The eternal war... a US plan for global dominance
Statements made by US officials both before and after the US-led airstrikes on the Islamic State group (IS, formerly known as ISIS) shed light on their plans of prolonging their war in the region.
US officials, in particular the former defence secretary, Leon Panetta, have made repeated statements where they assured the public that the raging war in the Middle East would continue for a long time.
The reasons behind their statements did not include the reality on the ground, or the enormous capabilities of the IS, and the difficulty they faced in defeating it.
Neo-con lives on
Instead they relied on the strategy they had put in place for the world in the 21st century: The Project for the New American Century.
This project was drafted by neo-conservatives and initiated by the former US president George W Bush with his wars on Afghanistan and Iraq after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The project had a doctrine, known as "war without borders" which aims to impose US hegemony through simultaneous wars fought in many parts of the world, which would ward off threats at home. Naturally, all these wars fall under counter-terrorism.
|Obama campaigned for 'change', but continued Bush's work by waging war on 'terror'.|
This in turn is why the US president, Barack Obama, was unresponsive to the repeated calls of the Syrian people from the onset of the violence in Syria. The Syrian people had asked him to intervene against the Syrian regime by attacking it, or by imposing no-fly zones or at least by arming the Free Syrian Army.
A reason for the president's evasion was the fact that the acts of the Syrian regime did not fall under his definition of terrorism.
His action could subject him to criticism for interfering in what the West sees is a civil war.
The regime's use of chemical weapons did not result in interference either, despite the regime's crossing of the "red line" put forth by Obama himself. Instead he waited for the right circumstances and the justifications brought about by the beheading of the US journalist, James Foley, by the IS group earlier this year.
One could say that it is not in the US' best interest to prolong the war on the IS. However, the inefficiency of the airstrikes and the fact that they do not affect the IS' strength or speed of movement, instead allowing it to achieve victories in other areas, proves that the US is not serious or not even willing to eliminate the IS in a short period of time.
No end in sight
This in turn proves that the US seeks to prolong the duration of the war. It would of course correspond with its PNAC project. The plan is for the US to establish new bases, ones it can add to those existing in other areas of the Arab world in order to fulfil the goals of the project.
The use of drones is without a doubt part of this strategy. By using drones, the US reduces the cost of its wars. The US has a huge fleet of more than 8,000 drones that fly from bases all over the world.
It is surprising that this strategy continued to be implemented under Obama, whose campaign slogan to the White House was "Change". Instead he continued Bush's work by waging wars on what they called "terror".
It took him a few weeks in office in 2009 to wage an undeclared war on the Pakistani people, when he instructed the Pakistani army to carry out military operations against the Taliban in North Waziristan.
It took Bush almost two years into his first term before he waged his war on Afghanistan in 2001.
Whomever may be the target of the US airstrikes on Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan or currently Iraq and Syria, it is clear that these airstrikes will result in many civilian casualties.
This war will most probably take many years with no end in sight and will result in more extremism among the targeted populations.
It will also result in the listing and targeting of the citizens and organisations in the US and many other countries.
This is an edited translation from our Arabic edition.
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of al-Araby al-Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.