Barbarism with impunity well describes America's evidently ill-considered international policies where world-class thoughtlessness produces characteristically undesirable results while bolstering-up Wall Street. No real evidence is found substantiating humanitarian benefit to anyone or anything.
War is an instrument of national policy and wars are initiated to create conditions favorable to national policy interests. The belief that wars are initiated to defeat enemies is a popular misconception perpetuated by warmongering politicians who use the notion advantageously in rallying patriotic support for the next alluring standoff. Propping up Wall Street favors national policy interests.
In any case thinking world opinion seems in generally righteous agreement that most of this millennium's American military actions appear to be illegal and lacking reasonable basis as well as lacking foundation in any fundamental sense of history.
Afghanistan for example was invaded using rationale chosen by Hitler when invading Poland. Back then the Fuhrer claimed Polish saboteurs so seriously threatened the homeland that invasion was actually a defensive maneuver. In recent times the US has claimed the Afghanistan countryside to be so riddled with terrorist training camps that the US invasion of that country was a defensive maneuver—Nazi rationale repeated.
And just look at us now. With all the brainpower, resources, and riches available to the leader of the free world the best we seem to do is elbow our way toward isolation and reprisals by avidly committing unforgivable atrocities which alienate most earthlings as we vainly try to thwart that inevitable redistribution of global wealth.
Afghanistan is now the preferred launching pad for armed UAVs arguably violating the territorial airspace of neighboring countries with belligerence and blatant disregard for international law. The US has officially professed the right to enter or invade globally anywhere anytime in any fashion to neutralize suspected threats.
We claim to no longer need declarations of war to justify sending armed drones into any area of any foreign country. All we need is official suspicion of undesirable persons in residence—a de facto license to kill anyone in any country at any time. And we can get plenty of suspicion from our human intelligence—you know the kind that illegally incarcerated torture victims might provide from undisclosed worldwide locations when held by the leader of the free world without due process or habeas corpus.
If occasional mistakes in identity or location are made using drones, they are excused or explained away by polished spokesmen using logic immortalized by college football coaches: "We did our best but nobody's perfect, this mistake won't be repeated" and "mistakes were made but overall we performed well" and so forth. Of course the spokesmen do not identify who fingered whom or why—for national security reasons you know. Nevertheless Uncle Sam sometimes gives a few consoling coins to the families involved—as was done at Ruby Ridge—following significant adverse publicity.
So new-millennium-America's anti-terrorism rhetoric appears to be a ludicrous sham—hypocritical at best. Thinking world opinion believes the US practices unbridled terrorism and remains the greatest planetary threat to world peace while Americans avoid thought at any cost. George Carlin used to say that he was not a very good American because he liked to think. Nock seems in agreement: "Circumstances have enabled our society to get along rather prosperously, though by no means creditably, without thought and without regard for thought, proceeding merely by a series of improvisations; hence it has always instinctively resented thought, as likely to interfere with what it was doing."