This is the first time I've read something in the US press about India that goes any deeper than "Modi bad" or "Modi like Trump".
The man is the most popular leader on the planet and the leader of the world's largest democracy. Americans deserve more balanced reporting about India.
This is the first time I've read something in the US press about India that goes any deeper than "Modi bad" or "Modi like Trump".
The man is the most popular leader on the planet and the leader of the world's largest democracy. Americans deserve more balanced reporting about India.
Actually, (dare I say it) the New York Times podcast The Daily had an episode about it. It was before Trudeau made his public statement. The episode focused on who Nijjar was and the history behind the movement he supported, and acknowledged that the investigation was still going on.
India is rising. The people I have met there are thriving in their own country. Food is plentiful and cheap. Sure, there are shanty towns, but the people who live in them are not lawless. Only weird things for me: sacred cows roaming the expressways and no apparent fear of what we in the west would consider dangerous. People are friendly and industrious. Treaudeau is a radical leftist authoritarian. How much more will Canadians need to see of that to get rid of him and bring back a leader who selflessly works for Canada again?
And who would that be? Polievre? Trudeau isn’t an authoritarian leader, the position of Prime Minister is a very strong one, in majority government. It all depend on the NDP and Jagmeet to stop supporting him. Not me in my French Québec and my fellow Québécois who didn’t vote for him either.
The author is Canadian, has previously spent a decade in India and is considered an expert on India and the Asia Pacific region. You're getting a different take on India because you're reading from someone that actually understands the county and is not beholden to US media giants.
Biden has screwed up a lot of things, but I don’t think Indian democracy is one of them.
Did he claim to have inspired Gandhi at some point? It’s hard to keep track. I know he survived a kitchen fire. And lived in a synagogue, or was it a mosque?
Niall Ferguson wrote a book about the Indian colonial period that is absolutely contrary to the NYT party line. I enjoyed it but I don't remember the name. When I discussed NF's views with a colleague from India (who now lives in Canada), he agreed with those views, at least as I presented them.
Thanks for the Doniger tip. There is a lot from her and about her on Youtube. Including the analysis from Sham Sharma who sees in her work the confirmation bias of a Marxist, Freud, and Foucault. He rejects how she simplifies the analysis of India's culture into the binary struggle of the oppressor and oppressed. It appears a number of Hindu have a problem with her bringing Freudian analysis to sex in the Hindu culture.
Wendy Doniger is the last person you should read if you want to understand India and especially Hinduism. She has an obvious political bent and it seeps through all her work related to India, not to mention the condescension, and arrogance of the ivory tower. Hindus by and large dont like her books and the only ones who recommend her books seem to be western libs and their Indian lackeys.
I would suggest The Wonder That Was India by A L Basham.
Americans know nothing about Asia, if they do it is because they have been on a Coach trip where they don't have to communicate with the people and stay in luxurious Hotels. I have seen this in Sri Lanka. It's an "I was here moment." Just the same as in Europe.
I have to say that I have come across young Americans travelling on their own and most are living the life of each Country).
Hindhu Nationalism is similar to Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka.
Both are serious threats to the people who have contributed to the growth of both nations. Sikhs/Muslims/Tamils etc.
The American public know NOTHING (this includes you Presidents/congress/senate).
There are many types of each religion. Theravada Buddhism rules Sri Lanka. They are mostly looked after by the Govt. and poor who provide them with food and money.
IF Americans want to be educated go there on your own and talk to the people.
Now Sri Lanka is destroying the History Books so that the Tamils are annihilated.
I see that you’re trying to convey a lot of information in your posts but I don’t feel smarter after reading them. Nothing you said convinced me that “Modi is bad.” If India is not a democracy then please enlighten how that is the case. Does it have elections like Iran or Russia? From what I understand that is not the case. Less hysteria please.
Yes, factions of Hindus were violent in India to dominate votes. Most of that was directed at Muslims. We don't have an equivalent, because Muslims in India still have their most important shrine, which is built around the broken pillar of the most important Hindu shrine when the Mughal army invaded. There is religiously mandated violence on the Muslim side, for centuries, and terrible history.
Sikhs vote. But Sikhs are 1.86% of India's population. Their votes don't accomplish very much. Sikhs are roughly 8% of the Indian army.
