From yesterday's New Republic:
This is Stephen Wertheim's piece:
Here is the money quote:
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.
Well, OK. But first, before we argue that "not one power in the Middle East poses an existential threat to the United States," we should be able to argue, convincingly, that Saudi Arabia does not pose an existential threat to the United States. Can the US survive another OPEC embargo? Last I checked, America was universally still addicted to fossil fuels. And there's been an OPEC embargo before. So Trump pals with the Saudis, like all the Presidents.
Folks, war isn't just some "failed policy." War has a strong economic foundation. In short, the New Republic article would have benefited from a discussion of the economic foundation (i.e. global capital) that drives endless war.
Wertheim's article would also have benefited from something stronger than the conclusion it offers:
True, the United States should retain a potent military, and other instruments, to pursue the genuine interests of its people. And it matters what powers might take the place of a hegemonic America. But endless supremacy must itself end.
Every excuse justifying every war includes the argument that war is a good thing for "the genuine interests of (America's) people. Wertheim doesn't address this. And endless supremacy isn't going away unless the economic interests driving it are also excluded from running the world.
Now, I'm guessing that there are a lot of people here who could be better New Republic writers than Stephen Wertheim. Right?