“War serves only the warlords and the graveyards!”

― Mehmet Murat ildan

The term “unwinnable war” is a strange and ambiguous notion used most often to describe fake reasoning for not winning a war. This seems absurd to me, and at the same time insincere. Lately, I have heard this term used often in personal correspondence sent to me, and in the published writings of others concerning past wars. Mainly ex-soldiers, politicians, and other purveyors of war use this term in order to shield themselves from the shame of losing. But was the real intent ever to win?

After the fact, the unwinnable war theory always seems to surface, as if war should not be fought if it is unwinnable. Does this mean that war is just a game? Do the U.S. and its military enter each aggression with the question, is this winnable? If so, is this the criteria considered, or is the opposite effect actually pursued? The Uniqueness of West... Storey, Richard Best Price: null Buy New $7.99 (as of 02:20 EST - Details)

No war should ever be fought except for actual self-defense of people and country due to an aggressive invasion. In addition, once any threat is squelched, all force should immediately cease. This proper defense does not allow for foreign invasion by the U.S., but foreign invasion has been the mainstay of American policy throughout its history. This aggression has happened without any initial attack against the U.S. mainland ever taking place. In other words, U.S. wars in most of history have never been justified.

When talking about past, present, or future wars, it is imperative to understand that being “unwinnable” or “winnable” is never a valid reason to justify going to war. To say that the country should not be in a war because it is unwinnable is to imply that if it were winnable, war would be warranted. How difficult is it to see the insanity of this thinking?

Much of the correspondence I have received and articles I have read lately that mention war being unwinnable, have been concerning Vietnam. This is a perfect case in point. There was never any reason for the U.S. to be involved in the Vietnam War. There was never any attack against this country or its military by anyone in that country. The U.S. had committed acts of war against Vietnam for years, so it should have been obvious even when the war started that all reasons for that war were political in nature, and never for national defense.

But then, no wars, with the exceptions of the Revolutionary War and the South’s War for Independence, have ever been fought in order to protect this nation from tyranny or aggression. In other words, every U.S. war including Lincoln’s war on his own country and people was unnecessary and unwarranted.

Once this premise is accepted, the term winning a war takes on a whole new meaning. Forcing surrender and winning the war means the war is over, troops come home, and the military industrial complex doesn’t get continuous multi-billion dollar contracts. Unwinnable war leads to perpetual war, and perpetual war leads to more money, power, and control. The government and the ruling elite use war for political and geopolitical reasons, for monetary gain, and to increase power, so winning in the traditional sense is not what is desired. Today, not winning war is actually winning the war, because that is the objective sought by the state apparatus. The War on Terror: The... Bollyn, Christopher Lee Best Price: $10.25 Buy New $14.99 (as of 12:25 EST - Details)

Just consider the “War on Terror.” There is no stated enemy, there can be no surrender, and the CIA and other government and military sources can insure continuous conflict by manufacturing terrorists at will. Aggression and brutal intervention in countries around the world guarantees that America will always have enemies, and they will be used as fodder to help the elite powers accomplish their agenda. This is all done by design, and this is a fact that few Americans understand or want to accept.

The U.S. does not lose wars because the real objective is never to win. The so-called War on Terror solidified this reality once and for all, even though this continuous war policy has been in effect since at least Vietnam, if not earlier. After the end of WWI, another war was needed to satisfy the hunger of the elites, but until the War on Terror, an end to each individual conflict was always imminent. Now there is no end in sight.

So why would the U.S. government and its puppet masters ever want to win a war, given that losing is actually winning in this multi-trillion dollar business? War is the health of the state, and so long as the proletariat continues to support war and those who prosecute war, war will never end, and freedom will never survive.

The Best of Gary D. Barnett