Imagine if the USA army was 8% pureblood native Americans, and they served on the front lines. In the USA, 1.3% (a similar fraction) are that. Would they have a vote? Yes, technically they would. Today, native Americans have a vote. But they don't see much for it.
Would the government of the US want to keep them as part of the army if this was the situation in the USA? Not allow them a homeland of their own? Probably so. Would that make the US government's president a bad person?
To be entirely fair and balanced: Modi bad and Modi like Trump does sum up a lot of important information on this autocratic, fundamentalist jackass. Whether we need to be careful, require his cooperation, and whether everything he does is not wrong, are separate issues.
Reporting about India in the US is totally dominated by the likes of NYT, Washington Post and their like. They absolutely hate Modi's guts and so now, it is starting to get a to a point where any story about India has to include tirades about "Modi bad", "Hindu nationalism"and other fear mongering about India and especially Hindus. They are so deranged, that this kind of slanted coverage extends to even their cooking section when they publish Indian recipes.
Take this latest incident with this Sikh extremist who was murdered. Without a shred of evidence they are trying to pin it on Modi. Oh btw, these Sikh extremists are responsible to thousands of deaths in India, including the blowing up of Air India 182 in the 80s which killed 329 people.This was the single largest terrorist incident involving an airplane until 9/11. This is an existential issue for India. But NY, Wapo etc. are so blinded in their hatred for Modi that they have completely omitted these facts in their coverage. In their eyes Modi is already guilty and must pay a price. To hell with one the most important strategic partnerships that the US has.
EDIT: I am going to link a substack article here which details how the Canadian govt (at that time led by Trudeau's dad) was complicit in allowing the Air India 182 bombing to happen.
Also, a detailed Hudson Institute paper that lays out how these Sikh radical (Khalistani) and Jihadi groups are supported by Pakistan, even in the West, to further destabilize India.
To understand this, Sikhs have fought Muslims since the Mughal invasion in 1526. Sikhs were a pacifist group, until they were being slaughtered. A Guru said, "Fight" (Nanak, IIRC) and they did. That is the origin of always carrying a dagger to be ready. Sikhs have been the backbone of the Indian armed forces. They have done much of the dying as well. They can be trusted when fighting against Muslims on the frontier. Sikh's are 1.86% of India's population, but 8% of the Army. Sikh's are a key part of India's armed forces because they can be trusted to fight and fight effectively. Sikh's don't cut and run, and they don't secretly work for the enemy.
It's a little bit like the "deplorables" in America who are Christians doing most of the fighting and dying in America's wars, but much more complicated. The big difference is that in India, historical roots go back to the dawn of civilization on this planet. Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (as is Buddhism, and Jains, etc.) Sikhs are relatively new for that part of the world, dating back 600 years. This is roughly the age of Lutherans in Christianity. (Buddhism is older, being 2500 years old.)
Some Sikhs want a separate nation. They see that Muslims got their lands by fighting. They see that primarily Hindu India won't give them their own homeland. India, for good reason, does not want to lose its Sikh population. If America had a movement to create a Christian homeland in, say, the Northwest, it could perhaps look a bit like this. Terrorism (asymmetric warfare) is a kind of warfare.
To call those acts of terrorism an "existential issue" for India is a bit much. Our 9/11 attacks were provocative, but they were not an existential threat.
However, what probably IS an existential threat to India is the prospect of losing the Sikh members of their armed forces. This would require renovation of the army, and it would mean that Muslims would become the most powerful part of the army in India. That would make the army itself an existential threat to India.
It is not "a bit much" to say that SIkh separatism is an existential issue for India. India was not born in 1947. The civilization has already been divided by the Brits/Muslims when they created Pakistan.
Importance of Sikhs to India goes well beyond the Sikhs who join the Armed Forces. Sikhs are as much a part of Indian history, culture and society as another group, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain etc. Hindus and Sikhs intermarry, worship in each others' temples, celebrate each others festivals. All the Sikh gurus were Hindus by birth. Radical Sikhs don't like to hear it, but Sikhism is like 99% similar to Hinduism. It is an offshoot after all, just like Jain and Buddhist religion.
The main similarity is that both are mostly non- existent. iny minorities with little support within their religious communities, Like Irish-Americans, who funded the IRA, the diaspora in Canada & California lean more to Khalistan than Sikhs living in India.
