I would not characterize this as incidental; The US absolutely wants Isnt’reali territorial gains because it’s a geopolitical power move for the empire that brings them to Iran’s doorstep just like with Russia, laundered through a rabid dog proxy acting with 100% full support.
I don’t think the US is specifically interested in seeing Erdogan expand territory, and it might actually be something that makes them uncomfortable. But I do think the US will encourage their favorite client ethnostate to seize military control in Syria and continuously carve out a greater Ins’treal from it. That’s always been the Zionists plan, after all… and given the prior legitimization of illegal annexation of Golan by the incoming US admin, I think that will happen at an accelerated schedule. It’s not like any of these empire psychos give a fuck about appearing violent or hegemonic.
I think the US military might be a bit more realistic about their own limitations though. There are many different factions in control of different parts of Syria. The whole place is now an incredibly volatile, and holding territory there is going to be very costly for Israel. Just look at how things went in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason to expect anything different happening here.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan went according to plan as far as I can tell. Both in different ways, of course. Iraq was destabilized which left foreign capital unopposed in their imperialist theft and the US military has never actually left, either. The only reason the US (directly) invaded Afghanistan was to reboot the opium industry which has been funding the CIA since the 1970s. The US military objectively turned Afghanistan into what is probably the biggest narcostate in human history, and only “left” when they needed to move their Grand Chessboard pawns. The US still has not faced any losses or real consequences of those invasions either.
Iraq is now largely under Iranian influence with US position there becoming more precarious by the day. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is now making deals with China and Russia. I’m pretty sure neither scenario was the plan. I think there are real consequences for both invasions for the US because decades of endless wars have demoralized the military. Recruitment is at all time low, and veterans actively discourage people from joining now.
Iraq is now largely under Iranian influence with US position there becoming more precarious by the day.
We both know Iraqis have not been enjoying the invasion and occupation for a long time now. I’m all for strengthening the axis of resistance, but the US is casually ignoring all the calls for an end to the military occupation. I’d love to see the Iraqi government kick out all foreign capital, but that’s not the menu for what is still mostly a puppet regime, even if it is biting at the leash a little. But it’s not the DPRK. Until western capital interests are seriously threatened in Iraq, I don’t see the US having any reason to intervene. I really hope the resistance forces in Iraq start lighting more fires for the US, but I do think they’re being politically hindered.
Afghanistan is now making deals with China and Russia
That’s excellent, but that doesn’t change the reality that incomprehensible amount of money were made from a US-enforced narcostate and laundered through defense contracts for over 40 years. They clearly got what they came for. Even after 25 years of trying, the Taliban will probably never be recognized by the UN (guess who will block it), which makes Afghanistan something of a stateless playground for the empire, at least so far as the fascists are concerned.
I know the Taliban would probably rather ban opium again, but, honest question, do you think the US will do nothing if opium drops back to the levels we saw in 2000? What would that mean for a state economy that has been purposefully welded to drug production? Let’s say Afghan trade with China and Russia were good enough they were sanction proof, will China or Russia go into direct war with Amerikkka in order to protect their partner?
I think there are real consequences for both invasions for the US because decades of endless wars have demoralized the military. Recruitment is at all time low, and veterans actively discourage people from joining now.
You could say the same for the US genocide in Viet Nam, but it’s still the largest and most destructive military empire in human history. I agree the west (US/EU/NATO) is stretched paper thin over all these conflicts. But something we’ve seen since the end of the US withdrawal in Viet Nam is the extensive use of completely expendable proxy forces to accomplish US military goals. Amerikkkan’s only care about their own fascist cracker-ass lives in any war. They can keep their precious unaccountable rapist occupiers safe while encircling everyone else as a trip wire for nuclear retaliation while offloading the cost of human life to Ukraine, Isn’treal, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Japan, Phillipines, Poland, Georgia, etc…
Sure, US and UK military recruitment is shit, even with all the ubiquitous fascist training simulators marketed as video games and hollywood cinema. Both countries seem to be planning to reinstitute forced conscription in the next few years to address this. The vast Amerikkkans still worship their fucking manifest destiny, lebensraum and military. History also bears out how incredibly easy it is to get Amerikkkans into a racist bloodlust at the expense of a couple capitalist rat’s nest skyscrapers, zionist hostages or Chinese people being allowed to peacefully exist. Not to say that will massively drive military volunteering, but Amerikkkans will feel warm and fuzzy while cheering the proxy force du jour.
