulted. Two, millions have fled the region and have overwhelmed western European nations that have welcomed them. Those nations have imported astronomical crime rates and sexual assaults, and have crushed their social services.
Now, this nation’s neocons want to deepen our involvement in Ukraine. Why? Anyone who insists the Russians will otherwise invade and capture all of Europe does not understand history nor is dealing with any semblance of reality. Hundreds of thousands of casualties have occurred since the US and UK jointly torpedoed a ceasefire agreement in the early weeks of the fighting in March 2022. What has this accomplished (aside from benefiting Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman)?
(About the previous paragraph. For years, the political left would call anyone they disagreed with a “racist” or a “Nazi.” The new go-to pejorative is “Putin lover!” Question the US role in Ukraine immediately evokes cries of Putin lover! To be fair, anyone with whom the political left disagrees with on any topic is automatically branded a Putin lover! “Is implementing another mask policy and mandating more covid jabs really a good idea?” “Shut up, Putin lover!”)
Today’s US military is nearly as poorly-staffed and ill-prepared as it was before December 7, 1941. Trend lines show it continues to grow even smaller. There are many reasons for this. I addressed this in depth last year. Here is an important point to consider. The burden of sending of America’s sons and daughters to fight in another war or deploy to a combat zone is not shared equally by the nation. A senior Army official reported 80% of that service’s recruits come from a military family. It’s probably similar for the other services. The military is becoming a legacy career. It’s like the plumber turning over the business to his son. A young adult is more likely to serve if a parent served.
American University Professor David Vine, who studies US troop presence abroad, reports the US has approximately 750 military bases, big and small, in about 80 countries worldwide. In 2021, there were reportedly 170,000 US troops stationed overseas. Rounding out the top 5 countries with overseas bases are: UK (60), Saudi Arabia (21), Russia (12), and France (5). China has just one overseas military base.
US military threats rather than diplomacy have seemingly become the norm. Since when did resolving issues peacefully become a bad thing? Sometimes our non-military relationships with other nations are just plain awkward. Sometimes offensive.
For example, Democratic Republic of the Congo President Félix Tshisekedi was asked in a May 2024 interview with French television news channel La Chaîne Info why his nation is strengthening its ties with Russia and China. Tshisekedi criticized western nations (US included) that are “arrogant,” “condescending” and “lecture” his nation on its domestic policies. In contrast, after the Chinese finalize a deal they offer to build a new hospital or highway as a thank you gift. Now why would a poor African nation accept a new hospital over a lecture on pronoun policies?
We appear to be light on the carrot and heavy on the stick.
Anecdotally, I have found the loudest voices arguing to send young men and women into another war have not served in the military and would be horrified if their own children decided to join-up. This underscores how little the elites (especially those working in Washington, DC) care about those working class, low-income, and minority families whose children decide to enlist as a pathway toward a better life.
When I reached 20 years of commissioned service and had been promoted to captain (O-6), I considered retiring. Then 9/11 happened. I could not in good conscience leave if there was a chance I might be needed. I continued to serve until I reached mandatory retirement as a captain with 30 years of commissioned service. Admittedly, there are others that view possible deployment as quitting time.
However, I easily understand why today’s young adults and their greatest influencers, their parents, give pause to the idea of joining up. All they’ve known in their lifetimes is this state of perpetual war. Especially wars where there is no obvious immediate threat to Americans.
And there appears to be no end in sight.
Mark Hyman is an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist. Follow him on Twitter, Gettr, Parler, and Mastodon.world at @markhyman, and on Truth Social at @markhyman81.
His books Washington Babylon: From George Washington to Donald Trump, Scandals That Rocked the Nation and Pardongate: How Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Brothers Profited from Pardons are on sale now (here and here).
Nice recap of the last 23 years. At the risk of being labeled a Putin-lover, I will say the only thing you missed is the non-zero probability of the Ukraine-Russia conflict starting a nuclear war.
I too am tired of endless wars. Aren't we all? As far as bringing them to a close, that's a wonderful sentiment. Tell us how. But, we know, that's not how war works. Neither the war in Ukraine or in Gaza and now Lebanon is discretionary.
It might be argued that U.S. involvement is discretionary. However, your assertion that "anyone who insists [that Russian aggression poses a broader threat than just Ukraine] does not understand history nor is dealing with any semblance of reality", strikes me as condescending and wrong. Tell that to Poland and Lithuania.
Let's take a quick peek at some history that you brought up in this piece. You said here that "Obama's little war against Syria ... gave rise to the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS)". Prior to October 2015, Obama's actions against Syria entailed diplomacy and sanctions. Syrian Shiite regime, propped up by Iranian, was using chemical weapons to suppress its own Sunni people. ISIS expanded into Syria in 2013 and declared a caliphate in 2014, and began recruiting fighters from everywhere, including the USA. So the timeline doesn't support your narrative. ISIS remains a threat, despite claims made by our commander in chief upon an abrupt, unplanned exit from that theater, abandoning allies and equipment, and putting troops at risk. "It's just a bunch of sand", he said.
Roll forward to Iraq. So much for strategic patience. Zero U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq for 18 months prior to our exit. Nevertheless our commander in chief at the time negotiated with the Taliban for a unilateral surrender and withdrawal. As you said, it's now just as it was when we arrived, with the Taliban in power and subjugating its populace. I have a photograph that my cousin took when stationed there of a group of healthy, happy school children, including girls. The Taliban have since ended that woke thing. Mission abandoned. The U.S. has nothing to show for the lives and treasure expended there.
Regarding Africa, a professor of mine in college, circa 1980, described then how the US and Soviets were unsuccessfully competing for mindshare in Africa, both insisting "trust us not them!", while the Chinese were in there solving problems and winning the hearts and minds. So, on the surface, it seems that has not changed much. I would caution against monolithic thinking. Every nation has its factions, such that you be duped and 'help' the wrong people, or the 'help' (money/food, etc.) is intercepted and repurposed.
On WMD, I also supported the Iraq invasion. I am not convinced the case for doing so was contrived. There is a logical argument that the WMD were proven to have existed, and their whereabouts were unaccounted for. The U.S. was in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at the west over the war, denying about WMD, stonewalling nuclear inspections. In my view this presented a threat to our flank.
All in all, I appreciate your thoughts here, and learned a few things (e.g. about the Druze) but take issue with the blame game, which seemed counterproductive toward any constructive point. I agree with you that effective diplomacy is as important or more important than military threats. I don't agree that the U.S. habitually issues "threats rather than diplomacy". That does impugn "You're with us or your against us!", or "My red buttons works, little Rocket Man!".
Finally, I would remind that no U.S. troops are deployed in Ukraine or Gaza.
Knowing what makes the U.S. military exceptional, other than size, I'll dismiss your remark that it is as "ill-prepared as it was before December 7, 1941". I totally agree, that we are spread thin and our readiness and the all-volunteer proposition require ongoing attention. Herein lies the seeds of agreement. Our military budget is thee times the size of the next largest (China). Yet, as it seems we agree, we are spread too thin. Ergo, a super duper military is not "the answer" to national security in the 21st century. Perhaps the same goes for assault weapons on the streets in American cities. Wrong mindset.