The rhetoric on the situation in Syria this week tightened. The risk that Nato will to war again is increasing.
Therefore, it is relevant to look into the interest groups that stands to gain on such a war.
"Follow the money"-like.
Firstly, we have, as always, the military-industrial complex. These companies always like to have war, of course. New types of weapons - including drones - cant be sold before they have proven their worth in a real war. And you must never underestimate the importance of their money in (mainly) Washington.
Secondly, there are the banks to finance the war. No states currently have money to finance war, so states have to borrow. And in war, interest rates are always extra good, the work (the war) must of course be completed.
Thirdly, we have the group of politicians in power in Europe and the U.S., who has torn economies apart.
A brisk foreign policy matter of great importance removes unpleasant focus on domestic problems, which unfortunately has been the default behavior in the U.S. for decades. This behavior is now also gaining a major foothold in Europe.
Fourthly, we have the parties in Syria itself. Will NATO intervention result in fewer deaths? I think NO. Will NATO intervention result in fewer refugees? NOT likely. Will NATO intervention remove the dictator Assad? For sure. The rebels will come to power. These fragmented groups can be divided into very many subgroups, the two most relevant are:
The Western-backed democratic rebels (small groups which will soon be eliminated as we saw in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt)
The fundamentalist Sunni Muslims are the clear majority by rebels and will thus be able to topple the Assad regime. I garantee you that this regime-shift will not bring Syria any further in democracy and human rights matters.
The West has no interest in getting involved in this religious war between Shia and Sunni Muslims, but still politicians louder and louder shouts war.
Now you know why.
Therefore, it is relevant to look into the interest groups that stands to gain on such a war.
"Follow the money"-like.
Firstly, we have, as always, the military-industrial complex. These companies always like to have war, of course. New types of weapons - including drones - cant be sold before they have proven their worth in a real war. And you must never underestimate the importance of their money in (mainly) Washington.
Secondly, there are the banks to finance the war. No states currently have money to finance war, so states have to borrow. And in war, interest rates are always extra good, the work (the war) must of course be completed.
Thirdly, we have the group of politicians in power in Europe and the U.S., who has torn economies apart.
A brisk foreign policy matter of great importance removes unpleasant focus on domestic problems, which unfortunately has been the default behavior in the U.S. for decades. This behavior is now also gaining a major foothold in Europe.
Fourthly, we have the parties in Syria itself. Will NATO intervention result in fewer deaths? I think NO. Will NATO intervention result in fewer refugees? NOT likely. Will NATO intervention remove the dictator Assad? For sure. The rebels will come to power. These fragmented groups can be divided into very many subgroups, the two most relevant are:
The Western-backed democratic rebels (small groups which will soon be eliminated as we saw in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt)
The fundamentalist Sunni Muslims are the clear majority by rebels and will thus be able to topple the Assad regime. I garantee you that this regime-shift will not bring Syria any further in democracy and human rights matters.
The West has no interest in getting involved in this religious war between Shia and Sunni Muslims, but still politicians louder and louder shouts war.
Now you know why.
.jpg)