“Firstly, U.S. military force is never used to protect “American lives” in modern times, unless you count the lives of U.S. troops and mercenaries in foreign lands they have no business occupying in the first place. The U.S. military is never used to defend American lives against an invading enemy force; that simply does not happen in our current world order.

It is only ever used to protect the agenda of unipolar planetary domination, which would be the “vital interests” to which Blinken obliquely refers.

Secondly, Blinken’s claim that the Biden administration will never use military force without “the American people’s informed consent” has already been blatantly invalidated by President Joe Biden’s airstrikes on Syria last month.

The American people never gave their consent to those airstrikes, informed or uninformed. A nation the U.S. invaded (Syria) was bombed because troops are being attacked in a second nation the U.S. invaded (Iraq) on the completely unproven claim that a third country against whom the U.S. is currently waging economic warfare (Iran) supported those attacks. At no time were the people asked for their consent to this, and at no time was any attempt made to ensure that they were informed of the situation before it happened.

Thirdly, U.S. military force is never, ever conducted with the American people’s informed consent. Literally never. Consent is always manufactured for U.S. wars by lies and mass media propaganda, one hundred percent of the time, without exception. The bigger the military operation, the more egregious the deceit used to manufacture consent for it. Even in relatively “peaceful” times when the U.S. is merely raining dozens of bombs and missiles per day on foreign soil, Americans are subject to a nonstop deluge of distorted and outright false narratives about their military and the nations it targets for destruction.

Consent that has been artificially manufactured by propaganda is not informed consent, any more than sex with someone who’s been dosed with Rohypnol can be considered consensual.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/03/10/consent-manufactured-by-propaganda-is-not-informed-consent/
.
.
.
“Biden is following in the footsteps of Obama and Trump, who both promised fresh approaches to foreign policy but for the most part delivered more endless war.”

“By and large though, Biden’s foreign policy already seems stuck in the militarist quagmire of the past twenty years, a far cry from his campaign promise to reinvigorate diplomacy as the primary tool of U.S. foreign policy.”

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/03/12/10-problems-bidens-foreign-policy-and-one-solution
.
.
.

“The imperium demands the same song sheet from choristers, whether they deliver it from the right side of the choir or the left. The imperial feeling is that the tribes of a country most can barely name should be somehow kept within an orbit of security. To not do so would imperil allies, the US, and encourage a storm of danger that might cyclonically move towards other pockets of the globe.

It never occurs to the many dullard commentators that invading countries such as Afghanistan to begin with (throw Iraq into the mix) was itself an upending issue worthy of criminal prosecution, encouraged counter-insurgencies, theocratic aspirants and, for want of a better term, terrorist opportunists.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/05/biden-afghanistan-and-forever-wars/
.
.
.
“The president has disappointed those who hoped he would begin extricating us from the Middle East.”

“In the four weeks since making that speech, Biden has bombed Syria, failed to begin talks with Iran, and given Saudi Arabian leaders a pass for murdering a journalist who lived in Washington. He seems likely to repudiate the accord under which American troops must leave Afghanistan in May. If this is diplomacy, what would militarism look like?”

https://archive.vn/tmudQ
.
.
.
“The United States is not at war with Syria. It is not at war with the militias that were bombed, and it didn’t seek or have the permission of the Syrian government to enter its air space and engage in deadly military activities. Biden later claimed that the bombing was conducted as “a lesson to Iran,” another country with which the U.S. is not war.

His campaign promises to the contrary notwithstanding, Biden has followed in the footsteps of his immediate predecessors. They bombed civilians in an aspirin factory in Kosovo (Clinton), bombed civilians in Iraq (G.W. Bush), bombed military targets and government buildings in Libya and bombed a cafe in the Yemen desert targeting an American who was having tea (Obama), bombed the same location as Biden in Syria, and bombed a convoy of trucks in Iraq targeting an Iranian general who was on his way to lunch with an Iraqi counterpart (Trump).

All of these bombings and targeted killings violated the US Constitution, the U.N. Charter — which is a treaty largely written by the US, and to which the US is a signatory — and international law.

What is going on with American presidents and war?”

https://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2021/03/10/the-power-to-make-war/
.
.
.
“Never before has it been more critical for the American voter-taxpayer to sit down and determine their foreign policy and economic priorities than now. Despite the fact that it’s a notable tendency of those among the living to claim their time to be the most extraordinary, it cannot be denied that the United States is vigorously pursuing two national paths of monumental incompatibility.

