Are All the World’s Problems Ours?

Guest Post by Pat Buchanan

Are All the World's Problems Ours?

In 2003, George W. Bush took us to war to liberate Iraq from the despotism of Saddam Hussein and convert that nation into a beacon of freedom and prosperity in the Middle East.

Tuesday, Mike Pompeo flew clandestinely into Baghdad, met with the prime minister and flew out in four hours. The visit was kept secret, to prevent an attack on the Americans or the secretary of state.

Query: How successful was Operation Iraqi Freedom, which cost 4,500 U.S. lives, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion, if, 15 years after our victory, our secretary of state must, for his own security, sneak into the Iraqi capital?

The topic of discussion between Pompeo and the prime minister:

In the event of a U.S. war with Iran, Iraqis would ensure the protection of the 5,000 U.S. troops in the country, from the scores of thousands of Iranian-trained and Iranian-armed Shiite militia.

That prospect, of war between the U.S. and Iran, had been raised by Pompeo and John Bolton on Sunday when the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier task force and a squadron of U.S. bombers were ordered into the Middle East after we received reports Iran was about to attack U.S. forces.

The attack did not happen. But on Thursday, Tehran gave 60 days’ notice that if it does not get relief from severe U.S. sanctions, it may walk out of the nuclear deal it signed in 2015 and start enriching uranium again to a level closer to weapons grade.

The countdown to a June confrontation with Iran has begun.

Wednesday, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, for the second time in a week, test-fired two missiles, 260 miles, into the Sea of Japan. Purpose: To signal Washington that Kim’s patience is running out.

Kim rejects the U.S. demand that he surrender all nuclear weapons and dismantle the facilities that produce them before any sanctions are lifted. He wants sanctions relief to go hand in hand with the disposal of his arsenal. Few believe Kim will surrender all of his nukes or his ability to replicate them.

The clash with Kim comes days after the failed U.S.-backed coup in Caracas, which was followed by Pompeo-Bolton threats of military intervention in Venezuela, a country 100 times the size of Puerto Rico with 10 times the population and a large well-equipped army.

This week also, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford told Congress that the U.S. will have to keep counter-terrorism forces in Afghanistan “until there is no insurgency left in the country.”

Which sounds like forever, as in “forever war.”

Before flying to Baghdad, Pompeo was in Finland. There, he warned the eight-nation Arctic Council about Russian aggression in the region, suggested China’s claim to be a “near-Arctic” nation was absurd and told Canada’s its claim to the Northwest Passage was “illegitimate.”

Our Canadian friends were stunned. “Those waterways are part of the internal waters of Canada,” said the government in Ottawa.

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not the time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”

Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.

If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and the Sunni Arabs?

Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.

The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?

During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.

Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
19 Comments
Steve
Steve
May 10, 2019 6:34 am

Iran doesn’t have a Rothchild owned central bank.
Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves.
C’mon now Pat…..

e.d. ott
e.d. ott
May 10, 2019 6:52 am

I find it pretty unbelievable the CIA chief would consider asking a Shiite dominated Iraqi government about force protection guarantees in the event of a conflict with Shiite Iran. It’s as if the people in charge of foreign policy have absolutely no idea of the social and religious ramifications of their decisions.
The big reasons many basecamps in Iraq got shut down after 2010 was the unwillingness of Iraqis to abide by continued troop deployments. The US wanted a SOFA agreement with terms beneficial to the US troops regarding possible violations of law within Iraqi borders.
Iraq refused.
Bottom line is the Iraqis have more in common with Iran than the US and it has a lot to do with religion. At one time I supported the US removal of Hussein and the “installation of democracy” by force. After spending several years overseas in that part of the world I found out that policy doesn’t work and does more damage than it’s worth.
It’s like killing a fucking Hydra. Chop off one head, two more will take its place.

overthecliff
overthecliff
  e.d. ott
May 10, 2019 9:41 am

There aren’t to many Hydra heads if the military utilizes the Mongol model of conquest.

Bubbah
Bubbah
May 10, 2019 7:00 am

The fact we still have troops on the border of NK is idiocy. Playing chicken with American lives as a deterrent. Its not as if those troops could actually do much of anything but get obliterated if the Norks decided to heat things up. It’s bad optics as well for South Korea to not defend its own border, SK is one of the richest and smartest countries in the world, yet we continue to set up the defensive front. I just hope we actually do something about EMP proofing the grid, we are having yet another study group being done. They already know that literally a bunch of bad actors with rifles could potentially take down some sections of the grid. Electricity is a true need for defense of the nation, without it, say goodbye to 80%+ of the population in a fairly short period of time. And that’s something that will happen again at some point, eventually another x-26 solar flare will hit, even if other countries stay sane enough to forego Nuke Emps.