Also, a former Indian government promoted Khalistan-supporters, in a cynical attempt at triangulation. (A bit like the US supported Bun Ladin.)
Indian security agencies realized they had helped create a criminal terrorist gang,
But Pakistan's ISI has adopted this baby, with funding, training & logistic support.
Great reply and I am more educated now as a result. I also want to hear Based Yuvi's view. I've been to India a few times and get the overall picture, it's the context and local subtleties that are really useful.
A lot can be said about Islamic terrorism in India. It is a centuries long saga. But the modern variant is mostly driven by Pakistani sponsored groups causing trouble. These attacks were mostly ignored by western media/governments in 90s and 00s because Pakistan was considered an ally during the Cold War and GWOT. No major Indian city which was did not get bombed or attacked during these years.
Sikh separatism is not something that became an issue until the late seventies -early eighties when the Congress Party (who are Modi's political opponents and (mis)ruled India for 70 years after its independence) decided to prop up some really unsavory characters for political gain in Punjab. These elements ultimately ended up challenging the writ of the state and committing crimes and extrajudicial killings. Pakistan, always on the lookout to create trouble in India, supported them to the hilt with money, logistics, training. Things came to a head in 1984, when the then PM Indira Gandhi ordered the Army, to attack the Golden Temple (Sikhism's holiest shrine) in Amritsar where the leadership had ensconced themselves. Hunderds were killed and the temple was FUBAR'd. What was a fringe radical movement became a full blown insurgency. The PM was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. In reprisal attacks, Congress party workers killed thousands of Sikhs in riots across north India. Ultimately, the insurgency was put down after a decade but the cost was paid in thousands of innocent lives.
Today, Sikh separatist sentiments exists mostly in the diaspora communities which became the refuge of radical Sikhs from who escaped those turbulent times. They have taken over the Gurudwaras (temples) and preach non-stop hatred against the Indian state and even Hindus directly. Pakistani support to these elements continues to this day.
The western governments have at best looked the other way or even supported these elements, for various reasons. Successive Indian governments have asked their Western counterparts to rein in these troublemakers as they collect funds, threaten Indian diplomats and citizens, run mafia gangs back home in Punjab etc. but to no avail.
All due respect to Bari and her team (who are doing good work), but I wish people could get their information from A free press, not THE Free Press. Democracy depends on it
The rest of the world can start pitching in on defense, both men and money. It does not always need to be US men and women fighting and US taxpayers footing the bill. Until then we will park our tanks wherever we want.
It's the sociopathic Neoliberal MIC warmongers, NOT the American people, but a large segment of the population is quite credulous to the outright false constant major media propaganda. To that degree, they are at fault.
This is the first time I've read something in the US press about India that goes any deeper than "Modi bad" or "Modi like Trump".
The man is the most popular leader on the planet and the leader of the world's largest democracy. Americans deserve more balanced reporting about India.
Actually, (dare I say it) the New York Times podcast The Daily had an episode about it. It was before Trudeau made his public statement. The episode focused on who Nijjar was and the history behind the movement he supported, and acknowledged that the investigation was still going on.
India is rising. The people I have met there are thriving in their own country. Food is plentiful and cheap. Sure, there are shanty towns, but the people who live in them are not lawless. Only weird things for me: sacred cows roaming the expressways and no apparent fear of what we in the west would consider dangerous. People are friendly and industrious. Treaudeau is a radical leftist authoritarian. How much more will Canadians need to see of that to get rid of him and bring back a leader who selflessly works for Canada again?
And who would that be? Polievre? Trudeau isn’t an authoritarian leader, the position of Prime Minister is a very strong one, in majority government. It all depend on the NDP and Jagmeet to stop supporting him. Not me in my French Québec and my fellow Québécois who didn’t vote for him either.
Is Modi bad?
Why is he so popular?
Not familiar with India's internal political dynamics.
42
666
666 is supposed to be the mark of the beast.
We deserve more balanced reporting about absolutely everything, including and especially Ukraine.
The author is Canadian, has previously spent a decade in India and is considered an expert on India and the Asia Pacific region. You're getting a different take on India because you're reading from someone that actually understands the county and is not beholden to US media giants.
