A long-running question returns to the public square: why a nation whose citizens say a Middle East war is not worth its price keeps finding its way back into such conflicts. Al Jazeera's Josh Rushing brings the matter to two guests, a retired general who has worked where diplomacy meets the military and a journalist who has spent years tracing the American wars of this era. The explanations on the table run from oil and a vast defence industry to the lobbyists who move around it, and to a political order that seems seldom to call its leaders to account. Beneath all of it sits an older human t
Forever Wars: Why Can't America Stop Fighting, and Can Voters End It?
Most Americans say it isn't worth the cost, yet the war goes on.
Mark
What's the central tension in this episode?
Mimi
Most Americans say the current Middle East war isn't worth the cost, yet the country is fighting it anyway. Rushing asks why.
Mark
What explanations does he offer?
Mimi
Oil, a $2.4 trillion defence industry, lobbyists, and a political system that rarely holds anyone accountable.
Luke
Worth flagging: those are presented as questions, not findings. The program asks whether each one is the cause. It doesn't establish that any of them is.
Mark
Who are the guests?
Mimi
Mark Kimmitt, a retired Army brigadier general and former assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, and Spencer Ackerman, who writes the Forever Wars newsletter.
Mark
Do we know what they actually argued?
Luke
No. All we have is the description. We know the topic and the guests, not their positions, so anything beyond that would be guessing.
Mimi
What we can say is that one comes from inside the military and diplomatic world and the other from reporting on it.
Luke
And the claim that most Americans oppose the war is the program's framing. No poll or figure is cited in what we have.
Mark
So the real question is about voters?
Mimi
Yes, whether elections can actually constrain decisions about war.
Il Polso
- Most Americans reportedly say the ongoing Middle East war is not worth its cost, yet the fighting continues.
- Four suspected engines are named: oil interests, a $2.4 trillion defence industry, lobbying networks, and a system seen as rarely holding leaders accountable.
- A retired brigadier general and a longtime war journalist are set against each other to test whether these explanations hold.
- The closing question is stark: can voters actually end the forever wars, or has the power to stop them slipped beyond the ballot box?
A long-running question returns to the public square: why a nation whose citizens say a Middle East war is not worth its price keeps finding its way back into such conflicts. Al Jazeera's Josh Rushing brings the matter to two guests, a retired general who has worked where diplomacy meets the military and a journalist who has spent years tracing the American wars of this era. The explanations on the table run from oil and a vast defence industry to the lobbyists who move around it, and to a political order that seems seldom to call its leaders to account. Beneath all of it sits an older human tension, between what a people wants and what its institutions are able to do.
Al Jazeera's Josh Rushing opens this episode of Let's Focus with a plain premise: the United States is once again at war in the Middle East, and most Americans say it is not worth the cost. The program points to Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan as the theaters framing the question, and asks why a country so skeptical of these wars keeps returning to them.
Four explanations are put forward. The first is oil. The second is a defence industry valued at $2.4 trillion. The third is the lobbying network that works around that industry and the government that buys from it. The fourth is structural: a political system that, in the program's view, rarely holds anyone responsible for deciding to fight or for how the fighting ends.
Two guests take up the argument. Mark Kimmitt, a retired US Army brigadier general, once served as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, a post where diplomacy and military planning meet. Spencer Ackerman, a journalist and author of the Forever Wars newsletter, approaches from outside, as a reporter who has made the long cycle of American conflict his beat.
The available description does not lay out each guest's specific arguments, but it shows the shape of the debate: whether the wars persist because of money, strategy, or a democratic machinery that does not reach the decision to use force.
The closing question carries the practical weight. If a majority opposes the current war, can voters actually end it? The segment treats this as a test of how far electoral power reaches into military policy. What to watch is whether the gap between public opinion and government action shows up in how elected officials respond, especially over who holds the authority to start and stop wars.
Al Jazeera's Josh Rushing opens this episode of Let's Focus with a premise stated plainly: the United States is once again at war in the Middle East, and most Americans say it isn't worth the cost. The program names the theaters that frame the question, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, and asks why a country whose public is so skeptical keeps finding its way back into conflict.
Rushing puts four possible explanations on the table. The first is oil. The second is a defence industry the program values at $2.4 trillion. The third is the lobbyists who work around that industry and the government that buys from it. The fourth is structural: a political system that, in the program's framing, rarely holds anyone to account for decisions to fight or for how those wars turn out.
Two guests are brought in to argue it out. Mark Kimmitt is a retired US Army brigadier general who also served as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, a post that sits where diplomacy and military planning meet. He brings the perspective of someone who has worked inside both the uniformed services and the State Department.
Spencer Ackerman is a journalist and author who writes the Forever Wars newsletter, and his name for that newsletter is, in effect, the subject of the segment. He approaches the question from the outside, as a reporter who has made the long cycle of American conflict his beat.
The material available for this episode is a description rather than a transcript, so the specific arguments each guest makes are not laid out here. What the framing does establish is the shape of the debate: whether the wars persist because of money and incentives, because of strategic calculation, or because the machinery of democratic accountability does not reach the decision to use force.
The closing question is the one with practical stakes. If a majority of Americans oppose the current war, can voters actually end it? The segment treats this as a test of the limits of electoral power over military policy, since public opinion and policy have, by the program's account, pulled in different directions.
What to watch is whether that gap between opinion and action shows up in how elected officials respond, particularly on the question of who holds the authority to start and stop wars.
Citazioni salienti
Most Americans say the war isn't worth the cost.— Al Jazeera's framing of the episode
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Al Jazeera ↗
War & Conflict