The consequence is they have to lean on their nuclear arsenal more than conventional force, and that’s obviously more effective anyway.
The empire is clearly much weaker today than it was at its zenith in the 90s. While the US is able to continue causing chaos around the world, the the chaos is increasingly backfiring, and the effects reinforce each other. The world is now dedollarizing, BRICS is rising as a direct competitor to G7. The US is starting to lose political control of Africa and Latin America. Meanwhile, western economies are in a crisis, and things in Europe are becoming critical already. These aren’t problems that can be solved using a nuclear arsenal. The reality is that the cost of maintaining the empire now outweighs the plunder. As a result, the core is becoming hollowed out leading to political unrest domestically.
I agree. Of course all of that is true, but it doesn’t mean the empire does not perceive a strategic interest in seeing Isn’treal expand into Syria, nor does it mean the Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t successfully plundered and weakened. You cannot conquer anywhere forever, even if imperialism desires it. Although 40 years is a long time in the modern era. In neither case was the US forced out, it just got what it wanted and turned it’s attention elsewhere.
The problem the US has is that it can’t be everywhere at once. The US had to abandon Afghanistan because they wanted to have a proxy war in Ukraine. Now that it failed, they want to either take on Iran or start something with China. My point isn’t that US is just going to stop, but that they continuously get weaker in every regard as they continue doing this. There is a real material cost to each of these adventures, and these costs continue to add up. My view is that the downfall will be economic as opposed to a military defeat. Trump will likely accelerate this process with his open trade war on the BRICS.
At the same time, the US military is simply not strong enough to take on its main adversaries like Russia and China. All they can do is to continue chaos around the world which ultimately pushes countries towards BRICS.
I would not characterize this as incidental; The US absolutely wants Isnt’reali territorial gains because it’s a geopolitical power move for the empire that brings them to Iran’s doorstep just like with Russia, laundered through a rabid dog proxy acting with 100% full support.
I don’t think the US is specifically interested in seeing Erdogan expand territory, and it might actually be something that makes them uncomfortable. But I do think the US will encourage their favorite client ethnostate to seize military control in Syria and continuously carve out a greater Ins’treal from it. That’s always been the Zionists plan, after all… and given the prior legitimization of illegal annexation of Golan by the incoming US admin, I think that will happen at an accelerated schedule. It’s not like any of these empire psychos give a fuck about appearing violent or hegemonic.
I think the US military might be a bit more realistic about their own limitations though. There are many different factions in control of different parts of Syria. The whole place is now an incredibly volatile, and holding territory there is going to be very costly for Israel. Just look at how things went in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason to expect anything different happening here.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan went according to plan as far as I can tell. Both in different ways, of course. Iraq was destabilized which left foreign capital unopposed in their imperialist theft and the US military has never actually left, either. The only reason the US (directly) invaded Afghanistan was to reboot the opium industry which has been funding the CIA since the 1970s. The US military objectively turned Afghanistan into what is probably the biggest narcostate in human history, and only “left” when they needed to move their Grand Chessboard pawns. The US still has not faced any losses or real consequences of those invasions either.
Iraq is now largely under Iranian influence with US position there becoming more precarious by the day. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is now making deals with China and Russia. I’m pretty sure neither scenario was the plan. I think there are real consequences for both invasions for the US because decades of endless wars have demoralized the military. Recruitment is at all time low, and veterans actively discourage people from joining now.
