Our misguided wars of choice.

In this article in the Boston Globe of April 16, JEFFREY D SACHS speaks of the risks that the US and the world are running.  He speaks of the US ‘wanton addiction to war’.  John Menadue.

“There is one foreign policy goal that matters above all the others and that is to keep the United States out of a new war, whether in Syria, North Korea or elsewhere.  In recent days President Trump has struck Syria with Tomahawk missiles, bombed Afghanistan with the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal, and has sent an armada towards nuclear-armed North Korea. We could easily find ourselves in a rapidly escalating war, one that could pit the United States directly against nuclear-armed countries of China, North Korea and Russia. …

America has developed a level of wealth, productivity and technological knowhow utterly unimaginable in the past. Yet we put everything at risk through our wanton addiction to war.”

Jeffrey D Sachs is University Professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University.

See link to full article below.



John Laurence Menadue is the publisher of Pearls & Irritations. He has had a distinguished career both in the private sector and in the Public Service.

This entry was posted in Defence/Security, World Affairs and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

For questions regarding our comment system please click here.
(Please note that we are unable to post comments on your behalf.)

2 Responses to Our misguided wars of choice.

  1. Avatar Julian says:

    Thank you John for providing the link to the full article by Professor Sachs – which article I have now read. Overall it is not difficult to agree with the suggestions he makes towards the end of his article. At the same time I found it equally interesting to read the comments following the article, because what emerged here was that the initial premise of Professor Sachs – to keep the US out of a new war – was increasingly challenged by those who thought that the protection of the US and its people was paramount, as was the protection of the country’s “legitimate interests”. It is of course a short step from there to protecting (or promoting) those interests with the use of force.

    @Jim Kable: Jim, while I like your suggestion concerning the offspring of bellicose politicians, it would be all to easy to evade: sudden and severe medical conditions, continuous overseas travel and so on. A better idea I think would be to garnishee the parliamentary pension of those persons voting for war or war-like activities. It might take some doing, but look at the potential benefits.

  2. Avatar Jim KABLE says:

    True! True! True! So what is it about politicians which make them so blind?

    Is it the way the politicians are compromised, suborned by the money they receive from the vested-interest WMD-makers/shareholders… (hence the impetus to keep us all at war). Is this what is wrong with what one previously believed was democracy – that it is no longer democracy – merely advisers and spin-doctors and polling and interest groups and gerrymandered electorates and closed-shop selection of those standing for parties? Contributions and “tables” at party political functions – and tickets to games – with the guaranteed chance to meet privately and away from public scrutiny with the Secretary/Minister? Am I on the right track? Could we insist that the sons and daughters of those making war – especially those offspring of politicians – be sent immediately to the front lines – could we even now fly all the children by various connections of Donald Trump – split them up on the ground (draw lots) – to Syria and Afghanistan and the ships now bearing down on NKorea.

Comments are closed.