Check for web archive captures
Perpetual War
By lindamuralidharan on 2014-09-19 22:42:01
No, I am not thinking up any clever or cute title this ttme. The stark reality is best named for what it is. I am, on the other
hand, here to express my surprised and confused view of what has been going on within the public and within the halls of
Congress and the White House. I am a little chagrined also at my apparent naivete. I also feel a little tiny bit better when I
remember what I was told a very long time ago by a man I was in love with at the time. He said, "Linda, don't ever lose
your sense of wonder." I guess I haven't as Iam so amazed at the widespread support for more war and the ability of so
many to ignore the truism of the 1940's: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." (You could also say I am just not cynical
enough.) [caption id="attachment_6261" align="alignleft" width="450"]
Free Resources for
Military Families
free resources for military families[/caption] When so
many of us realized how serious a debate we needed to have about war and the Middle East...back in the year or two
following 9/11...the subject of perpetual war came up. Mainly the debates I heard about focused on the ways the NeoCons
liked the idea. It was not always clear how much any one person fully believed that over decades the US could remake so
many countries in the Mideast, Central Asia, and possibly Africa in their image of a utopian state. It was not always clear
how much was dictated by the loyalty to purveyors of weaponry, munitions, and other services and infrastructure necessary
to fight foreign wars. The latter factor is clearly playing some part in today's situation. When both Democrats and
Republicans voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (not exactly true Constitutional votes but definitely endorsements of
the then President's intentions), it seemed like many of the legislators, especially Democrats, were just reluctantly agreeing
to a limited engagement. This time around, there is no such excuse. All participants no matter what party are being told this
is actually a perpetual war. My amazement comes at two levels. One is the issue I just alluded to. Democrats, who would
presumably know better and also be philosophically opposed to this kind of adventurism and caving to yellow journalism
have been in the forefront of support for war policies. Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein (yeah, I know, she is not known as a
flaming liberal), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many others. Do they not remember how people such as Hillary Clinton and
then New York State Representative in Congress Michael McNulty voted for the Iraq War and then later had to eat crow? If
I recall correctly, Rep. McNulty made an abject apology to his constituents (many of whom warned him not to vote in the
affirmative), and former Senator Clinton made an admission of having made a mistake some years later. I was shocked to
see that two of the regular hosts I watch on the relatively "progressive" MSNBC, Chris Mathews and Ed Schultz, were
bloodthirsty and immediately called for attacking and killing ISIL right after the presumed beheadings. They had been
somewhat belligerent before (about ISIL) but became true hawks after the videos were released. My other three favorites
have more or less tried to report the facts as any unfolded, along with opinions on both sides from numerous guests. They
seem to favor caution but were not overt with a stand one way or the other. A lot of the commentary this week was focused
on the vote to further train and arm rebels inside Syria, in the hopes that they dislike ISIL as much as we do.
oN wy I am amazed that I find myself agreeing with a number of Republicans such as the
conservative Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee and, of course, Rand Paul. Opposition as expressed this week by senators
and congresspeople alike has been..thank goodness for small blessings....bi-partisan. Quite a sea change for recent sessions
of Congress. One type of opposition argument is represented by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont:
"What ISIS would like to see is this being portrayed as a war of the United States of America vs. the Mideast,
Christians vs. Muslims. And that would be a disaster," the Vermont senator said. "What we need is a real
coalition led by Muslim countries, Sunni and Shiite, to step up to the plate and not expect that the United States
and our taxpayers and our soldiers are going to do their work for them."
The other main level of my amazement is the speed with which the American public has rushed to judgement..or more
accurately, revenge...in their view of how to react to ISIL being brutal and also beheading two Americans. I have tried to
convince myself for many years that America is truly a violent society, and I suspect it is becoming more so over time.
Some feature column on the Internet put out by some respected news source, expressed the opinion that football has
replaced baseball as our national pastime because it is violent and appeals to our love of violence. Maybe so..with a little
help from Roger Goodell's marketing genius. It seems to me that some combination of fear and knee jerk revenge has driven
the American public..with a lot of help from the media and administration officials.. to endorse an illogical policy. Fear
itself is thus our true enemy. I can't remember which news organization reported that 90% of the American public wants
military action of some kind against ISIL in order to "degrade and destroy" it according to the wording of the President. The
progressive analyst quoting this poll put it this way. The same 90% who were wrong about Iraq are wrong now. I, of
course, agree. I don't know if the other 10% are against military action as I am or whether it is split between those against
and those undecided. I don't know how accurate any of the recent polls are. On some progressive talk shows...including
that of Ed Schultz..and in my local daily newspaper, a slight majority of the respondents are against the President's plan. Of
course, these are specialized audiences. Few Americans even read a newspaper anymore. My own opposition is very
complicated in reasoning because the situation itself is very complicated. In one regard, I agree with those who find many
reasons why the US ought not to be the main leader or operational entity involved. The above quote from Bernie Sanders
partly explains that reasoning. Thomas Friedman of all people carried this argument further in a recent column. He posed
the idea of our doing nothing (which would go against the American control freak habit of thinking we can and, in fact,
have to fix every problem we encounter in our personal or national lives). Friedman referred to analyses by experts Nader
Mousavizadeh, a partner in consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners, and George Friedman of Stratfor (see "The Virtue of
Subtlety" at www@Stratfor.com.) If we were to actually leave a vacuum there, countries like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Kuwait would be much more likely to deal with the very real threat certain types of fundamentalists and ISIL in
particular present to their regimes. This would increase the likelihood that they would arrive at a "balance of power" among
them and, if necessary, they would use some of their own troops against ISIL so long as they were assured none of the other
powers was to gain an advantage. Or ISIL itself would recognize the standoff and be part of that assured mutual destruction
balance of power. Some of this problem, of course, stems from the Sunni oriented states being paranoid about Shia states
like Iran, the current government in Iraq, and Assad's ruling class while Iran has some reason to be paranoid about Sunni
dominance. And Turkey, Iran, and Iraq all have an issue with Kurdish independence movements if the Kurds gain too much
influence. The US is highly unlikely to convince these folks to give anything more than lip service to modifying their
competing interests. However, if they find themselves on their own without big Daddy/Mommy, they might respond in a
realistic way. [caption id="attachment_6263" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
= refugee camp in Syria[/caption] And for me the bottom line goes along with
what has been repeatedly reported by scholars, Middle East analysts at think tanks and elsewhere, some politicians, some
reporters. Until the Sunnis living in affected areas..whether in Iraq or Syria....find themselves free of oppressive and
exploitative central governments...largely Shia in orientation...and able to consistently improve stability and economic
security for their families, they will all too often end up giving overt or tacit support to ISIL as the lesser of several evils.