CCRider
CCRider
May 10, 2019 7:30 am

Pretty easy to see a small leak turn into a gusher here. Once the u.s. gets in a hot war with any of the flash points around the globe it may entice Russia and China to trigger the other ones. They know we’re not able to fight multiple front wars and this may well be the way to rid themselves of this bloated bully; figuratively the u.s. military and in actuality with pompeo.

Gonna be a hot summer.

Diogenes’ Dung
Diogenes’ Dung
  CCRider
May 10, 2019 12:26 pm

What? Why shouldn’t we throw the 1st punch after we’ve waited to be surrounded?

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
  Diogenes’ Dung
May 10, 2019 12:57 pm

I’m sure Iran is thinking the same thing…as is Russia.

anarchyst
anarchyst
May 10, 2019 7:40 am

The Arab countries that possess nukes are not stupid. They KNOW that any nuclear device detonated does not respect borders and would be hazardous to their own populations. Arabs have nukes because Israel has nukes AND has threatened the world with nuclear annihilation if its “feelings are hurt”. Israel is the most dangerous country on the planet as it does whatever it wants while daring other countries to intervene.
Look up the “samson option” which is a threat by Israel to detonate a nuke in any city around the world, No delivery systems are needed as Israel’s nukes are already “in place” in cities around the world. Israel’s choice of “targets” will be Chicago, Los Angeles, or internationally Rome or Brussels. This is the main reason why Israel will not allow inspection of its nukes. It could not produce them as they are scattered around the world.

e.d. ott
e.d. ott
May 10, 2019 7:44 am

At some point the obligations of maintaining an empire can become financially unsustainable. Spain, England, the USSR, and now the US is finding that to be very true. Empire on a debased and inflationary currency doesn’t help, either. I believe the Western economic system of exchange is going to face some serious challenges, one of them being another nasty potential war brewing in Europe.

overthecliff
overthecliff
May 10, 2019 9:39 am

This article is talking about the wrong question. The answer to the question is that the worlds problems are not ours. The real question we need to address is do we have the right goals when we go to war. We should not have a goal of victory over the military of the enemy. Our goal should be the defeat of the people on the other side of the conflict. There is a difference. The enemy should be punished so severely that they do not want to ever want to be in a war with us again. Using the WW II model of unconditional surrender. Half baked, half hearted hand behind the back fighting don’t get it. If you put a tight grip on their balls their hearts and minds will follow.

It is not our business to spread freedom and democracy. That is bullshit and we all know that. To protect our vital interests is our business. It is a lot cheaper in blood and money to fight seldom and for complete defeat of the enemy.

Austrian Peter
Austrian Peter
  overthecliff
May 10, 2019 12:02 pm

IMHO It’s all about the dollar and oil = power and control- follow the money and the answer becomes clear.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
May 10, 2019 11:35 am

I certainly don’t think that it should involve our active participation to solve them, but it is hard to deny that most of the problems have our fingerprints all over them. We could start “fixing” the problems by simply getting our noses out of their affairs, bringing our troops home, ending the sanctions, ending the economic warfare of all the other kids, and working to restore freedom and liberty here in the US……you know, kind of like most of those “evil” white male founding fathers recommended.

Unreconstructed
Unreconstructed
  MrLiberty
May 10, 2019 10:50 pm

I always said that they would never find any WMD’s in Iraq because they would have our fingerprints all over them.

Harrington Richardson
Harrington Richardson
May 10, 2019 12:06 pm

Fuque every single one of these “foreign entanglements” until we defend our own southern border. This insane.

Diogenes’ Dung
Diogenes’ Dung
May 10, 2019 12:24 pm

Whaaaaaa?

WHO thinks Iraqis will fight Iranians to protect the insatiable Great White Satan and its remora, Israel?

Oh… he just snuck in’n’out of Baghdad so’s he wouldn’t be smoked by Iraqis.

And someday, when the cataracts are peeled off Uncle Sam’s rheumy eyes, he’ll see that his 800 military bases in everybody else’s back yard ensures insurgency. It brings all the world’s problems to our doorstep because we’re BEGGING to be blamed.

But it won’t matter. Like niggers blaming racism for shooting each other in Shitcago, it’ll be ignored, for the same reason. Our bombs overseas, like bullets exchanged between niggers, are doing God’s work.

yahsure
yahsure
May 10, 2019 12:47 pm

We have all these expensive toys of death and we need to use them so we can justify their purchase.
I remember after that shock and awe thing in Iraq that Rayathon had three shifts going to replace all those guided missiles we shot off. Millions a pop? Nothing like a war to change what everyone is talking about.

Stucky
Stucky
May 10, 2019 5:50 pm

” … Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA …”

So … what’s wrong with that?