She also writes for independent Canadian news site True North so she is not beholden to Canadian legacy media, or their paymasters, either.
India is NOT a Democracy which is why (many things) I loathe Biden.
Biden has screwed up a lot of things, but I don’t think Indian democracy is one of them.
Did he claim to have inspired Gandhi at some point? It’s hard to keep track. I know he survived a kitchen fire. And lived in a synagogue, or was it a mosque?
you have a serious problem , get help
If you know of a Youtube that would educate 'America the Dumb' on India please share.
Do you not read?
I know nothing on U-Tube.
Ok. Name an author on India who prioritizes objectivity over NYT/WP narrative.
Niall Ferguson wrote a book about the Indian colonial period that is absolutely contrary to the NYT party line. I enjoyed it but I don't remember the name. When I discussed NF's views with a colleague from India (who now lives in Canada), he agreed with those views, at least as I presented them.
I could name hundreds. I have had a huge collection of books on India they are at present, in a bookshop in Avignon, France.
I promise I will come back to you with names when I remember them all.....it is late here and I am 74yrs old.
I will try my hardest.
Vikram Seth.
Salman Rushdie...Midnights children.
Amitav Gosh.
RK Narayan. OLD books but interesting. Maybe not able to find them now.
Women coming up.
No rush. Thanks.
Thanks for the Doniger tip. There is a lot from her and about her on Youtube. Including the analysis from Sham Sharma who sees in her work the confirmation bias of a Marxist, Freud, and Foucault. He rejects how she simplifies the analysis of India's culture into the binary struggle of the oppressor and oppressed. It appears a number of Hindu have a problem with her bringing Freudian analysis to sex in the Hindu culture.
Wendy Doniger is the last person you should read if you want to understand India and especially Hinduism. She has an obvious political bent and it seeps through all her work related to India, not to mention the condescension, and arrogance of the ivory tower. Hindus by and large dont like her books and the only ones who recommend her books seem to be western libs and their Indian lackeys.
I would suggest The Wonder That Was India by A L Basham.
Thank you! When I saw she was an American academic the red flags went up.
India is NOT a Democracy!
Americans know nothing about Asia, if they do it is because they have been on a Coach trip where they don't have to communicate with the people and stay in luxurious Hotels. I have seen this in Sri Lanka. It's an "I was here moment." Just the same as in Europe.
I have to say that I have come across young Americans travelling on their own and most are living the life of each Country).
Hindhu Nationalism is similar to Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka.
Both are serious threats to the people who have contributed to the growth of both nations. Sikhs/Muslims/Tamils etc.
The American public know NOTHING (this includes you Presidents/congress/senate).
There are many types of each religion. Theravada Buddhism rules Sri Lanka. They are mostly looked after by the Govt. and poor who provide them with food and money.
IF Americans want to be educated go there on your own and talk to the people.
Now Sri Lanka is destroying the History Books so that the Tamils are annihilated.
Hello America the dumb.
I absolutely did the trip to Asia you describe. I disagree on Europe - easier for a whitey like me fit in too real life there.
Yes, agreed. Not enlightening. All heat, no light. You lost me at The American public knows NOTHING... blah, blah, blah
I see that you’re trying to convey a lot of information in your posts but I don’t feel smarter after reading them. Nothing you said convinced me that “Modi is bad.” If India is not a democracy then please enlighten how that is the case. Does it have elections like Iran or Russia? From what I understand that is not the case. Less hysteria please.
I am angry. I hate it when Americans 'pounce' on something in the mainstream press which they know nothing about.
DO you really think that Sikhs have a vote?
Do you think the Tamils have a vote in Sri Lanka?
The Hindhu Party before Modi was a cut-throat organization that killed thousands of people. Shopkeepers were co-erced .......into voting Hindhu.
It's a truly difficult subject because there are so many different religions in India and Sri Lanka.
I suggest if you are interested you look this up.
Yes, factions of Hindus were violent in India to dominate votes. Most of that was directed at Muslims. We don't have an equivalent, because Muslims in India still have their most important shrine, which is built around the broken pillar of the most important Hindu shrine when the Mughal army invaded. There is religiously mandated violence on the Muslim side, for centuries, and terrible history.
Sikhs vote. But Sikhs are 1.86% of India's population. Their votes don't accomplish very much. Sikhs are roughly 8% of the Indian army.