As her national debt clears $28 trillion dollars, and as a fiscal year closes in which her deficit spending reached 130% of GDP, and as she must create $120 billion every month to finance the program for buying back treasury bills sold to other nations like China, who are throwing them out of their national portfolio faster than stock in GameStop, she prepares to undertake yet more militaristic endeavors abroad.

This includes expanding counter-terrorism and intelligence programs in North Africa and the Sahel, increased great power competition with Russia, and potentially renewed fighting in Afghanistan which the Biden Administration seems quite uninterested in avoiding.”

https://original.antiwar.com/Andrew_Corbley/2021/03/09/a-2021-flowchart-for-american-hegemony/
.
.
.
Basically, lawmakers are pressing to extend Trump’s policy of maximum pressure.

“Letter calls for a more ‘comprehensive’ agreement than the JCPOA, an idea Iran would never go for before sanctions relief”

“A group of 140 bipartisan members of the House is urging President Biden to seek a more “comprehensive” agreement with Iran, which means the group of lawmakers opposes a revival of the original 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

In a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, 70 Democrats and 70 Republicans said President Biden “must seek an agreement or set of agreements with Iran that are comprehensive in nature to address the full range of threats that Iran poses to the region.””

https://news.antiwar.com/2021/03/09/bipartisan-group-of-140-lawmakers-urge-biden-not-to-rejoin-original-iran-deal/
.
.
.
“The United States needs to recognize that the 20th century is gone for good, writes Andrew J. Bacevich.”

“You may have noticed: the Blob is back. Beneath a veneer of gender and racial diversity, the Biden national security team consists of seasoned operatives who earned their spurs in Washington long before Donald Trump showed up to spoil the party. So, if you’re looking for fresh faces at the departments of state or defense, the National Security Council or the various intelligence agencies, you’ll have to search pretty hard. Ditto, if you’re looking for fresh insights. In Washington, members of the foreign policy establishment recite stale bromides, even as they divert attention from a dead past to which they remain devoted.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-foreign-policy-history/
.
.
.
“There’s political unrest in the former Soviet Union. A coup in Burma. More repression in Hong Kong. Vaccine chaos in Europe. Warring governments in Libya. Barriers to reinstating the nuclear agreement with Iran. Continuing war in Yemen. The specter of a rising China.

None of these challenges are about America. In some cases, other governments are simply responding to what we’ve already done. Nevertheless, even then domestic imperatives shape and drive international policies.

This reality is recognized everywhere on earth except in Washington. Members of the Blob, the foreign policy establishment, are convinced that the entire world revolves around them. In their view, there is nothing more important than what they think and do. By which global events inevitably are, or certainly should be, determined.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/memo-to-washington-the-world-doesnt-care-what-you-think/
.
.
.
“The plan, which is praised by right-wing regional leaders, seeks to end restrictions on foreign domination of industries and markets, Ben Norton reports.”

“According to the Biden administration’s program, Central American governments will be required to cut protections for workers, ensure “that labor practices do not disadvantage competition,” reinforce “free trade” agreements with the United States, and “reduc[e] the barriers to private sector investment,” to allow U.S. corporations more control over the region.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/03/10/bidens-plan-for-central-america/
.
.
.
“Running an empire isn’t easy. A large military is imperative. How else to wage multiple wars at once? To defeat powers large and small? To police an unruly world? And to garrison the globe?

Unfortunately, creating expansive armed services isn’t cheap. There are missiles to build, air wings to deploy, carriers to sail forth, and armored divisions to ready. Most important, a large infantry is needed. How else to occupy and remake the many failed states which constantly call for Washington’s attention?

Last year the military sought 155,201 new recruits and every service made its quota. In 2019 the number was 171,067 and again the goals were met. The previous year the Pentagon wanted 170,899 new members, but the army fell short by about 7,000.

Manning the armed forces isn’t just a matter of offering sufficient wages. Not everyone is likely to be a good soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. Skills and smarts are important. Dedication is a must. Fitness is required. Most important is the desire to be part of something as unique as the military. Recruits must essentially turn their lives over to the state.”

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2021/03/09/in-the-worlds-most-militarized-power-conscription-is-a-tool-of-war/
.
.
.
“Joe Biden has never been antiwar. From Syria to Iraq to Yugoslavia, he’s proudly displayed a high-stakes bellicosity that’s cost millions of American and foreign lives. That’s why many were shocked when he began pushing “to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen” on the campaign trail in 2019. More surprising, still, is the fact that he’s already taken action on the topic as president. In his first foreign policy address barely two weeks into his presidency, Biden announced that the US would be withdrawing its support from the conflict. But did he mean it?

