It's right to end 'perpetual war'

After 17 years of murder, mayhem, $6 trillion and utter failure in the Middle East, one would surmise a groundswell of relief and support for the president's decision to withdraw all troops from Syria and half the 14,000 in Afghanistan.

Yet, throughout Congress, the military and mainstream media there has been an avalanche of hysterical opposition from the entire left-right political spectrum. The most impassioned supporters of perpetual war on the right like Sen. Lindsay Graham have been joined by otherwise progressive Democrats like Sen. Chris Coons to argue for continued, that means endless, occupation. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC all trotted out their military and political commentators to trash the move as rash, un-vetted by our allies and the U.S. establishment alike.

Anti-war critics, as usual, were largely ignored. What we're witnessing is the full frontal nudity of the U.S. war party desperately trying to hang on to perpetual war which has made them rich and powerful. The president violated their cardinal rule to never withdraw from a perpetual war zone.

His predecessor ended ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but left a contingent force of "advisers" giving the lie to ending U.S. military footprints there. Perpetual war is good for war-party business. Consider U.S. bomb makers who have supplied nearly 300,000 bombs dropped on the Middle East and Africa since 2001, helping kill about a hundred times more people than bad guys largely from and supported by our best weapons customer Saudi Arabia did on 911.

Getting out of one and possibly two of the many countries we defile with our bombs and our troops is the most important goal of the current initiative. Exposing the extent and ferocity of the war party which thrives on secrecy is a worthy side benefit.

Walt Zlotow

Glen Ellyn