“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
–James Madison, Political Observations, Apr. 20, 1795 in: Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 4, p. 491(1865)
The Foreign Policy of Presidents of the United States of America is not so much dictated by the inhabitant of that office as it is from elements of the shadow government that surrounds and influences the decisions made by that inhabitant.
This influence is driven by corporate interests, both foreign and domestic, from international banking (financial hegemony) to the acquisition and control of resources such as oil, and is guided by an extensive network of interconnected influential groups.
These influential groups of interest are collectively referred to as “The Round Table”: The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, The United Nations, The Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
War is very profitable as well to arms manufacturers and other “defense” industries known collectively as the Military Industrial Complex.
War, as it is sold to the public, is done so on an emotional level. It is story-driven to justify the militaristic intervention and violation of one country’s sovereignty by another country in the most violent of ways.
These storylines are usually reinforced by an event that triggers a reaction from the public such as an orchestrated attack, typically manufactured (such as a False Flag), that is labeled as an act of terrorism. The solution that would follow such an event, in this specific case, would be sold to the public as a war that is needed to combat terrorism.
The broad stroke of the “war on terror” that was unleashed by the United States beginning with Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 has been used to justify the laying of waste to country after country in the Middle East.
Decades later, a war that was instigated to supposedly end terrorism continues to use the threat of terrorism as justification for more war. This is either a categorical failure of immense proportions in effectively combating terrorism, unrectified by any known drastic change in strategy, or there is another agenda at work.
US General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and a retired four-star general, himself involved in the bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo conflict, went on the record in an interview on the television station Democracy Now and discussed the existence of an actual list of countries that were pre-scheduled, by the Pentagon, for militaristic regime change operations:
I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ – meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office – ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran’.
These militaristic interventionist policies of the United States and its shadow government remain consistent across administrations, regardless of who holds the office of President. From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and now Donald Trump, these never-ending wars are continually subsidized to the tune of trillions of tax payer dollars spent and countless lives lost without there being any advantage gained.
For example, since 2001 the cost of the wars in the Middle East has been reported to be between $4 trillion and $5.6 trillion dollars. Military spending has gone from $639 billion for fiscal year 2016 to $686.1 billion in 2019. As of writing, the Pentagon is asking for a total of $718 billion for 2020. This increase is directly related to the continual shuffling of military assets in and around the Middle East to continue to pursue an aggressive foreign policy against Syria and Iran that does not benefit the United States in any way.
It is worthy to note that this “defense” spending is not being used for the actual defense of the borders of the United States of America.
The pursuit of the Trump administration to procure funding of $6 billion dollars to build and/or extend existing border protections in a defensive effort against unchecked migration, potentially inspired by the waves of migration that has reached catastrophic levels in Europe, has been seemingly impossible; however, there is little trouble in procuring nearly $1 trillion dollars in “defense” spending for perpetual offensive warfare in the Middle East and other countries outside of the continental United States.
There is also the issue of roughly $18.2 billion dollars given to foreign countries for militaristic and economic reasons in 2018, such as Iraq ($4.3B), Afghanistan ($4.2B), Israel ($3.1B), Egypt ($1.3B), Jordan ($1.2B), Pakistan ($988M), Ethiopia ($967M), Kenya ($894M), Syria ($648M), and South Sudan ($614M). Further details on this can be found at www.foreignassistance.gov.
It is quite shocking to consider that, regardless of your position on immigration and border protection, the tax paying citizen of the United States is not able to count on his own tax dollars being utilized for his own defense on his own border, whether or not one objects to what form that defense may take.
The foreign policy of the United States goes against the interests of the citizen of the United States in nearly every way imaginable. There is nothing to be gained by the continued shedding of American blood subsidized by the forced procurement of American money in the form of taxes for the benefit of foreign interests and foreign countries.