The Saudi-led war against the Houthi rebels is estimated to have caused more than 230,000 deaths — more than half of which can be attributed to the war’s indirect effects, like the scarcity of food and medical supplies. Since the conflict began in 2015, the US has sold the Saudi government hundreds of billions of dollars worth ammunition, weapons, missiles, and vehicles, in addition to providing intelligence, training, equipment maintenance, and mid-air refueling. The US is thus in large part culpable for much of the war’s death and destruction. In his address, Biden offered sympathies for the plight of the Yemeni people, calling it “a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe” and “unendurable devastation” — but those are nothing more than crocodile tears. In reality, he remains as hawkish as ever”

https://original.antiwar.com/James_Ketler/2021/03/09/biden-is-still-a-hawk-on-yemen/
.
.
.
“Biden’s bailout will not alter the structural inequities and other fundamental underpinnings of America’s death spiral.”

“The established ruling elites know there is a crisis. They agreed, at least temporarily, to throw money at it with the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 bill known as American Rescue Plan (ARP).

But the ARP will not alter the structural inequities, either by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour or imposing taxes and regulations on corporations or the billionaire class that saw its wealth increase by a staggering $1.1 trillion since the start of the pandemic.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/03/12/chris-hedges-bandaging-the-corpse/
.
.
.
“Progressive lawmakers are urging Biden to halt the missile program, arguing it would “divert limited resources from higher priority needs.”

“A new report by the Federation of American Scientists set for publication next week will reportedly argue that U.S. plans to spend up to $264 billion on construction and maintenance of a new nuclear missile are mostly being fueled by intense lobbying from the powerful weapons industry, not rational or humane strategic objectives.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/10/new-report-expose-war-industry-lobby-behind-264-billion-us-nuclear-missile
.
.
.
“According to a 2019 Congressional Budget Office report, the U.S. is committed to spending $494 billion on its nuclear forces over the next decade, or about $50 billion per year. Over the next three decades, nuclear weapons modernization plans could cost as much as $1.5-$2 trillion.”

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/03/09/whats-behind-the-biden-administrations-new-100-billion-nuclear-missile-system/
.
.
.
President Biden should withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq

“Instead of conducting potentially unconstitutional and escalatory airstrikes in Syria to “defend” American troops in Iraq, who are performing a mission that is not necessary for our safety, President Joe Biden should withdraw the U.S. military from the country. Withdrawal would be not only good policy but good politics. Over two-thirds of the American people support leaving Iraq, according to recent polling.

There is no reason to keep sending Americans to risk life and limb in Iraq. We already lost the war when we made the disastrous decision to invade in 2003, handing a victory to Iran and Sunni jihadists who would exploit the chaos of post-invasion Iraq for their own ends. Everything we have done since — including the vaunted surge of Americans troops from 2007 to 2009 — has been one failed attempt after another to overturn the terrible consequences of invading.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/18-years-of-tragedy-must-come-to-an-end/
.
.
.
“Regardless of which party is in power, US foreign policy since 9/11 has meant a unified government under the masters of war.”

“Nevertheless, the lack of a significant enemy on the horizon has been a deep disappointment to the war party.

Historically, the Democrats have been obedient to instruction by the masters of war. Schiff voted for the Iraq War. Warner voted against ending it. Chuck Schumer did them one better and followed his vote to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq with a vote against the Iran nuclear deal.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-democrats-war-foreign-policy/
.
.
.
“First, these relationships redirect entrepreneurial activity away from consumers to the state. Instead of creating technologies that benefit society, companies instead focus on cultivating close ties with their political customers while devising more efficient means for governments to expand control over citizens. As a result, a small number of people in government, and not consumers, drive the evolution and direction of technological development.

Second, these relationships undermine competition and the adaptability of markets. With Uncle Sam backing their brand, companies can expand their stake in the market and in the process create barriers to competition. Unlike private markets, the market for military technology is driven by government budgets, and smaller companies get blocked out because, unlike the larger tech companies, they lack the resources to efficiently maneuver through bureaucratic political processes.

