Over the course of the last two or three decades, both the strategy and the goal were one and the same for Washington, in the sense that endless, open-ended, and pointless war was both the strategy and the goal for people in Washington. Everything else, such as “democracy” in Afghanistan and “human rights” in Libya was a sideshow and a distraction from the actual focus. As opposed to preserving the post-Cold War peace, Washington pursued endless, open-ended, and pointless war around the world for the last three decades. But as Benjamin Franklin said: “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” Thus, the situation we see around the world and particularly in Ukraine at the moment is the direct consequence or result of Washington’s strategy and goal of endless, open-ended, and pointless war over the course of the last two or three decades.
In turn, for hedonists like John Kerry to deflect away from Washington’s strategy and goal of endless, open-ended, and pointless war over the course of the last two or three decades at places such as the “Doha Forum” and then accuse Russia of “bestiality” amounts to sheer hypocrisy. Although no one is pleased with the humanitarian and social consequences of a bigger country invading and waging war against a smaller country, it takes two to tango. And for individuals and countries to pander and play along with this strategy and goal without confronting it and calling it out for what it is stems from either ignorance or necessity. A number of countries and individuals who have called out and consciously objected the strategy and goal of endless, open-ended, and pointless war are either blocked, censored, or sanctioned by Washington.
Because the “collective end” of international society is peace from both a political and sociological standpoint, Washington’s behavior on the international stage over the course of the last three decades and its goal of endless, open-ended, and pointless war is both anti-social and antithetical to the ultimate goal of international society. Moreover, endless war – or open-ended and pointless war – cannot be sustained over the long run. Thus, as a result of a whole-of-government policy and the goal of endless, open-ended, and pointless war, Washington faces challenges on two fronts, in the sense that Washington has lost control of international affairs and it faces domestic opposition.
In turn, issues like inflation and shortages are directly linked to the whole-of-government policy of endless, open-ended, and pointless war out of Washington over the course of the last three decades. Given that all wars eventually come to an end, the whole-of-government policy of endless, open-ended, and pointless war may have been seen in Washington as manageable and that the endless, open-ended, and pointless war can end with a soft landing and on Washington’s terms. But that expectation has largely turned out to be an illusion, given the realization that Washington has now lost control of international affairs while facing growing domestic opposition due to the consequences and effects of endless, open-ended, and pointless war which Washington was blind to at the inauguration and start of its whole-of-government policy.
For curious and inquisitive minds like myself, it took a while to confirm and become assured of these conclusions and inferences which I have derived and have shared through the course of my blogging endeavor. Although some folks will deny or disagree with these conclusions and inferences, what matters more than anything is having one’s own mind and one’s own heart come to terms with them and thus feel comfortable and at ease with the conclusions and inferences arrived at through foolproof and solid research and analysis.