Where to begin? I guess simply with the fact that I believe it is absolutely wrong for us to be dropping bombs and engaging in more warfare in Syria and Iraq and wherever else OBomba decides he has the right to bomb (without congressional approval Mr. Constitutional Lawyer you).
Michael Franti said it well and this quote was painted on my Burning Van before we even went into Iraq: "We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
I must rewind a bit because I saw a clip of Bush Jr. being played on Fox news that showed Bush saying if we pull out of Iraq too soon we would leave a void that would be filled by terrorists. The commentators were showing it to suggest Bush was some kind of wise man who Obama should have listened to. "He told you so!" sort of thing. But we need to remember that Bush was warned (His Father wrote about it when he explained why he did not oust Saddam during the first Gulf War) that if you remove Saddam and bomb the country to rubble you would create a vacuum for terrorists. So once we destroyed Iraq we had two choices: stay there forever or leave, either way bad shit was happening there. But of course Bush and his crew made other mistakes like purging all the Sunni military officers and political leaders from their jobs and allowing a brutal Shiite government to take over Iraq, increasing the likelihood of a destabilized country.
Our bombing of the region is creating chaos and enemies while it is making the chances for democracy and peace less and less. The longer we stayed, the more we bombed, the worst things got. So how is dropping more bombs gonna help now? Over the years we armed various groups to overthrow leaders we don't like and inevitable the groups we arm turn out to be just as brutal and eventually tend to turn on us as well. This is more true than ever in Syria where we are planning to train an additional 10,000 or more rebels to fight in that country. We are creating chaos.
And if making the US safer is the stated goal, then we are failing miserably. It already looks like our bombing of Syria is uniting groups that until now were fighting each other. Their uniting factor: hatred of the US bombing of civilians, and of course we are going to kill civilians when we drop bombs. Every military campaign needs an enemy to unite their followers behind their leaders. We are giving the terror groups of the Middle East an enemy to unite against. We are playing into their hands.
The more we bomb, the more we kill, the more lives we destroy, the more chaos we create, the more people will hate us. Period. We are wrong to do it.
Obviously now that we have helped to screw that part of the world up (certainly we are not the only ones to blame) leaving it alone is not a great option either, so what should we do.
What I believe would be the right thing to do:
Put together a diplomatic coalition and use our influence to seriously push for peace in the region. The two main factors that might help this to happen: stop supporting Israel in their brutal occupation, colonization, and oppression of the Palestinians; and to engage Saudi Arabia and Iran in efforts to stop their cold war of supporting Sunni vs Shiite governments in the region. This may not work, but neither has war.
Meanwhile we need to protect the US by using our law enforcement to try and prevent terrorist attacks the best we can being mindful of civil liberties.
It is interesting to think that we were willing to spend trillions of dollars destroying the Middle East to prevent possible terror attacks, however when confronted by possible human caused global climate destabilization (leading to more deaths and cost than terrorists could ever inflict) we aren't willing to spend a penny. In fact the Republicans in congress even fight things that would likely save us money (like energy efficiency programs) if it would impact the bottom line of the fossil fuel industry. It makes me sick. Imagine if the US spent trillions of dollars waging 'war' on climate change. Would terror groups really be able to recruit people to attack us? It would certainly be a lot more difficult.
Ultimately we can't know the future and we can't control what will happen in the Middle East. But we should know right from wrong and dropping more bombs is wrong. Can a Nobel Peace prize be rescinded? If so, Obomba's certainly should be.
Michael Franti said it well and this quote was painted on my Burning Van before we even went into Iraq: "We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
I must rewind a bit because I saw a clip of Bush Jr. being played on Fox news that showed Bush saying if we pull out of Iraq too soon we would leave a void that would be filled by terrorists. The commentators were showing it to suggest Bush was some kind of wise man who Obama should have listened to. "He told you so!" sort of thing. But we need to remember that Bush was warned (His Father wrote about it when he explained why he did not oust Saddam during the first Gulf War) that if you remove Saddam and bomb the country to rubble you would create a vacuum for terrorists. So once we destroyed Iraq we had two choices: stay there forever or leave, either way bad shit was happening there. But of course Bush and his crew made other mistakes like purging all the Sunni military officers and political leaders from their jobs and allowing a brutal Shiite government to take over Iraq, increasing the likelihood of a destabilized country.
Our bombing of the region is creating chaos and enemies while it is making the chances for democracy and peace less and less. The longer we stayed, the more we bombed, the worst things got. So how is dropping more bombs gonna help now? Over the years we armed various groups to overthrow leaders we don't like and inevitable the groups we arm turn out to be just as brutal and eventually tend to turn on us as well. This is more true than ever in Syria where we are planning to train an additional 10,000 or more rebels to fight in that country. We are creating chaos.
And if making the US safer is the stated goal, then we are failing miserably. It already looks like our bombing of Syria is uniting groups that until now were fighting each other. Their uniting factor: hatred of the US bombing of civilians, and of course we are going to kill civilians when we drop bombs. Every military campaign needs an enemy to unite their followers behind their leaders. We are giving the terror groups of the Middle East an enemy to unite against. We are playing into their hands.
The more we bomb, the more we kill, the more lives we destroy, the more chaos we create, the more people will hate us. Period. We are wrong to do it.
Obviously now that we have helped to screw that part of the world up (certainly we are not the only ones to blame) leaving it alone is not a great option either, so what should we do.
What I believe would be the right thing to do:
Put together a diplomatic coalition and use our influence to seriously push for peace in the region. The two main factors that might help this to happen: stop supporting Israel in their brutal occupation, colonization, and oppression of the Palestinians; and to engage Saudi Arabia and Iran in efforts to stop their cold war of supporting Sunni vs Shiite governments in the region. This may not work, but neither has war.
Meanwhile we need to protect the US by using our law enforcement to try and prevent terrorist attacks the best we can being mindful of civil liberties.
It is interesting to think that we were willing to spend trillions of dollars destroying the Middle East to prevent possible terror attacks, however when confronted by possible human caused global climate destabilization (leading to more deaths and cost than terrorists could ever inflict) we aren't willing to spend a penny. In fact the Republicans in congress even fight things that would likely save us money (like energy efficiency programs) if it would impact the bottom line of the fossil fuel industry. It makes me sick. Imagine if the US spent trillions of dollars waging 'war' on climate change. Would terror groups really be able to recruit people to attack us? It would certainly be a lot more difficult.
Ultimately we can't know the future and we can't control what will happen in the Middle East. But we should know right from wrong and dropping more bombs is wrong. Can a Nobel Peace prize be rescinded? If so, Obomba's certainly should be.
