The idea that the United States should get out of its old wars and not enter into new wars is a hot idea these days.
An ideologically diverse coalition has achieved important victories in the halls of Congress, the executive branch, and in the world of research institutions and at the grassroots level.
American researcher John Allen Jay, in a report published by The National Interest, says: “There is still a lot of work to do, except that the practitioners of restraining orders are playing a strong role from conspiracy theories”.
Jay – who co-authored the book “The War with Iran” – who co-authored the book “The War with Iran” – believes that in the world of conspirators, the failures of US foreign policy do not stem from deep miscalculations, ideological fervor, and the low friendliness of Washington’s foreign policy elites, but rather from a network from the invisible hands that put a cloud over the world’s eyes.
Jay says that the atrocities committed abroad are seen as false flags aimed at getting the American people in a bellicose mood.
Every victim falls because of her daring; it is not real until proven otherwise.
We have seen this in the repeated attempts to declare the innocence of the Syrian President, Bashar al Assad, of killing his people with gas, as we see it today through the strange efforts made to portray the mass detention camps in the Xinjiang region of western China as large vocational schools.
Jay adds, “In the world of conspirators, the indulgence with which Washington deals with the bloody dictators of its friends is reversed, and then multiplied, so that the bloody dictatorships among our enemies become leaders who are deeply misunderstood, and their worst crimes are really just a ruse on the part of these dark forces itself”.
While it is rightly criticized for the tendency of some national security journalists to act as shorthand writers for the National Security Apparatus, many of the conspirators will happily work in the stenography of the national security services of other countries, such as Venezuela, Syria and Russia, because they Favorite.
Jay, who also serves as executive director of the John Quincy Adams Association to educate and prepare a new generation of researchers and policy leaders to encourage a new era of realism and restraint in US foreign policy, asserts, “The worst of it is that the conspirators offer poor methods for those who want us to end wars that do not expires”.
The choice of war or peace cannot depend solely on technical questions about a specific event.
The conspirators are committing a mistake much like what former officials in the administration of former US President George W. Bush did, seeing that the responsibility for the Iraq war rests on the shoulders of misleading intelligence, not on their wrong decisions.
Strategists work in an extremely complex and difficult world, where good intentions do not automatically produce good results.
And “justice” is not the statesman’s only virtue. It might be a foreign government committing atrocities, and it would also be unwise for the United States to invade, bomb, or punish it.
Foreign states may acquire weapons of mass destruction without the wisdom of determining the appropriate time to attack another country.
The inadequacy of justice is evident in its simplest form in many of the cases we face today.
Washington has a handful of pressure levers it can use that will lead Beijing to end its destruction of the Uygur Muslim minority identity.
It is also possible that the use of some of these tools may cause a heavy price to be paid in other areas.
Likewise, getting rid of the Syrian President Bashar al Assad may only lead to a reorientation of brutality in Syria, as was the case with changing regimes in Libya and Iraq.
Such arguments are stronger than what the conspirators present, not because they are based on reality only, but because they also attack the primitive perspective of “face to face” confrontation. The confrontational US foreign policy has failed “which argument is stronger than failure?” Jay asks.
By recognizing that other countries are doing bad things, restrictive measures practitioners put themselves squarely before the realist tradition, which expects desperate situations to be cruel.
Realist tradition, as opposed to conspiracy, is rich in suitable resources for those who prefer a more conservative foreign policy.
Realist tradition sees other countries as cunning in the face of international pressure, resilient, and willing to form unlikely partnerships.
Therefore, realism tends to call into question campaigns aimed at pushing rebellious states out of the international system.