Most United States troops have withdrawn from Iraq. That was a military conflict—not a "war," as Congress only has followed the Constitution five times in our history to declare war: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Thousands were killed and maimed, but "war," as defined by the Constitution, it was not.

   We still have troops in Afghanistan. Why they are there is a fair question. One reason could be to continue to prop up a corrupt politician (Karzai) who is highly critical of the United States. The people of Afghanistan are exhausted from military conflict. They have also gone from generally liking us, when we first arrived and drove out the Taliban, to generally very much not liking us. Drones and "dirty war" with military personnel who act on orders based on "kill" lists derived from neighbors who have a feud against other neighbors, tend to engender ill will. Our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, begun by Bush II but continued by President Obama, have been counterproductive, if the goal was to advance American interests by taking out bad guys. We take out a lot of innocent people.

   When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, he famously warned of the "military-industrial complex." He was in a position to appreciate such a thing. A graduate of West Point, he went on to lead Allied forces in Europe and became on of our few five-star generals, before he went into politics and, for eight years, was our Commander-in-Chief.

   Few seem to have heeded those words he spoke.

   The United States became involved in Vietnam only for corporate profits. The regime in the South that the United States supported hardly reflected democratic values. It was run by a corrupt politician (Diem) who was highly critical of the United States. Shortly before JFK was assassinated, Diem was bumped off, with U.S. complicity. (Afghanistan’s leader Karzai should read history before he next disses the U.S.) We were not there to advance democracy and freedom. There were few natural resources the place had (of which we were aware).

   Military conflict, in and of itself, churns up profits for corporations. One example in Vietnam was Philco Ford. That division of the automaker manufactured air conditioners. Some 92 percent of U.S. personnel in Vietnam (a hot tropical climate) were in rear-echelon positions. We had a lot of personnel in offices. AC was in great demand. Philco Ford had a compound near Saigon. Philco Ford made a lot of money from the Vietnam military conflict. So, too, did the oil corporations (jets, ships, vehicles on the ground). Of course, there were the military contractors, such as General Dynamics, whose bread-and-butter is war (or military conflict) materiel.

   The Rand Corporation, in what later were called "The Pentagon Papers," assembled documents that indicated United States leaders knew from the get-go the United States could not win a military victory in Vietnam. Vietnam was a mistake. Many people died or were severely wounded.

   Today we have two military conflicts in their last stages. Congress throws money at the Pentagon that the Pentagon says it does not need. However, those who profit from military conflict want those dollars spent, at the same time we neglect schools and infrastructure.

   The "rebels" in Syria have coalesced into a sectarian group. They are militant in their belief in Islam. United States policy since 2003 has been a big cause. Of course, we could trace the cause back to 1990 and the first Gulf military conflict. We also could consider how, in the 1980s, we armed the Taliban and a guy named Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan so they could fight the Soviets.

   Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to intervene in the affairs of other countries? What provision made the United States the cops of the World? For the United States to enter the military conflict in Syria, as many want, would be foolhardy.

   Syria will be our focal topic for next Saturday’s Show. One guest panelist will be Jeff Cox.