WILL THE US EVER GO TO WAR AGAIN? 

If I told you that I genuinely wonder if the US would ever go to war again, what would you think? Crazy? Overly negative? Doomsday believer? Unpatriotic? How could I, of all people, make post such a statement? What would drive me to ponder such a question? Okay. Let's get started! 

General Abdulwahab al-Saadi was removed from power in Iraq? Who is he, and why does it matter? In a region where the number of "true" allies can be counted on hand without using your thumb, General al-Saadi would not be counted. Have pro-US so-called "supporters turned their back on the US in the past? Silly question. Have pro-US supporters been removed from positions of authority or worse, killed? Yep. Was General al-Saadi more aligned with the US than most essential leaders in Iraq? Yes. So, is any of this really worth worrying about? Not as an individual event, no it's not. Then why bring it up? Patterns. Trends, in the 21st century, the whole world is about patterns and trends, stacked on top of perceptions. So, an event like the one with al-Saadi does give us another indicator of where we might be heading? Yes. 

Patterns and Trends:

Does the US seem more than reluctant to get involved in any event that might turn into a real conflict? Yes. Is that a stance many in the US, on both political sides, agrees with? Yes.  Does the US population have a valid case of War Fatigue"? Yes. Is that feeling justified? Yes. Who is to blame for this feeling? DC, the political leadership of the nation for the past 18yrs. Was the US wrong to launch the War on Terrorism? No! Was the leadership, both sides, of the US guilty of turning this "War" into an industry? Yes. Has all of this happened at the moment in history when the US is as socially divided as ever? It seems that way. By the way, how could I make the statement the US is more divided than at any time in the past? Easy. Social Media. It's the nitrous oxide of social friction. 

Here is the "trend" the enemies of the US perceive and it's the same one I just spoke about. The US seems more and more distracted, more fragmented with each passing day. Is that perception / trend / justified? That answer only matters to the person or nation that questions the "trend." Let me put this another way. If someone is to watch or read US media networks, what would be the overwhelming topic 24/7/365? The hatred between the two US parties and why each of them is destroying the country. Do you think the enemies of the US care what party is right and what party is wrong? They don't see the topic as, right and wrong, left or right, conservative or liberal. What they see is a weakness, division and at the end, opportunity. 

Patterns? What patterns does the rest of the world see with the US? Reluctance? Is that a pattern? Talk loudly but carry no stick, except Twitter that is. Is that a pattern the US's enemies and allies would pay attention to? Yep. Would these patterns and trends lead the US's enemies to change their approach to the US? Yes. Does that same concept hold true of the US's allies? Yes. Patterns and trends can often mean one thing to both enemies and allies, weakness! Harsh word? Yes. Accurate? Unfortunately, yes! 

Tehran set's perception: 

I've talked about the events of the past few months about Tehran, both on this blog page and my podcast / Col Dans Viewpoint on iTunes. ( Look for the Black Globe). I've gone over the issue of how the US should and shouldn't react to the actions of the Mullahs. Time and time again, I've addressed the issue of Tehran being a reluctant proxy of Moscow. At the end of the day, the overwhelming opinion/perception/ of the world has been the US's reluctance to respond to the Mullah's actions. Now, with what might be a ground attack by Tehran's proxies from Yemen into Saudi Arabia, Najran region, it seems the US's reluctance will once again be tested. If I need to mention the Mullah's desperation and emboldening again, then let me make that point. Are the Mullah's desperate? Yes. Are they also, embolden? Yes. Does this create an unforeseen risk? Yes. Will the US still be reluctant to take any physical action? Well, except for sanctions, ones that are working by the way, and cyber, the new battlefield, yes, the US will remain reluctant. Does that create the risk of unintended consequences? If you have followed me, then you know my long-standing position on the law of unintended consequences. 

Conditions: 

When nations contemplated / plan / on how to stay ahead of or neutralize their enemies, a key factor they must obtain is the overall social stability of the enemy in question. Just what is the enemy's resolve and what is that resolve based upon? Most levels of threat have varying intensities of resolve. Threaten a nation's very existence, and they will most likely have the resolve to do whatever it takes to survive. Anything lower than that, and the resolve to take action will become more complicated. So, here is the question that started this post. What is the resolve of the US? At what level of threat would the US population unify at a significant enough degree to support a response? When I say, unite, it's is implied that means the majority of the population supports action.  It is this analysis an enemy must make as they review potential actions. Having said that, what steps are the US's enemies contemplating? Are they plotting as individuals or as a unified effort? What risk are those enemies willing to take? What are these questions based upon? Yep, the overall status of the US. 

What is the "condition" of the US government? It's 2019, and the US is heading into an election year after three consecutive years of emotional end fighting at all levels of government. Sanctuary Cities, Open attacks on the US's Border Security process, Antifa's movement being all but ignored by all levels of government an endless accusations against the US President. Daily mainstream media reports on how polarized the US population has become. From the outside, what perception does this create? What level of action against the US will most likely not lead to a physical response?  If the US Intelligence Community and the US Military pulled the President into an emergency meeting and informed him Tehran was about to launch a massive strike against the oil-producing Gulf nations, what would be the deciding factor in the US's response; a response heading into an election year? What would be CNN or MSNBC's coverage? How long would it take for the US Democratic Party to use the event to further damage Trump's chances of being re-elected? Honestly, how mad would that party be if this event was to take the attention away from the Impeachment Circus?  You see, everything I just mentioned here goes into the planning/analysis process of adversaries? Would a regional war take the US's attention off of the so-called, Trade Wars? Would anyone pay attention to North Korea or Venezuela? More importantly, what would the American people say?  If the nation is adverse to the idea of yet another, "endless war," would that factor into the administration's decision? Would the US population go to war over the South China Seas, Taiwan, or South Korea? Just what level of unity and resolve do the enemies of the US perceive? Let me put that in a different perspective. What level of unity does DC believe exist inside the US? 

You see. Wars are almost always thrust upon those nations that wish to avoid warfare. How odd it must seem to the enemies of the US; the country that championed the war on terrorism" but now seems to have no stomach for war. Wars. History tells us they come even when you don't want them!