I have over the years asked myself that same question….why is America addicted to perpetual war?

Make NO mistake it is an addiction…one that we cannot seem to shake…….it is a real shame that we cannot be addicted to education  with the same intensity….

Of course one argument is that war is extremely profitable….but with all the intellectuals there are in the field of conflict management there should be some sort of plan or policy that would prevent the US from jump from one war to another…..without end.

The last two administrations have followed a bipartisan policy of constant war. Unfortunately, the consequences have been ugly: every intervention has laid the groundwork for more conflict.

Yet the architects of this failure claim that all would be well if only Washington had acted more often and more decisively. In their view, the problem is not that America goes to war, but that it doesn’t go to war nearly enough.

This approach is based on the belief that Washington is capable of solving every international problem. If only unnamed bright people implemented theoretically brilliant strategies backed by unidentified resolute citizens, terrorism would be suppressed, ISIS would be defeated, Russia would be compliant, Iraq would be successful, Syria would be peaceful, Libya would be united and China would be respectful.

Source: Why Washington Is Addicted to Perpetual War | The National Interest Blog

Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle conflicts sensibly, fairly, and efficiently……all qualities that the US does not possess….until we learn this then we will remain in a perpetual footing for war.

If you are a math wiz…then maybe this will help……work it out for yourself with a pencil………….(calculator is allowed but please show work)……

To test for the effect of the history of the conflict within a broader context that can control for factors that have been linked to the outcome of mediation, we have specified two multivariate logit models of the conditions contributing to mediation successes. Success for these purposes was operationalized in terms of the outcome of mediation efforts in which at minimum a ceasefire was secured, or at the other end of the scale, a full or partial settlement of the dispute was achieved. We specify two models from which these tests are performed. The first accounts for the conditions associated with successful conflict management attempts; the second disaggregates a specific type of conflict management — mediation — into the different approaches adopted by mediators. The functional form of the models are as follows:

Y1= a + X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + e

and

Y1= a + X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X6 + X7 + e

where

Y1 = Success of Management (0,1)

X1 = Enduring Rivalry (1 if part of enduring dyad; zero otherwise)

X2  = Power Disparity (absolute value of disparity between power of

      actor A minus power of actor B; range 0-34)

X3 = Tangibility of Issue (1 if tangible; zero otherwise)

X4 = Intensity of Conflict (fatalities/month)

X5 = Management Type (1=mediation; zero=negotiation)

X6 = Directive Strategy (dummy, 1 if directive; zero otherwise)

X7 = Procedural Strategy (dummy, 1 if procedural; zero otherwise)

These two models reflect concerns over the conditions most conducive to successful conflict management, with Model 1 emphasizing, inter alia, the effect of different approaches to conflict management and Model 2 the different strategies that are adopted by mediators.

I like to be thorough……you are welcome.

Like any addiction…it can be ended…but only if we want it to be…..

And right now….WE DO NOT!

The election of 2016 will do nothing to end this addiction….no matter which of the pathetic losers wins…..(and I bet neither one has a pencil with them)….