Mr. Eland has a great post. But his statement that Germany would have won if the United States had not entered the war is questionable. By 1918, the stalemate was choking Germany. A British woman married to a German count wrote in her diary about the hardships the German civilians faced. When Hindenburg and Ludendorff launched their attack in the spring of 1918, it was Germany's last throw of the dice. Although American soldiers were present, and many fought alongside French units, the brunt of the offense was stopped by British and French soldiers. Some scholars like Wilson have written that the British had mastered the new battlefield--improved artillery, better coordination with infantry, tanks, improved airpower etc. Without the presence of the AEF, Britain and France may not have won, but it would be unlikely that Germany would either. Its allies, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were spent. Their loss would have opened up additional fronts for Germany and stretched its defenses even further. Would a stalemate have been better for Europe in the long run? Judging by hindsight (Hitler, World War II, holocaust), it could not have been worse. Ivan Eland makes a strong argument that American intervention may not be the cure all we have been told it is.

Guy Somerset’s article was well done. There is only one omission that needs addressing--there was a pandemic. Although it did not originate there, the pandemic that resulted in more deaths than combat, combing both civilian and military loss of life worldwide, was the “Spanish influenza.” Almost completely ignored now, the disease spread through military training camps to the front lines and back into the civilian population. There were more deaths from Spanish influenza than death in battle for the American Expeditionary Force. At the time, some compared it to the Black Death of the Middle Ages. There are some old photographs of civilians walking around with face masks trying to avoid contamination.

Mr. Somerset also failed to mention one event that happened after the World War that has some resonance today--treatment of our veterans. In 1924, Congress passed the World War Adjusted Compensation Act that promised returning soldiers that they would receive a financial benefit in 1945 for their service. In 1932, 17,000 veterans, along with their families, marched on Washington DC seeking immediate payment due to hardships resulting from the Great Depression. Referred to as the Bonus Army, they set up camp in downtown DC. When the police failed to disperse them, Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur led infantry, cavalry and tanks into the camp and cleared it. It would be 1936, and Congress had to override President Roosevelt’s veto, before the money was handed out to the veterans who fought “the war to end all war.”

All this talk about ISIS. Could this be just a cover for US military intervention in Syria by starting an air campaign with the story line about ISIS and then hit Syrian army targets? Since we do not recognize Bashar al-Asad and have worked for his demise, just how do we coordinate with the Syrian government to insure our planes hit ISIS? No, this is just a ploy by Obama et al to attack Asad, and really help bring about ISIS victory in the area. Warnings by our good buddies Qatar and Saudi Arabia about any attack on ISIS as an attack on ALL Sunni Muslims must have made an impact in DC.

President Obama should fire every one of his advisors who brought about the debacle that is now Syria. The Leveretts are the only ones I have read in the wake of the ISIS onslaught that have had the courage to connect the dots between the premeditated subversion of Bashar al-Asad and the rebirth of radical Islamism. Our Mideast foreign policy is broken. Either there is a glaring failure with our intelligence agencies in analyzing the situation and providing strategies that include warnings of what can be expected every time we don’t like a certain government and turn to regime change, or the presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have deliberately ignore the advice of their own spy organizations and have followed the counseling of others in committing America to endless war and policy failures. The ISIS should have been discerned by any competent intelligence agency. The fallout of removing Asad should have sounded alarms to any president weighing the cost effectiveness of one more Arab intervention. The renewal of the Islamic radicals has made thirteen years of sacrifice--trillions of dollars spent, thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, as well an untold number of dead Iraqis, Afghans, etc. and the ruin cities and towns--have all been for nothing. With the single exception of Ron Paul, no presidential candidate since the start of the 21st century has proposed a change in the disastrous recipe that has been our Mideast foreign policy.

I don't understand why the right wing is so opposed to Hilary when she will give them all the wars and regime changes and every growing military and every growing domestic spying, etc. She must be the darling of the neocons. In our two party system, there is very little to pick from. We need a real third party that will break this cycle of invading other countries in order to convert them into our image.

Gareth Porter’s article is but one more straw on the back of Obama’s and the neocons’ rush to invade Syria. The major media, from the right like FOX to the left like The New York Times, have ignored or belittle all stories that would discredit Washington’s beating the drums of war. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 who did so to protest Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war machine have been betrayed. The war in Afghanistan goes on and on, our drones now kill people from Pakistan to Africa, war with Iran remains a real possibility, Americans are spied on by their own government, our liberties are under assault, Americans are killed without due process by their own government, the neocons still have too much influence over our foreign policy, and Obama wants to invade Syria to overthrow Asad so that we can spread democracy and to stop the killing of innocents. What makes this worse is that the pro-government forces are making headway to bringing the Islamic radicals (or to use the parlance of major media “freedom fighters”) to heal. Obama is stepping up sending arms and material to these terrorists. If Obama was really different from Bush, he would end all aid to the rebels, he would call in our dogs Turkey and Jordan, he would tell Saudi Arabia we are not going to protect their throne nor any other oil sheik in the gulf until they end their support for radical Islam. But Obama wont. He is no different then his predecessor.

Turkey has not been disrupted from its plan to attack Syria under the guise of protecting a holy place. It is following plans that have long been in place. Obama's journey to Saudi Arabia has set up the next step in providing the rebels weapons to shoot down Syrian planes. Problem is that those very same missiles will end up in the hands of al-Qaeda types and ISIS. When these "freedom fighters" shoot down a civilian airline, maybe one of our own, will the war hawks like McCain take credit for giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

With Qatar pushing the US and our NATO allies into attacking Syria so that the oil sheiks can destroy Iran's ally, it makes sense that they would sweeten the offer. What is the French for prostitute?

American historical writing, as well as much of the 1940s Western allies, have created a myth about World War II. The adoration that the likes of Tom Brokaw achieved in The Greatest Generation only reflects the media image that is perpetuated. The great French resistance has come under serious questioned. From more Frenchmen carry guns for Vichy than for the Resistance to French complicity in the Holocaust, the image of Casablanca fades in the sunlight. Or the derring do of US commandos capturing secret coding machines from a Nazi sub, when it was our British cousins who actually accomplished the task. One of the biggest myths is that the Western Allies broke the Nazi army. In his recent book, Max Hastings puts that myth to rest. 90% of all German casualties inflicted came from combat with the Soviet Union. If Eisenhower and Montgomery had to face the full might of the German Army in June 1944, there would be a far different commemoration than the one planned for this summer.

Since the presidency of Reagan, US policy towards Syria has been one of hostility. Syria was one of the neocons target--Iraq, Syria and Iran. A central reason for the US hostility is Israel. The supporters of Israel--the neocons--have made any Syrian-US rapprochement all but impossible. The appointment of an ambassador is worthless when that ambassador is prohibited from going to his station. Keeping Syria on the terror list, erecting obstacles to Syria’s economic dealings with other countries, failure to condemn Israel for its attacks on Syria, and ignoring the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights are pretty good signs that the US is not seriously interested in reaching an agreement with Syria. Having botched the job in Iraq, an endless war in Afghanistan, growing animosity with Pakistan, secret wars in Yemen and Africa, Bahsir Assad sounds like he hit the nail on the head.