Imagine if the USA army was 8% pureblood native Americans, and they served on the front lines. In the USA, 1.3% (a similar fraction) are that. Would they have a vote? Yes, technically they would. Today, native Americans have a vote. But they don't see much for it.
Would the government of the US want to keep them as part of the army if this was the situation in the USA? Not allow them a homeland of their own? Probably so. Would that make the US government's president a bad person?
Jenny Stokes, I'm guessing you are angry a lot. Maybe take a look at that.
Thanks for not enlightening. I shall “look this up.” Is Modi also the president of Sri Lanka that you keep bringing it up?
To be entirely fair and balanced: Modi bad and Modi like Trump does sum up a lot of important information on this autocratic, fundamentalist jackass. Whether we need to be careful, require his cooperation, and whether everything he does is not wrong, are separate issues.
Modi IS bad!
Modi is not bad. Modi is operating as a Hindu leading his nation trying to keep it together and build things.
Reporting about India in the US is totally dominated by the likes of NYT, Washington Post and their like. They absolutely hate Modi's guts and so now, it is starting to get a to a point where any story about India has to include tirades about "Modi bad", "Hindu nationalism"and other fear mongering about India and especially Hindus. They are so deranged, that this kind of slanted coverage extends to even their cooking section when they publish Indian recipes.
Take this latest incident with this Sikh extremist who was murdered. Without a shred of evidence they are trying to pin it on Modi. Oh btw, these Sikh extremists are responsible to thousands of deaths in India, including the blowing up of Air India 182 in the 80s which killed 329 people.This was the single largest terrorist incident involving an airplane until 9/11. This is an existential issue for India. But NY, Wapo etc. are so blinded in their hatred for Modi that they have completely omitted these facts in their coverage. In their eyes Modi is already guilty and must pay a price. To hell with one the most important strategic partnerships that the US has.
EDIT: I am going to link a substack article here which details how the Canadian govt (at that time led by Trudeau's dad) was complicit in allowing the Air India 182 bombing to happen.
https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-allowed
Also, a detailed Hudson Institute paper that lays out how these Sikh radical (Khalistani) and Jihadi groups are supported by Pakistan, even in the West, to further destabilize India.
https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/pakistan-s-destabilization-playbook-khalistan-separatist-activism-within-the-us
And the Christian beat downs (and worse)?
To understand this, Sikhs have fought Muslims since the Mughal invasion in 1526. Sikhs were a pacifist group, until they were being slaughtered. A Guru said, "Fight" (Nanak, IIRC) and they did. That is the origin of always carrying a dagger to be ready. Sikhs have been the backbone of the Indian armed forces. They have done much of the dying as well. They can be trusted when fighting against Muslims on the frontier. Sikh's are 1.86% of India's population, but 8% of the Army. Sikh's are a key part of India's armed forces because they can be trusted to fight and fight effectively. Sikh's don't cut and run, and they don't secretly work for the enemy.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/no-politics-please-the-army-is-secular-apolitical-195007
It's a little bit like the "deplorables" in America who are Christians doing most of the fighting and dying in America's wars, but much more complicated. The big difference is that in India, historical roots go back to the dawn of civilization on this planet. Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (as is Buddhism, and Jains, etc.) Sikhs are relatively new for that part of the world, dating back 600 years. This is roughly the age of Lutherans in Christianity. (Buddhism is older, being 2500 years old.)
Some Sikhs want a separate nation. They see that Muslims got their lands by fighting. They see that primarily Hindu India won't give them their own homeland. India, for good reason, does not want to lose its Sikh population. If America had a movement to create a Christian homeland in, say, the Northwest, it could perhaps look a bit like this. Terrorism (asymmetric warfare) is a kind of warfare.
The terrorist acts were condemned by Sikh leaders, they declined, and mostly stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Punjab,_India
To call those acts of terrorism an "existential issue" for India is a bit much. Our 9/11 attacks were provocative, but they were not an existential threat.
However, what probably IS an existential threat to India is the prospect of losing the Sikh members of their armed forces. This would require renovation of the army, and it would mean that Muslims would become the most powerful part of the army in India. That would make the army itself an existential threat to India.
