How many of these dumb ass wars have we engaged in and lost now?

I mean the real objective, not th "spreading democracy and freedom" fairytale.

For a failed example, Obama's 2013 press for war against Syria. he was trying to sell it as a humanitarian endeavor, to "liberate the Syrian people from a murderous dictator."

What it really was? An effort to knock a staunch Russian and Iranian ally into permanent chaos, get put while the getting is good, and declare the FSA the "rightful" rulers of Syria. odds are there would be a deal in place that the FSA would formally cede Golan to Israel, And Obama could feather his cap with having "brought peace between Syria and Israel" - all while Syria is actually becoming even more of a Daesh stronghold than it is now. This would enable us to sell all our nice fun weapons to the FSA, and military contractors would benefit.

And hte people of Syria would be just as fucked either way.

And I am mostly not persuaded by the argument because "they" don't really have their shit together to that extent, as Kerry's effort, and then the shooting down of it, shows, the US government is not of one mind and cannot rely on its minions to do as they are told. There is a lot of disagreement and monkey politics in it, a lot of "its my idea and I'm going to defend it no matter what."

But I think there is a geopolitical calculation like you describe that applies too, for some of them, we just had some threads on that. But how much of that is thinking up reasons for what they already want to do?

And the greed argument, as applied to the MIC and its marketing efforts, works fine too.

So its a mix.

But the main point I was making is that as foreign policy for this nation it has been disastrous, however well it may have worked out for some, for a while.

And the people of whatever nation we claim to be saving are just as fucked either way.

in other countries.

Why it is hard to say, but it seems like it may be around economic control.

It definitely does not have to do with "Democracy", since what was brought about in Ukraine was the opposite (Majority voted collation was replaced with Minority parties, then minority collation stays in power by destroying and persecuting the other parties).

This is Chinese commentary on the Iraq war:

How many failures and blowbacks does it take to recognize failed policy?

Washington (Brzezinski doctrine) fears the rise of China and control of the Eurasia landmass. I think that Russia between China and Europe and as close as it is to China 'must' be neutralized, according to this way of thinking. This strategy is based on Mackinder's 'heartland' theory: who rules the heartland rules the world....If China were to succeed in uniting this Eurasian land mass, it would invalidate the paradigm governing since the fall of the British Empire the US empire - a la Sea Power of the State (Alfred Thayer Mahan) which has sort of been the operation since mid 20th century.

Here is the article (lengthy) about Mackinder's theory but it covers Brzezinski, China, and Russia. In my view it is a good reference

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016124284

But the problem that I see in accepting the demonization of Russia and associating it in this grand alliance with China is that Russia historically -going back centuries- has always been torn between the West and China...But the attraction to the West has always seemingly been pre-eminent due to its lust for Western technology...When there have been political frictions with the West - as is the case today- Russia turns east....So diplomatically the US is pushing Russia toward China...

Russia is no longer the push-over it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union -

But the West pushing Russia to China is at its own peril - NATO members and the EU are far from united about the sanctions....Greece has got economic problems with the EU and the European Bank and Spain and Italy are not far behind....Russian President Putin has very good relations with former Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and other European leaders.

The Baltic States, Poland have mixed relations with Russia historically and are the most Russophobic....Ukraine has multiple ethnic groups - some pro Russian, others neo-Nazi and everything in between...Until this time (2014) the people were satisfied with their mixed nationalities...although there were major problems with corruption and economic problems....Still, Maidan overthrew the democratically elected government and the new government does not accept the Russian sector in the east (tried to ban the Russian language, etc.). What is happening now in Ukraine is a civil war.

Within the US, there are the ideological anti-Russian issues. Polish and Jewish-Russian emigres that populate the State Department are accused of being part of the necon cabal which ethnically harbor animosities to Russia.

Many ways to explain this -

With 18 Trillion dollars in debt and no attempt to pay it in site, to lose the monopoly on the world's primary currency might be a real problem.

Trouble is: The current events seem to actually be driving alternative institutions together more quickly than they would have formed previously.

what Putin's next move is.

They don't want to play kissy-face in public only to have the 'separatists' open up a massive new front with shiny new weapons.

At the same time, they don't want to provoke a bigger mess.

So, we get shuffling and fidgeting.

If Putin wants a bigger mess, he will make one. He is not quite as capable as we in that, but still plenty capable.

We are not in a position to compel him, or China, although we have plenty of leverage if we choose to use it. And vice-versa. We need Kerry, not Nuland, not Powers.