An annoyed, sleep-deprived commentary on today's news.
Part 1) Introduction
Today is Wednesday, September 17, 2014.
When I woke up today and turned on Facebook, three news stories reached out and pushed my buttons regarding national defense and terrorism, and I couldn't help but repost them and rant about them a little.
Before I knew it, I was ranting about them a lot.
When I looked at the length of my final rant, I realized that there was no way that I could post that comment to Facebook, so I have turned here to my blog to do so.
If any of you have come here from Facebook, thank you very, very much! Please let me know who you are and what you think by leaving a comment below!
However, there may need to be a bit of an explanation to arrange the setting for this rant.
1) The rapid takeover of large parts of Syria and Iraq by a terrorist group called the Islamic State In Syria (ISIS)/the Islamic State In the Levant (ISIL)/or just the Islamic State, has gone on over the summer of 2014 with little resistance. They have brutally murdered whole towns full of people, including beheading Westerners and posting videos of those actions on YouTube, and The West has barely responded up to August of that same year.
Here is a copy of a very useful map that I believe came from a CBS News story posted to Facebook regarding the latest political moves from the group in September 2014:
2) There was some talk of the United Nations or the United States building a coalition to oppose the Islamic State, but so far nothing had come of it from The West as late as September of 2014.
3) The ISIL terrorists even threatened to kill the Pope when he stops in the Middle East on a planned visit later in September or October. This follows warnings from the Saudi government that ISIL could mount terrorist attacks in both the U.S. and the U.K. homelands within months if nothing is done soon. Heated words issued from both Western governments, but not much else. Then it was announced that U.S. naval air forces would target ISIL military units facing Kurdish troops and Iraqi army units in combat, and the first strikes began in September of 2014.
4) In September of 2014, U.S. President Obama made a series of speeches that included such gaffs as his saying that there is no plan to address the issue of the rise of the Islamic State terrorists; that there was a plan, but that they were discussing it with their allies and nations in the region and not ready to share it with the American people; and a Presidential address to the nation saying that there is a plan, but not saying what it is, and giving no specifics on it.
5) Amidst all of that I wake up cranky from a bad night's not-enough-rest, and this is the first thing that I see (followed by the link for the news story, and my comments on them):
Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq
NBC News, September 17, 2014
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-stands-firm-u-s-will-not-fight-another-ground-n205321
'Here we go again. Let's fight a war by not fighting. Yeah, that'll work ....'
I followed that comment up with this one:
[Quoting from the video in that link] 'Obama: "We're going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy." By being an air force for the Iraqi army, which has proven in the past that it will throw down its weapons, take off its uniforms, and run away instead of fight if given the chance. So we're going to do what American politicians do best, and talk them to death? Sheesh ....'
Joint Chiefs chairman won't rule out U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic State
BY CHARLES HOSKINSON | SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 | 1:36 PM
The Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/joint-chiefs-chairman-wont-rule-out-u.s.-ground-troops-to-fight-islamic-state/article/2553450
'Uh, huh ...'
Odierno Warns Airstrikes Aren't 'End-All Solution' in ISIS Battle
NBC News
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/odierno-warns-airstrikes-arent-end-all-solution-isis-battle-n205251
' ... right ... '
That was where I lost all control and went on a very long rant. Since I went to so much trouble to write it, I will now share it with you. Please comment below and tell me what you think!
--
Part 2) Rant ... er, Commentary
Okay, so I have a question:
History shows us that the only way that a war ends is when one side makes it so that the other side is either unwilling or unable to continue the fight.
In the First Gulf War this basic principle of war did not happen to Iraq, and that ultimately led to the Second Gulf War. Now, it seems as if that did not happen against al-Qaeda in either Afghanistan or Iraq, either.
Therefore, the survival of al-Queda and the creation of its daughter organizations, such as ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria, are the result.
BTW, both of those organizations have now declared Islamic States in their parts of the world, and are egging The West to go to war with them. I have yet to hear anybody say exactly what the terrorist groups would get out of such a war, so I have to guess.
I assume that they believe that if they start a war with The West and somehow survive intact and win even a political stalemate, that they therefore will be free to form legitimate states on their own terms with no outside interference from anyone else. North Korea did it following the still unresolved 1950-1953 Korean War (have you watched M*A*S*H on the TV reruns lately?), so it is certainly not unprecedented.
From there, the next step is to eventually become a regional power like China or Iran, and have a global impact upon the direction in which all of human civilization will be headed. The goal being to move world opinion and behaviors either toward or away from the ideals of Western Civilization.
Think that can't happen? Look up the peoples known in American History books as the Pirates of Tripoly, or look up The Barbary Wars (in the late 18th and early 19th centuries). Remember the Marines' Hymn? 'To the shores of Tripoli.' Or if that is too serious for you, look up the book and the film 'The Mouse That Roared' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared). Same idea.
Now, I that know some might say, 'Well, airstrikes worked against Milosovic and his gang in Yugoslavia when President Clinton did it! His opponents said airstrikes alone wouldn't work, but they did!"
No, they didn't work alone. The United Nations had to put boots on the ground to make it happen, and the American air strikes were simply a part of the international coalition's efforts that supported that action. Yet it still took quite a long time to effect a change on the ground.
There were ugly genocides while the international community talked and talked and did not act. Where is the moral responsibility to all of the dead who would be alive today, and their families and communities who suffered in those genocides? What if The West had done what it had said that it was going to do, instead of talking and talking until they were forced to act even if the nations and the peoples of The West didn't want to really do anything in the first place, because of the seemingly unending and certainly undeserving deaths of all of those people. Even today the political ramifications of that war are not resolved, and that all began back in 1990!
Exactly where is the moral responsibility to lead the world into a peaceful and prosperous new era in that equation? What does that say about the moral authority (or to use the PC terms, 'credibility' or 'capital') of the 'Leaders of the Free World'? Whoever they are, now ..
So my question is this: Forget all the political talk, talk, talk. Are we fighting a war, or aren't we? Are we going to fight another war of words while waiting for someone else to take action, or merely hoping that we don't have to go in and do the work ourselves again? What will be lost that can never be regained in the mean time?
Keeping in mind what the consequences could be if we fail, or equally as bad, if nothing is done in time to prevent a catastrophe, what are we doing and how are we choosing to do it? Talking, with limited airstrikes to back that up with? Sounds like a couple of our top military commanders don't believe that will work ...
The terrorists don't seem to be fighting with words! So if you resort to saying that we can win a war with them by not fighting them directly, please explain how. Especially to the families of all the people they've killed, including American and British citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment