Could Japan Have Won WW2?

Closing Thought–23Apr19

There have been some discussion of what would have happened if the Nazis had won WW2…..the “Man In The High Castle” is just one of those views….we seldom see anything along the lines of “Could Japan Have Won WW2”?

Well as usual I can help with that question…..

So Japan could never have crushed U.S. maritime forces in the Pacific and imposed terms on Washington. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t have won World War II. Sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? But the weak sometimes win. As strategic sage Carl von Clausewitz recounts, history furnishes numerous instances when the weak got their way. Indeed, Clausewitz notes that it sometimes makes sense for the lesser contender to start a fight. If its leadership sees force as the only resort, and if the trendlines look unfavorable — in other words, if right now is as good as it gets — then why not act?

There are three basic ways to win wars according to the great Carl. One, you can trounce the enemy’s armed forces and dictate whatever terms you please. Short of that, two, you can levy a heavier price from the enemy than he’s willing to pay to achieve his goals. The value a belligerent assigns his political objectives determines how many resources he’s prepared to expend on those objectives’ behalf, and for how long. Taking measures that compel an opponent to expend more lives, armaments, or treasure is one way to raise the price. Dragging out the affair so that he pays heavy costs over time is another. And three, you can dishearten him, persuading him he’s unlikely to fulfill his war aims.


Pete’s National Service

Remember a couple of months ago and the Texan Beto was the Dem candidate of hopey change?  The candidate that the MSM was trying to force feed to the American public.

Well he has slid in the polls replaced by a Mayor of South Bend…..

There has been an uproar on the Left by something Mayor Pete Buttigieg proposed…..a National Service.

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg on Monday night advocated a form of national public service for all young adults as a way to create unity among Americans.

“We really want to talk about the threat to social cohesion that helps characterize this presidency but also just this era,” the mayor of South Bend, Ind., told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “One thing we could do that would change that would be to make it, if not legally obligatory, but certainly a social norm that anybody after they’re 18 spends a year in national service.”

Buttigieg mentioned that for him and several former presidents, including John F. Kennedy and George H. W. Bush, serving in the military allowed them to meet and build trust with people of starkly different backgrounds, education and income. Buttigieg served in the Navy from 2009 to 2017, including a deployment to Afghanistan. Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) are the only current Democratic presidential candidates who are veterans.  (Since writing this draft another vet entered the race Rep. Seth Moulton of Mass.)

Buttigieg was vague about what would constitute national service, but both he and Maddow acknowledged it would most likely not be a military draft. Without saying the program would be mandatory, Buttigieg did suggest colleges and employers ask applicants about participation in it.

My take as a Leftist is it is a good idea. There is NO shared experience by the people of this country. We allow 1% to do the heavy haul for all of us.

I consider myself an antiwar person……I am also a realist….if we are going to ever end our endless wars then we need a more shared experience in experiencing the horrors of armed conflict.

I have been wrestling with this decision on my part……I agree with Mayor Pete that this country needs to find a way for all its citizens to contribute to the country and all its people… it is now all we do is snipe at each other on social media……that is n way to strengthen our commitment to the health of the nation.

Mayor Pete stopped short of re-instituting the draft….sadly there is NO greater way to share a sense of community than by fighting endless wars by all the people.

Did not another Dem candidate suggest a “national service”?

Eleven years ago I wrote that I was not down with national service……but after 18 years of people insulting fellow Americans and endless wars…I have changed my mind….I am still antiwar but end these wars I must embrace some policies that I think suck…..then so shall it be……

In case the country has forgotten…….I shall remind you…..

For now Mayor Pete is the hope of the DNC…….but they sit and wait for Biden to make up his aging mind.

For me….he is the perfect centrist……the perfect candidate for corporate America…….he is the perfect candidate this country does not need.

BTW…the MSM is down with Mayor Pete….they will help all they can in his campaign……

Personally, I do not want the MSM deciding my candidate for me… about you?

Ending Afghanistan

Our longest war has been raging for nearly 18 years and our troops have had multiple deployments with multiple chances to being killed or maimed…….it is time for this insanity to end……

I read where SecState Pompeo is trying to end this war…….

Speaking at Texas A&M University, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that US negotiations with the Taliban are trying to end the longest war in US history, and that a goal is trying to “broker peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government.”

Negotiations have been ongoing for months, and have established a growing understanding with the Taliban. The US and Taliban have the framework of a deal, where the US withdraws from Afghanistan and the Taliban keeps the ISIS and al-Qaeda out.

Pompeo’s talk of brokering peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government is unusual, as the US has largely kept this on the back-burner, and the Taliban has shown no interest in talking with the Ghani government.

There have been some talks involving an Afghan committee this week. The Ghani government has been reluctant to endorse the US negotiations so far, complaining that the US isn’t directly including them in decision-making.


If anyone in DC wanted this war to end…then it would! It is that damn simple.

Or maybe some sort of international solution….I mean after all we have international partners in Afghanistan……

We cannot fight our way to peace and stability in Afghanistan. If we have learned anything after 40 years of continuous war there, it is that a myopic focus on military solutions will not lead to peace. The path to stability does not depend on the number of U.S. troops in the field or the number of Taliban leaders killed.

Sustainable peace in Afghanistan requires an economy that can satisfy the needs of its people. While Afghanistan is rich in natural resources, it cannot harvest them to the fullest without the stability and good governance required for business to grow and thrive.  

Or  better idea is that the US get out of everywhere…..bring the troops home for a well deserved rest…..

Many commentators argue that the U.S. political system has become increasingly polarized, pointing to the prolonged shutdown of the federal government as evidence. However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans in Washington is one of style, not substance, as revealed by the history of bipartisan support for U.S. intervention and occupation abroad. Republican administrations may be more frequently associated with U.S. invasions, but establishment Democrats have long backed the policies of U.S. imperialism. 

This is, in part, because U.S. interventionist foreign policy is driven by capitalist ideals, shared across the aisle by those in power in Washington. In order to sustain a profitable capitalist economy, there must be a continuous expansion of markets and increase in consumption. This capitalist imperative has been influential in shaping a U.S. foreign policy of invasion, destruction and resource extraction during open-ended wars. In 1971, the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano famously described this extractive relationship as “the open veins of Latin America.” The rhetoric of defending democracy, which was used to justify the invasion of Syria as well as the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, has always been a cover story for neo-colonialism.

We must end our useless wars……but how to do so?

After decades of catastrophe, the same basic strategy endures. Donald Trump’s presidency makes plain that global supremacy has become an end in itself, unmoored from the interests of the American people and most of humanity. “Our military dominance must be unquestioned,” Trump has declared, “and I mean unquestioned.” Trump has stripped supremacy of ethical pretense and strategic justification. He values it for its own sake, as a gesture of brute domination.

What have liberals to say about this? Scandalously little. For decades, they have failed to stop war and violence for the same reason they have failed to reverse soaring inequality. At best, they have offered solutions inadequate to the scale of the problem. At worst, they have denied there was a problem, casting endless war as “global leadership.” Few Democrats will admit, for example, that not one power in the Middle East poses an existential threat to the United States, not one merits devoting precious lives and scarce resources to such misadventures as Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen.

All in all….make peace as profitable as war and we will see an end to these conflicts…..yes, Irene, it is that f*cking simple!