–Remind me again. Why have Americans been dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

Remind me again. Why have Americans have been dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Washington Post
Iraq, siding with Iran, sends essential aid to Syria’s Assad
By Joby Warrick, Published: October 8

More than six months after the start of the Syrian uprising, Iraq is offering key moral and financial support to the country’s embattled president, undermining a central U.S. policy objective and raising fresh concerns that Iraq is drifting further into the orbit of an American arch rival — Iran.

Iraq’s stance has dealt an embarrassing setback to the Obama administration, which has sought to enlist Muslim allies in its campaign to isolate Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad. While other Arab states have downgraded ties with Assad, Iraq has moved in the opposite direction, hosting official visits by Syrians, signing pacts to expand business ties and offering political support.

After Iraq sent conflicting signals about its support for Assad last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke firmly against regime change in Syria in an interview broadcast on Iraqi television Sept. 30. “We believe that Syria will be able to overcome its crisis through reforms,” Maliki said, rejecting U.S. calls for the Syrian leader to step down. His words echoed those of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who weeks earlier proposed that Syrians should “implement the necessary reforms by themselves.”

On other issues as well, the Maliki government in recent months has hewed closer to Iran’s stance — Iraq, for example, has supported Iran’s right to nuclear technology and advocated U.N. membership for Palestinians — as the U.S. military races to complete its troop withdrawal over the coming months.

Few policy objectives are more important to Iran than preserving the pro-Tehran regime in Syria, longtime Middle East observers say.

“This is Iran’s influence, because preserving the Assad regime is very much in Iran’s national interest,” said David Pollock, a former adviser on Middle East policy for the State Department during the George W. Bush administration. “Iran needs Iraq’s help trying to save their ally in Damascus.”

U.S. officials acknowledged disappointment with Iraq over its dealings with Assad, while noting that other Middle East countries also have been reluctant to abandon Assad at a time when the outcome of the uprising remains uncertain.

“The Iraqis should be more helpful, absolutely,” said a senior administration official involved in Middle East diplomacy.

Not only do our politicians not understand Monetary Sovereignty, as demonstrated in the many preceding posts, but apparently they also do not understand world politics and religious history. So the question becomes, exactly what do they understand?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

6 thoughts on “–Remind me again. Why have Americans been dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

  1. They understand who fills the coffers of their campaign war chests. They understand money only as far as how much is necessary to stay in office and the degree by which their personal fortunes will be increased by serving the interests of those who are their largest contributors. As to why Americans are dying in Iraq/Afghanistan, is it really necessary to ask the question? I offer the following: resources, military presence along the borders with China, the Russian Caucasus of the permanent sort, military control of a very strategic region and resources, oil, resources, natural gas, alternative pipeline routes for the pumping of the aforementioned natural gas, hegemony.

    Like

  2. Rodger,

    Do you believe the Military/Industrial group will retreat and leave the $300B bases that have been constructed? Or the huge embassy complexes that are currently under construction? They seem to be permanent? Large contracts continue to be let especially in Afghanistan.

    Like

  3. Answer: To put a stop to religious extremism.

    The problem: There have been massive strategic errors and, as you’ve pointed out, they’re still overshadowing our foreign policy today.

    The premise was good, but the execution (by the civilian leadership, not the military) was horrible. Despite the circumstances, Obama actually deserves a bit of credit for conducting the War on Terror the way he has. He’s doing better than Bush.

    Like

  4. It just has to be about the oil. I really can’t imagine the US paying so much attention to the Middle East otherwise. Plus I think there was the hubris of the neocons, who clearly utterly underestimated what was required to invade and occupy these countries. You can probably make a case for the Afghanistan action based on 9-11, but not the Iraq invasion.

    I think the US could succeed in this war, but it would require a far more brutal repressive approach, one that makes no pretense at democracy, something that I doubt would sit at all well with the American public, and their sense of being the worlds leading democracy.

    Like

  5. Nathan,

    How about we first ” put a stop to religious extremism” right here in the good old USA. “The premise was good”, are you living in some parallel universe? On what exactly do you base your statement. The premise was good to invade and essentially destroy the societies and infrastructure of two sovereign nations? Please!

    Like

Leave a comment