It is not "a bit much" to say that SIkh separatism is an existential issue for India. India was not born in 1947. The civilization has already been divided by the Brits/Muslims when they created Pakistan.
Importance of Sikhs to India goes well beyond the Sikhs who join the Armed Forces. Sikhs are as much a part of Indian history, culture and society as another group, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain etc. Hindus and Sikhs intermarry, worship in each others' temples, celebrate each others festivals. All the Sikh gurus were Hindus by birth. Radical Sikhs don't like to hear it, but Sikhism is like 99% similar to Hinduism. It is an offshoot after all, just like Jain and Buddhist religion.
"Brown Man Bad"??
Read History....this just proves to me that Americans know nothing.
We are a nation of ignoramuses. A perfect example of that are the idiots on the View and their audience.
We are well informed about the Kardashians...why bother with substance over style?
Spot on!
It’s an astounding display.
You seem to know what you are talking about. Q: Islamic terrorism in India vs Sikh terrorism in India, what are the main differences and similarities?
The main similarity is that both are mostly non- existent. iny minorities with little support within their religious communities, Like Irish-Americans, who funded the IRA, the diaspora in Canada & California lean more to Khalistan than Sikhs living in India.
Also, a former Indian government promoted Khalistan-supporters, in a cynical attempt at triangulation. (A bit like the US supported Bun Ladin.)
Indian security agencies realized they had helped create a criminal terrorist gang,
But Pakistan's ISI has adopted this baby, with funding, training & logistic support.
Answered at a level above this branch of the thread.
Great reply and I am more educated now as a result. I also want to hear Based Yuvi's view. I've been to India a few times and get the overall picture, it's the context and local subtleties that are really useful.
A lot can be said about Islamic terrorism in India. It is a centuries long saga. But the modern variant is mostly driven by Pakistani sponsored groups causing trouble. These attacks were mostly ignored by western media/governments in 90s and 00s because Pakistan was considered an ally during the Cold War and GWOT. No major Indian city which was did not get bombed or attacked during these years.
Sikh separatism is not something that became an issue until the late seventies -early eighties when the Congress Party (who are Modi's political opponents and (mis)ruled India for 70 years after its independence) decided to prop up some really unsavory characters for political gain in Punjab. These elements ultimately ended up challenging the writ of the state and committing crimes and extrajudicial killings. Pakistan, always on the lookout to create trouble in India, supported them to the hilt with money, logistics, training. Things came to a head in 1984, when the then PM Indira Gandhi ordered the Army, to attack the Golden Temple (Sikhism's holiest shrine) in Amritsar where the leadership had ensconced themselves. Hunderds were killed and the temple was FUBAR'd. What was a fringe radical movement became a full blown insurgency. The PM was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. In reprisal attacks, Congress party workers killed thousands of Sikhs in riots across north India. Ultimately, the insurgency was put down after a decade but the cost was paid in thousands of innocent lives.
Today, Sikh separatist sentiments exists mostly in the diaspora communities which became the refuge of radical Sikhs from who escaped those turbulent times. They have taken over the Gurudwaras (temples) and preach non-stop hatred against the Indian state and even Hindus directly. Pakistani support to these elements continues to this day.
The western governments have at best looked the other way or even supported these elements, for various reasons. Successive Indian governments have asked their Western counterparts to rein in these troublemakers as they collect funds, threaten Indian diplomats and citizens, run mafia gangs back home in Punjab etc. but to no avail.
Thx! Insightful and useful. US legacy media reports none of this in a coherent manner.
If you are interested in how the Canadian government was complicit in allowing the Air India bombing, the following is a recap:
https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-allowed
Here is a paper by Hudson institure which lays out how Pakistan still fuels these Khalistani and Jihadi groups in the West to create troube for India.
https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/pakistan-s-destabilization-playbook-khalistan-separatist-activism-within-the-us
Good point!
All due respect to Bari and her team (who are doing good work), but I wish people could get their information from A free press, not THE Free Press. Democracy depends on it
The rest of the world can start pitching in on defense, both men and money. It does not always need to be US men and women fighting and US taxpayers footing the bill. Until then we will park our tanks wherever we want.
It's the sociopathic Neoliberal MIC warmongers, NOT the American people, but a large segment of the population is quite credulous to the outright false constant major media propaganda. To that degree, they are at fault.