What are We Fighting For?

The freak-out continues among the Western power elite. In the last six months, two main pillars of the neoliberal neoconservative "New World Order" have begun to buckle.

First, the Global War on Terror (GWOT) that has been front and center in the United States since at least the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the first failed attempt of Al Qaeda's 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, took a hit last September when citizens refused to grant Obama the authority to attack Syria. Though many might have been unclear as to the politics at play in the Levant and were merely objecting to another costly, open-ended war in the Middle East, many did in fact know what was going on. Uncle Sam was prepared to act as Al Qaeda's air force; our Nobel Peace Prize winning president, acting in concert with the corrupt Gulf Sheikhs, was about to replace a secular government with a Wahhabi caliphate.

This was a big wake-up call. The organizing principle for the unwashed masses after the collapse of the Soviet Union -- Reagan's "Evil Empire" -- and the disappearance of global communism was Islamic fundamentalism. Suddenly last summer, after 20 years of indoctrination telling us that radical Sunni Islam is evil incarnate, we plebs were told, "No, no, it is okay. We can fight for these guys." Wow. How did the Beltway smart set think that was going to play?

Now, as of this month, the second pillar, the gradual eastward movement of NATO and the eurozone following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is crumbling; hence, the howls.

A story this morning by Michael Gordon, "NATO Weighs Assistance for Ukraine to Dissuade Further Moves by Moscow," built out of quotes from acting and former heads of NATO, as well as assorted NATO functionaries, makes clear that the power elite have not given up on pillar #2. Ukraine will be armed and aligned with the West:

The secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said on Wednesday that the alliance was considering providing assistance to Ukraine to help deter Russia from another military intervention there. 

Mr. Rasmussen, who was in Washington to consult on the crisis in Ukraine, did not meet with President Obama. But he conferred Tuesday evening with Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. 

In his speech at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Rasmussen described the Russian military intervention in Crimea as the “gravest threat” to European security since the end of the Cold War. He said the annexation of Crimea was especially serious for three reasons: the size of the military intervention, the fact that it affected a nation of 45 million, and Ukraine’s location on NATO’s doorstep. 

“This is a wake-up call, for the Euro-Atlantic community, for NATO and for all those committed to a Europe whole, free and at peace,” he said. “We had thought that such behavior had been confined to history, but it’s back, and it’s dangerous because it violates international norms of accepted behavior.” 

Mr. Rasmussen said the alliance was reviewing the full range of its cooperation with Moscow and had suspended its plans to escort Russian ships that are ferrying chemicals for making poison gas from Syria. The alliance has also canceled staff-level meetings between NATO and Russian officials, though it has kept the door open to political talks. 

NATO members have also taken a series of relatively modest military steps to reassure its East European members. The United States has sent six F-15 fighters to Lithuania to bolster NATO’s air policing mission in the Baltic states and has sent 12 F-16s to Poland, which borders Ukraine.

Two NATO surveillance planes are patrolling Polish and Romanian airspace. Britain also recently announced that it planned to send several Typhoon aircraft to join the Baltic mission. 

Mr. Rasmussen said that he expected additional steps, but he did not say what they might be.

But the elites should pay heed. They do not rule by divine right. They still have to win elections. And the voters have no interest in war. Within the United States, the animated wings of both of the moribund, corporate-controlled political parties are anti-war. Non-aligned independents are anti-war. There is no popular basis for war. There is no organizing principle for conflict: the Russian Bear is now a capitalist like Uncle Sam, and Al Qaeda is now an ally of Samantha Power descrying the savagery of Bashar al-Assad.

Who could, in his or her right mind, fight for any of this? It is all nonsense.