States—Barely United
"USA"—United States of North America—is neither a proper name nor a title; it is a description of a federal or confederal system of states united to be represented under a common name—one that, to this day, has never been chosen or designated to define a true country, rather than merely a collective of states clustered together politically and geographically, along with a few maritime and overseas territories.
So, what did the average citizen—John Doe or Mary Quanty—materially gain from the war launched in the 1990s with the invasion of Iraq? That war was waged to neutralize the threat of weapons of mass destruction allegedly stockpiled by dictator Saddam Hussein—weapons that supposedly menaced the garage of Mark Bruss, a resident of Florida living more than 25,000 miles away from Baghdad.
The ordinary citizen gained nothing from the end of that war, which cost $2.5 trillion and saw hundreds of soldiers die from overdoses of some fifty different vaccines—administered to counter the poor healthcare systems of underdeveloped nations—that supposedly threatened the well-being of the 100,000 troops deployed to topple the government that was endangering North American peace.
The war began with a hundred-day persuasion campaign by President George W. Bush to secure authorization from the U.S. Congress and—along with NATO contributions—access to Japanese checkbooks to cover the costs of destroying and leveling Iraq, killing over a million civilians and children, and obliterating hospitals and the entire infrastructure of Iraqi civilization.
So, which version of the USA went to the Iraq War?
Which USA emerged victorious from the Iraq War?
Several U.S. states opposed the invasion of Iraq because the USA is not a democracy; it is a federation of diverse interests—a polycracy—a federation where arms manufacturers seek profits and military contracts from the Pentagon. Oil companies seek a stable, predictable, long-term environment to invest in the massive and complex oil business; meanwhile, citizens of Latin American descent and the descendants of enslaved Black people now make up the majority of combat troops in the U.S. Army—soldiers who die on the infantry front lines because a lack of opportunities in the specialized labor market leaves them with little choice but to enlist.
The spoils of war translate into benefits for oil families and the entrepreneurial and real estate dynasties of the Bushes and Trumps, as well as major law firms linked to figures like Nixon, Carter, and Clinton; yet, ordinary Americans have gained nothing from the conflicts in Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, or Venezuela, nor from the trade and diplomatic blockades against Cuba and North Korea, or the trade arrangements involving Japan, Germany, and South Korea—arrangements that ultimately lead to lost markets and the outsourcing of low-cost jobs to China and Mexico. It was not the USA that shaped the country's—or the nation's—foreign policy; rather, it was the winning faction in the internal struggle between cartels representing the families that dictate interests. This creates confusion for foreigners regarding why US foreign policy and diplomacy appear so hesitant and contradictory; in reality, they merely reflect the competing interests of the families controlling a slice of the US wealth pie—wealth from which the general population derives little to no benefit. They lack universal healthcare, affordable housing programs, job security, tuition-free universities, and subsidized interest rates for purchasing durable and semi-durable goods. These people remain submerged during times of prosperity, only to be violently and desperately spewed out during crises, revealing the fragility and abandonment of a population—outside the zones of affluence and power—left helpless and to their own devices at the mercy of the so-called "liberal market." They stand no chance against the vicissitudes, changes, and risks of an unstable, anomic environment—a natural anarchy of short-term decisions made daily, almost by the second, driven by the winds of luck and sheer chance.
Being a US citizen requires courage, boldness, drive, and selfishness—qualities instilled in American schools. A grave error. Courage is of no use when facing an African lion, a four-ton adult elephant, a two-ton rhinoceros, or a five-ton great white shark; courage alone cannot save you from a fatal fate. In fact, the person who commits suicide possesses such courage that they manage to do things few heroes can—such as throwing themselves off a cliff, a building, or a tower—acts no hero has ever performed to save someone; therefore, courage is not a virtue—like that of confronting Russia to join NATO—when such great courage, in the face of Russia’s professional destruction machine, serves no purpose in proclaiming one’s autonomy or exalting one’s sovereignty, which is merely written in the sands of Crimean beaches: here lies a brave hero who confronted a... A leopard of indomitable and romantic bravery.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário