Analogy of the Drug Pusher and the Addict

Think of the neocons and their army of followers as being a drug pusher that regrets losing his main client. Think of war, blood and destruction as being an addictive drug that can become irresistible to an occasional user, let alone a habitual one. And think of the American decision makers as being the ex-addict that kicked the habit but remains fragile, liable to fall back into it – something that can be done with a little persuasion from the old pusher.

What do you think the pusher will do to tempt his old client getting back into the habit, which the pusher says, used to derive so much pleasure from it? Well, let's see what the master pusher is doing now. His name is John Bolton, and he displays his persuasive prowess in an article titled: “U.S. still has time to stake out a position of strength on Ukraine,” published on August 19, 2014 in Los Angeles Times.

Bolton's aim is not to make a hard sell right away but to whet the addictive appetite of the client. The hard sell will come later under different circumstances, perhaps even at the hands of a less formidable pusher. For now, Bolton is satisfied with rattling Obama's cage by mentioning the volatility in the European markets to which he adds: “While Western markets remain attentive, President Obama seems detached not only from Ukraine, but from the chaos across the Middle East.”

Now that he got the attention of the Commander in Chief, he tells him: “The stakes remain high for the United States, Russia and Europe … Putin's position will improve if the West loses its focus, its willpower or both … what's now happening.” But what does Putin want? Bolton tells what that is: “Putin wants Kiev's government to be compliant with Russian interests and demands … he prefers a neutered but whole Ukraine on Russia's western border.” And this must be considered a bad thing, should it not? What do you think?

In any case, everybody wants something. The fact that Putin wants that thing does not mean he'll get it. Right? Wrong, says Bolton because “he [Putin] sees American weakness and retreat.” So then, what can be done to stop Putin? Bolton has a ready answer for that, and he is eager to blurt it: “Washington should supply Kiev with weapons and other assistance [because] a weak America does not lead to a more peaceful world, but to exactly the opposite.” What better way is there to push weapons on someone than to say they contribute to peace?

The master pusher seems to have succeeded in this endeavor because the addict has agreed to take a whiff of what he is selling. And that event is documented in the piece written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “A Small Victory in Iraq” which they published on August 19, 2014. But as the subtitle of the piece indicates, they want more. Here is how they put it: “Air strikes are helping the Kurds, but more U.S. forces will be needed.” That's US forces which translates into boots on the ground.

In fact, the editors make that very clear at the end of their piece after building up to it. To do that, they start the editorial by celebrating what they describe as President Obama's celebratory mood when he “emerged from vacation to hail Kurdish forces for retaking the Mosul Dam from jihadist radicals.” But that's not all they do at the start because they plan to end their piece with this: “get on with it, Mr. President.” They could urge him this forcefully at the end because they reminded him at the start: “the Islamic State radicals could have been stopped earlier if Obama hadn't taken so long to re-intervene in Iraq.” First, they chide him for being late, and then urge him to hurry up. Very ingenious, indeed.

So how do they build up to that finale? Here is how: “The U.S. air force strikes are giving confidence to the Kurdish forces, who don't lack for courage but have been outgunned.” But America is doing more than that, In fact: “CIA operatives and U.S. special forces are also in Iraq lending support.” And the editors remind the world that “special forces are combat troops by any definition.” They go on to say this means they are at war, and the enemy considers itself at war with America. The war is on, there is no denying it. Time to celebrate.

Now comes the final push to call for expansion. Without telling who their military sources are, they claim: “our military sources say the U.S. will need to send 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops … so get on with it, Mr. President.” To put that in perspective, mission creep in Vietnam started with a lot less involvement than that.

Finally, what this analogy demonstrates is that the pusher of anything addictive starts by sweet talking the potential victim till the latter gets a foot in the door. When this happens, the pusher says: “You're in it now; it makes no sense to retreat and not go all the way.” If kids can fall for that, so will America's politicians.