This

From The Rogue Columnist:

Is perpetual war inevitable?

In an otherwise interesting essay entitled, "The Price of Perpetual War," we find this perplexing paragraph:

The United States did not choose this era of perpetual war. It is the price of living in a world where, for the first time, terrorist groups and malevolent individuals can reach the United States and wreak havoc from virtually any corner of the world. That threat was literally brought home by al Qaeda on 9/11 and reinforced all too recently by the terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino.

Does anyone believe this is so? Alas, millions of Americans. But to make a quick list…

…We chose to give a blank check to Saudi Arabia to run one of the world's most repressive regimes while spreading extremist war-on-the-infidels Islam throughout the Middle East and beyond. One doesn't have to subscribe to conspiracy theories to acknowledge that Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. And what has our kowtowing to the kingdom given us? The House of Saud's oil, to fuel our "non-negotiable" (and already heavily subsidized) car-based sprawl lifestyle. Most oil needs to stay in the ground if we are to avoid destroying the planet even more—and between "making different arrangements" and domestic oil, we don't need OPEC anymore…

…We chose an even closer connection to Israel, Riyadh's quiet ally, whether this was in America's national interest or not. And with the oppressive and increasingly extremist regime of Benjamin Netanyahu is it increasingly not. Indeed, increasing Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and injustices against the Palestinian people committed by Israel blow back on the United States, which has long ago lost its credibility as an honest broker in the Middle East. It has inflamed Islamic and Arabic anger against us. And for what? To please the powerful donors of AIPAC and older Jewish voters in the swing state of Florida?…

…We chose to invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorism nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction. In toppling a distasteful but secular strongman, we unleashed the furies of sectarian strife going back to the death of Muhammad in 632. Our stupendously bungled occupation (Don "Stuff Happens" Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer) made it much worse; ISIS can be traced to these critical early blunders. The conflagration has spread throughout the region. And for what? To validate the Project for a New American Century, secret Cheney oil deals, and show how "The Vulcans" made their own reality? Real reality had other plans and millions blame America for the blood of the Iraqi people and a "war on Islam." This was done in our name. We did this…

…We chose to antagonize Russia, first by expanding NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries — despite strong evidence this violated a 1990 promise made to Moscow. We continued to do so by supporting the EU's reckless attempt to embrace Ukraine, which had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries, then enacting sanctions against Moscow for annexing Crimea, which had never been historically part of Ukraine. We choose to ignore Russian exceptionalism. To wealthy Republican John Sidney McCain III, the land of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky, whose people conquered a continent and crossed to take Alaska, is "a gas station masquerading as a country." And for what? To keep the Military Industrial Complex well funded? Our actions have stoked Russian nationalism and taken the heat off [the real-estate developer's] bromance object, Vladimir Putin…

…We choose to maintain an alliance system left over from the Cold War without even a peep of reflection. Uncle Sucker is left holding the bag. Why is the Middle East our problem rather than that of our NATO allies, who won't even spend the minimum on their own defense? Why does British Prime Minister David Cameron get to eviscerate the Royal Navy yet profit from global commerce protected by the U.S. Navy? And he is only one free-rider. Why is North Korea our problem and not that of Beijing? Perhaps it's better to have Japan under the American nuclear umbrella than having Tokyo develop its own nukes. But is George Kennan's containment theory, specific to the Soviet Union, really applicable to China? Who benefits? The arms makers — America is the world's largest exporter of military hardware. But who named us world police?

No, perpetual war in not inevitable. And the choice is not between the status quo and Charles Lindbergh-style isolationism.

The opportunity costs of our choices are enormous and mounting. Not least among our choices has been the GOP religion of tax cuts. Now our National Parks face a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion. They must compete in an "American Idol-style" contest for a pittance of private grants. While every advanced, urbanized nation on the planet has high-speed rail (good for the climate too, vs. passenger jets), Amtrak struggles with a minimal network and most speeds lower than a century ago. The GOP response is to attempt to kill its inadequate $1.4 billion subsidy. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, producing an unreliable jet, has cost $1.5 trillion. (Our subsidies of sprawl and single-occupancy automobiles would amount to many trillions).

But to hell with addressing climate change, building 21st century infrastructure, protecting the people's priceless natural inheritance, or even funding real defense needs and attending to legitimate national interests. The GOP can't keep cutting taxes and fretting over debt and deficits — and also continue massive military spending. The fretting over red ink will stop the minute a Republican becomes president. And as for the rest? Stuff happens.

Think about that when you make a choice in November, not just for the White House but every race from city council on up.