We both know Iraqis have not been enjoying the invasion and occupation for a long time now. I’m all for strengthening the axis of resistance, but the US is casually ignoring all the calls for an end to the military occupation. I’d love to see the Iraqi government kick out all foreign capital, but that’s not the menu for what is still mostly a puppet regime, even if it is biting at the leash a little. But it’s not the DPRK. Until western capital interests are seriously threatened in Iraq, I don’t see the US having any reason to intervene. I really hope the resistance forces in Iraq start lighting more fires for the US, but I do think they’re being politically hindered.
That’s excellent, but that doesn’t change the reality that incomprehensible amount of money were made from a US-enforced narcostate and laundered through defense contracts for over 40 years. They clearly got what they came for. Even after 25 years of trying, the Taliban will probably never be recognized by the UN (guess who will block it), which makes Afghanistan something of a stateless playground for the empire, at least so far as the fascists are concerned.
I know the Taliban would probably rather ban opium again, but, honest question, do you think the US will do nothing if opium drops back to the levels we saw in 2000? What would that mean for a state economy that has been purposefully welded to drug production? Let’s say Afghan trade with China and Russia were good enough they were sanction proof, will China or Russia go into direct war with Amerikkka in order to protect their partner?
You could say the same for the US genocide in Viet Nam, but it’s still the largest and most destructive military empire in human history. I agree the west (US/EU/NATO) is stretched paper thin over all these conflicts. But something we’ve seen since the end of the US withdrawal in Viet Nam is the extensive use of completely expendable proxy forces to accomplish US military goals. Amerikkkan’s only care about their own fascist cracker-ass lives in any war. They can keep their precious unaccountable rapist occupiers safe while encircling everyone else as a trip wire for nuclear retaliation while offloading the cost of human life to Ukraine, Isn’treal, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Japan, Phillipines, Poland, Georgia, etc…
Sure, US and UK military recruitment is shit, even with all the ubiquitous fascist training simulators marketed as video games and hollywood cinema. Both countries seem to be planning to reinstitute forced conscription in the next few years to address this. The vast Amerikkkans still worship their fucking manifest destiny, lebensraum and military. History also bears out how incredibly easy it is to get Amerikkkans into a racist bloodlust at the expense of a couple capitalist rat’s nest skyscrapers, zionist hostages or Chinese people being allowed to peacefully exist. Not to say that will massively drive military volunteering, but Amerikkkans will feel warm and fuzzy while cheering the proxy force du jour.
The consequence is they have to lean on their nuclear arsenal more than conventional force, and that’s obviously more effective anyway.
The empire is clearly much weaker today than it was at its zenith in the 90s. While the US is able to continue causing chaos around the world, the the chaos is increasingly backfiring, and the effects reinforce each other. The world is now dedollarizing, BRICS is rising as a direct competitor to G7. The US is starting to lose political control of Africa and Latin America. Meanwhile, western economies are in a crisis, and things in Europe are becoming critical already. These aren’t problems that can be solved using a nuclear arsenal. The reality is that the cost of maintaining the empire now outweighs the plunder. As a result, the core is becoming hollowed out leading to political unrest domestically.
I agree. Of course all of that is true, but it doesn’t mean the empire does not perceive a strategic interest in seeing Isn’treal expand into Syria, nor does it mean the Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t successfully plundered and weakened. You cannot conquer anywhere forever, even if imperialism desires it. Although 40 years is a long time in the modern era. In neither case was the US forced out, it just got what it wanted and turned it’s attention elsewhere.
The problem the US has is that it can’t be everywhere at once. The US had to abandon Afghanistan because they wanted to have a proxy war in Ukraine. Now that it failed, they want to either take on Iran or start something with China. My point isn’t that US is just going to stop, but that they continuously get weaker in every regard as they continue doing this. There is a real material cost to each of these adventures, and these costs continue to add up. My view is that the downfall will be economic as opposed to a military defeat. Trump will likely accelerate this process with his open trade war on the BRICS.
At the same time, the US military is simply not strong enough to take on its main adversaries like Russia and China. All they can do is to continue chaos around the world which ultimately pushes countries towards BRICS.