And in reality it may be the lesser even if we don't want to see it. In some areas they have conquered, ISIL has already
begun to moderate some of their extreme enforcement of their rules...whether ones designed to keep them in power or ones
they derive from a distorted version of Islam. Check out Hezbollah in Lebanon. Once a true terrorist organization (with a
much more legitimate cause than ISIL has), with Iran's encouragement, they have morphed into a largely civil organization
which provides pretty good security and local public services for areas of Lebanon. I am by no stretch of the imagination in
favor of ISIL or any group that wants to organize a theocracy or is against implementing democracy and civil rights. Iam
talking about facing certain kinds of facts on the ground, like them or not. Related to these concerns is the unreliability of
the various groups we are trying to marshal to our cause. I mean people that are referred to as "moderate rebels" fighting in
the Syrian civil war. There are so many reports describing why this is a poor policy, I won't try to list them all. For one
thing, the CIA had already been training some for some time and the results are not exactly wondrously good. This of
course feeds in to the perpetual war idea...yeah, maybe after 5 years or more we will have a reliable force (plans to spend
money on arming them and training many in Saudi Arabia have been called a fantasy strategy by many knowledgeable
peOple). There are many, many groups and they are prone to changing alliances. They got involved to fight Assad so it is
hard to say how we will "turn" significant numbers of them to focus on ISIL in stead. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New
York says she has gotten to know some of them personally. When she discussed with them what would happen if they found
any more chemical weapons there, they said in no way would they turn them over to the US or UN. They would keep them
to use against Assad's troops if the occasion arose. She does not support a direct alliance with any of these groups. [caption
id="attachment_6264" align="aligncenter" width="450"]
Syrian family[/caption] I noticed that one of the
congresspeople from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, who is a combat veteran herself, voted yesterday against funding the training
and arming of Syrian rebels. She is not my congressperson, but Colleen Hanabusa who is, is against the war as a whole. I
have made a lot of phone calls to a variety of senators and congresspeople this week. [caption id="attachment_6265"
align="alignleft" width="300"] family picture of syrian president bashar-al-
assad and wife asma[/caption] [caption id="attachment_6266" align="alignright" width="300"]
syrian christian family in need of help[/caption] I repeat that the only
thing we have to fear is fear itself. We are treading a dangerous path here by allowing ourselves to be driven by fear. ISIL is
bad, but so are a whole host of other fundamentalist groups, most of which world wide are Islamic but here at home they are
anti government and against all who are not white and their idea of what a Christian is. See the recent shootings of two
police officers in Pennsylvania. Whack a mole war (we have taken the heads off so many "snakes" like bin Laden but terror
groups continue to grow) is not the way to solve the problem. De-fanging the likes of ISIL involves two major efforts. One
is the kind of police action that has helped keep the US relatively "safe" since 9/11 and that Australia just used to foil a large
scale terrorist plot, and the other is world efforts for diplomatic and economic change that eliminates some of the grievances
among...mainly the Sunni...indigenous Muslim populations in a number of countries. And getting out of the way so regional
powers can take responsibility. Then, too, I personally cringe at the thought of sending more of our citizens to possibly die
or be wounded in any kind of fighting or in military capacities that put people at risk when the goal does not seem legitimate
or very likely of success. It is horrible for our country to lose more competent citizens, for families to suffer loss either
during deployment or permanently, and for our stressed out military and VA systems to have to care for more traumatic
wounds. I could also add that tax dollars are badly needed at home.
, Ss te We tried to have our way with
Iraq under Bush I. We killed many and encouraged an endangered minority (the Marsh Arabs) to rebel. When they did we
offered no help and they were crushed as a community by Saddam Hussein in punishment. Then the Clinton administration
bombed and imposed devastating sanctions (just devastating for the poor) with nothing to show for it. And what Bush II
did is pretty much in our memory....it had far more negative consequences than positive ones. Obama has never truly
broken with the past policies and now he is revving them up. All through the Iraq and Afghan wars we have picked the
wrong leaders....double whammy: it was not our job to dictate to other peoples and when we did we messed up badly. It is
foolhardy to keep repeating these mistakes...to put it mildly. I not only don't want perpetual war, I don't want any part of this
war (which may not be distinguishable from perpetual war...I'm just sayin’).
