dlowan wrote:Edgar - you think it is more than a human - or nation-state's - desire to have an enemy? The US had a sort of "enemy-vacuum" at the end of the cold war - but do not the Arab nations seem to desire an enemy, too?
Most of human history seems to have involved some sort of struggle - or definition of self - against some sort of enemy - (or "other" for less war-like nations.)
There are some theories that the sort of tribal - and, without terrible weapons, rather ritualized or limitedly dangerous - skirmishes that tend to mark very hunter-gatherer/early agricultural societies - (and those of primates, too - although Goodall's work seems to suggest that these, at least among chimps, can turn genocidal - not to mention those of other animals) - perform a function not only of protecting territory, but of creating excitement and stimulation as well as a sense of group closeness and cohesion.
I think your limiting of your question to the USA is ignoring a dynamic that seems more human - or even more universal than that - than you have been prepared to consider.
dlowan:
I was actually thinking much the same as you! After the cold war, we didn't have anyone the administration could whip up the populace against. George Bush the First created Saddam AND Osama Bin Laden. Yea, Yea, Saddam was a jerk before GB I came into power, but Reagan and Bush gave him strength, weapons, and meaning. They trained and made an Islamic hero out Osama. Ready enemies, made to order!! (and by the U.S.)
This however, as you point out, is true all over the world. Worldwide, there is always one group, or one counry making war on another.
It always seems the rich and powerful (ruling class) always use the uneducated and the ignorant to fight wars in orderto get richer through conquest.
I thought we were getting better, and we were moving beyond all that! Apparently I was wrong!
Anon