In addition to this, we should also be concerned about how government will likely use new technology.”

https://insidesources.com/the-military-big-tech-complex/?utm_source=FFF%2BDaily&utm_campaign=622eab4658-FFF%2BDaily%2B03-10-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-622eab4658-317323329
.
.
.
“The United States never has had any alliance commitments in the Middle East — either multilateral alliances such as NATO and the ANZUS treaty or bilateral security pacts such as those with Japan and South Korea. That’s a good thing, given the mélange of regional rivalries and conflicts and their tendency to spawn wars. U.S. lethal involvement in the Middle East has been bad enough even without any alliance commitments to fulfill.”

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/03/02/what-is-a-us-ally-in-the-middle-east/
.
.
.
“When does neo-imperialist subtext tip over to overt imperialism? Well, when it comes to America’s Africa policy, apparently it’s when Foreign Affairs indulges the published fantasies of a multigenerational military trio of facsimile David Petraeuses peddling un-ironic Rudyard Kipling reprises. In the piece in question, retired Air Force Major General Marcus Hicks, and U.S. Army Majors Kyle Atwell and Dan Collini don’t pull punches — and are just a bit too on the neocolonial nose — off-handedly asserting: “Like it or not, a twenty-first century “scramble for Africa” is underway.” Allow me to translate that into late 19th century apologism for the unfamiliar:

Look, we Westerners didn’t WANT to seize and exploit all of Africa besides Liberia and Ethiopia. You see, like it or not, we had no choice, ultimately…it was for their own good…they were kinda asking for it, even…”

https://original.antiwar.com/Danny_Sjursen/2021/03/10/the-militarys-africa-gambit-faux-intellectuals-and-their-false-assumptions-strike-again/
.
.
.
“Reckless decisions to invade and nation build in other countries leads to more harm than good.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/pope-visited-iraqi-christians-victims-us-foreign-policy-179672
.
.
.
“America seems to be witnessing the early stages of mirror-image McCarthyism, with leftists harassing their opponents.”

“The original McCarthy era smothered the expression of iconoclastic, or even unorthodox, views on various issues, especially foreign policy, and the corrosion persisted well into the 1960s.

Given that history, we should be alert to any new attempts to demonize a political faction and seek to silence debate. However, manifestations of neo-McCarthyism are now taking place on multiple fronts. Echoes of McCarthyism are loud and growing louder.

So, too, is a campaign to compel ideological conformity and blacklist dissenters on a wide array of policy issues. One of the hallmarks of the McCarthy era was the plague of investigatory hearings that congressional committees conducted to root-out “subversives” in the opinion-shaping professions, including both the movie industry and the news media. That same pattern is recurring today, as illustrated by House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearings in late February 2021 on “disinformation and extremism in the media.””

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/progressive-neo-mccarthyism-serious-threat-first-amendment-179670
.
.
.
“As social media empowers uncredentialed people to be heard, society’s most powerful actors seek to cast themselves as victims and delegitimize all critiques.”

“With this framework implanted, there is no way to express criticisms of Taylor Lorenz’s work and the use and abuse of her journalistic platform without standing widely accused of maliciously inciting a mob of violent misogynists to ruin her life — that’s quite a potent shield from accountability for someone this influential in public life.

But this is now a commonplace tactic among the society’s richest, most powerful and most influential public figures. The advent of the internet has empowered the riff-raff, the peasants, the unlicensed and the uncredentialed — those who in the past were blissfully silent and invisible — to be heard, often with irreverence and even contempt for those who wield the greatest societal privileges, such as a star New York Times reporter. By recasting themselves as oppressed, abused and powerless rather than what they are (powerful oppressors who sometimes abuse their power), elite political and media luminaries seek to completely reverse the dynamic.”

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/criticizing-public-figures-including

“This new political battle does not break down along left v. right lines. This is an information war waged by corporate media to silence any competition or dissent.”

“That is precisely why they are so furious. They cannot stand the fact that journalists can break major stories and find an audience while maintaining an independent voice, critically questioning rather than obediently reciting the orthodoxies that bind them and, most of all, without playing their infantile in-group games and submitting to their hive-mind decrees. In fact, the more big stories you break while maintaining your independence from them, the more intense is the contempt they harbor for you: that explains, among other things, their willingness to watch Julian Assange (who has broken more major stories than all of them combined) be imprisoned for publishing documents.

That they are angry and upset is irrelevant. It only matters because these resentments and fears that they are losing their monopolistic power over public thought are translating into increasingly concerted and effective censorship campaigns.”

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack