It's really hard to be against the new war (wait, it's not a war... the proverbial "they" said it's not a war, and "they" would know, so it can't be a war...) or whatever it is that we have sort of declared against ISIS. The President has spoken. The congress has remained silent, which is their way of assenting when the President's actions align with Republican wishes, at least until this hated president commits a missteps and gives the House leadership space to resume their usual attacks on "that foreign born Kenyan socialist." And where is the permission from the UN? Don't need that... A president gets to do what a president gets to do.
So in other words, we are at the same old war (not war) using the Bush strategy. We have our make believe coalition of countries, most of whom aren't REALLY in the coalition.. We are waging "not war" through the bombing of targets with our jets and drones. No boots on ground -- more "proof" that it's not war. Never mind that civilian casualties have been reported in the most recent Syrian strikes. Will this help us win more hearts and minds, just like that strategy did in the Bush Iraq war? No.. Same shit, different President.
Yet, it's hard to be against this new war (not war) since the new enemy is so deserving of extermination. There hasn't been a group more deserving of total annihilation than ISIS since the Khmer Rouge. This includes Al Qaeda, and honestly, I'd even say that's the case with this new-fangled "Khoresan" outfit.
But are there other alternatives to this war? A more legitimate war could be had. Blue caps under UN command would get my support a lot more than this resumption of the Bush adventure. Nobody has waged the political war against ISIS in the UN. Why not? Do we think Russia would stand in the way of bombing this group that's even more extreme than the Chechyns they've fought for a generation? Would China, considering they have suffered their own Islamic terror attacks in the last year?. It may well be that both would stand in the way on the grounds that allowing the US to become entangled alone in the mid-east without legitimacy weakens us and thus strengthens them. On the other hand, has Kerry spoken to Moscow or Beijing on this subject? If you don't try you certainly can't succeed. There is potential for common ground among us here, regardless of the evil stuff Russia is up to in Ukraine, and some of the dubious squabbling between China and it's neighbors in the waters between China, the Philippines and Japan..
At risk of citing a source that not all the world agrees with (yet... to cite Stephen Colbert), the Bible's Book of Revelations seems to suggest a strategy for facing ISIS The army of the North (Russia), the army of the East (China), the army of the West (Us) and the army of the south -- such as the Iraqi army is, maybe with Iranian help -- converge on northern Iraq and the ISIL occupied areas of Syria. NATO, Russia, China Africa, the Islamic countries, India, all the rest don their blue helmets and sweep in. Stomping out ISIL in this manner would sit a lot better than W, War III. And moving the target of the end of days to northern Iraq rather than Israel might buy us another few decades, if God is feeling generous despite the continued sins of our species.
Of course things could get touchy in Syria given that the West claims to want Assad out and Russia doesn't. But just having forces there might allow us to find a political solution. You could even imagine a scenario in which the younger Assad retains his presidency, but is brought back towards the values of the west with which he was so familiar when he practiced medicine in the UK. Some people think Assad has been villianized by circumstances. I'm not sure that that's not true. A compromise might be to retain Assad in power (thus satisfying the Russians and Assad's supporters in Syria) but allow a free parliament to be constituted under conditions where minority rights are respected and protected (thus satisfying the desires of the West and the secular elements of the Arab Spring). This could set a great example for the rest of the area. Are you listening, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and most especially, you scumbags currently running Egypt?
Israel's ruling conservatives might not be so happy at solving these problems. If the Islamic countries and factions are fighting among themselves, they are not concerning themselves with a generation's worth of Israeli land grabs in the west bank. This injustice is something that must be resolved if there is ever to be real peace between Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Can any of this wishful dream be achieved? It can't if it's not tried.
If we can't "all get along"; if we have to have a war, can we at least have one that is legally defensible, one that advances world order, one that promotes the spread of the UN enshrined conception of rights written by Eleanor Roosevelt herself?
As the energy lobbyists like to say... "think about it."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment