I don't think it's fair to say "no matter who got elected". There are minor political parties that are all about non-interventionism. "no matter who got elected out of the major parties" is more accurate.

There are also sets of volcanos on this planet which can effect weather. So perhaps a more accurate statement would be "no matter who got elected out of the major parties along + no volcanic activity."

Those volcanoes aren't the result of voter actions though so I think it's reasonable to not point them out.

The comment I'm responding to makes it sound like this stuff is beyond democracy and voters have no choice. That's not true at all. Voters just consider bombing others to be an important activity.

And more importantly - can anything at all be done about it?

It seems that certain interests will carry through no matter what.

More than the deep state, there must have been very powerful actors behind the scenes pushing the US for intervention in Syria for all these years. After all, US's direct interest in the Middle East is limited. These are wars made on behalf of someone else, someone in the region.

I don't think they necessarily have to be powerful as much as they have to have the means. At present, two countries off the top of my head that do are Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter has enjoyed a direct diplomatic line to the US president (no matter who), but I'm not sure what they'd gain. The former has gifted candidates on both sides of the isle with various odds and ends for years, and in spite of their own local economic problems, they have a keen interest in US politics as well. They might stand to gain more in the short term, but it seems like an unnecessary long term gamble.

There's a conspiracy that's been floated for a few years and is resurfacing that the Saudis and Qataris have been pushing for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey via Syria, and Assad has been a thorn in their side preventing diplomatic means to get it done. But there's also sound arguments against this [1], although the source I found suggests that this is directly tied to US access to bases in the area (possible) and thus aligning with SA, Qatar, and Turkey (perhaps in opposition to Russia/Iran/Syria). I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going on at this point. If I had to guess, it probably ties into everything from oil to archaic alliances dating to the Cold War and even military expenditures.

The Israelis may have a part to play in all this, too, but in my mind, I don't see what benefit they'd gain by continuing to destabilize the entire region. Then again, I guess you could argue the same point for every other actor, and perhaps there's an advantage behind encouraging your adversaries to go for each others' throats every few years (dangerous!).

Another protracted war in the Mideast is the last thing we need... sigh.

(Note: I'm just speculating here based on what I've read over the years and my own opinions and biases. This is probably entirely wrong.)

[1] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the...

Israel has clearly a strong interest, as it's demonstrated by the number of times Netanyahu has called on the US to attack Syria (and he's of course cheering now that his wish has been granted). The reason? I'd say at least two. First, if you want to be a regional power, you need to be stronger than your neighbours (especially if they're not aligned with you). Which means that you need to have a powerful military and/or that your neighbour must be weak. And there's nothing like war and political chaos to weaken a country. Notice how many countries around Israel are either aligned with the USA (and therefore Israel) or piles of rubble.

Second, Israel already illegally occupies a portion of Syrian territory, the Golan heights. And has no intention whatsoever of giving it back. A torn country is the best way to make sure that the Golan Heights will never go back to Syria (which might not even exist anymore) (check [1])

The other reason I just found it in the news this morning, though it doesn't surprise me in the least. "Prime minister Netanyahu is pressing to ensure that any agreement that will end the war in Syria will include buffer zones on Israeli borders with Syria and Jordan. [2] " Now, we know what Israel does with "buffer zones". The West Bank is, technically, a buffer zone. They're just moving their own civilian population in it.

[1] https://www.google.nl/search?q=netanyahu+war+in+syria+golan+... [2] http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.782143

If the deep state controls Assad's launch orders, I have no idea why the past 16 years have been so unrelentingly grim for the US's fortunes.

It could have been a lot worse. How big is our trade deficit annually? What if we couldn't run a trade deficit?

China would have been thrown into chaos in that case.

...because they wouldn't have had dollars to buy oil. What if they didn't need dollars and could use local currency?