RANGER AGAINST WAR: What We Say When We Won't Call it "War" <

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

What We Say When We Won't Call it "War"

 I'm a walking nightmare, an arsenal of doom
I kill conversation as I walk into the room
I'm a three line whip, I'm the sort of thing they ban
I'm a walking disaster, I'm a demolition man 
--Demolition Man, The Police 

Since time is short and you may lie,
I'm going to have to torture you.
But I want you to know, it isn't personal 
--Repo Man (1984)

Lies, lies in my papa's looks
Lies, lies in my history books
Lies, lies like they teach in class
Lies, lies, lies I catch on way too fast
--Lies, The Rolling Stones
________________________

What moral or legal imperative compels the United States to interfere in the Syrian Civil War?

Let's parse a typical argument for U.S. intervention from The Week magazine, with RAW's explication in RED:

"Still, the U.S. can't afford to passively await the outcome, said Dennis Ross in NewRepublic.com. It will be time-consuming and difficult to direct training, money, and weapons to the right opposition groups [how do we ascertain "RIGHT"?], so that Assad can be forced to accept a negotiated transition from power [=we can kick out another sitting ruler and replace him with someone we foolishly believe to be OUR GUY.] But consider the alternative: Eventually Syria will fall apart and become "failed state" [Syria IS a FAILED STATE.] Assad's chemical weapons would then fall into the hands of al Qaida-affiliated rebels [all rebels are "al Qaida affiliated; alternatively, how can we divine that "al Qauda affiliated rebels" would be the recipients of the munitions windfall, if there in fact are other sorts of rebels?] This brutal tragedy is already "one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century," but it could get much, much worse (8.2.13)."

Hyperbole leads us to believe action is the only option. However, our own Civil War was fought without foreign intervention, and roughly 750,000 U.S. soldiers died in that conflict, out of a population of 30 million. No Arab or Middle East state has seen loss on that level. Why not offer other nations fighting civil wars the same neutrality with which our nation fought?

Let us be clear: There are no "good guys", so who will benefit? Forget the Syrians -- how will intervention benefit the security of America? Have U.S. actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt or any other Arab or Middle East state produced any tangible benefit to the funders -- the U.S. taxpayer?

When did the U.S. get into the foreign Civil War Resolution business?
The U.S. is not the U.N., and the President is not elected to fight other people's wars. The U.S. Department of Defense is not charged with protecting the rebelling malcontents in other nations.

The U.S. has just fought two of the longest conflicts in U.S. history, and done so supporting corrupt, inept and non-democratic governments from rebels and insurgents. We call these COIN wars (counterinsurgencies), and they are based in fighting those who would advocate overthrowing their government, even when said government is questionable at best, and corrupt and non-democratic, at worst. Syria would be something different, and by entering it the U.S. would be fighting on both sides of the COIN divide. White man speaks with forked tongue.

We are inconsistent: We oppose National Security interventions into our personal lives, but accept U.S. intervention into other people's civil wars. The policy wonks who state that al Qaida affiliates will benefit from a Syrian Civil War have not explained how introducing U.S. violence into the picture will lessen the likelihood of increased al Qaida activity. Are we getting up in everyone's business to distract us from our own dismal circumstances stateside?

We are blinded by our military might: Intervening in Syria assumes that a military reaction will solve a political problem. The media has led us to believe that the misnamed "Arab Spring" is our offspring, and that we must be a presence in any violence in the Islamic world. However, the only reason the U.S. has forces in the area is to ostensibly protect us from terrorist activity -- which is not the case in Syria.

When we launch cruise missiles it will be an act of violence with no morally justified logic.

Labels: , , , , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger no one said...

a couple of thoughts; Why is an intervention something POTUS gets to decide? Where is Congress and the Constitution in all of this?

Polls show only 9% of Americans are in favor of a military intervention. So where is the will of the people in all of this?

Kerry feels we have to do something about Assad's use of sarin because he has seen, he says, videos on you tube. You Tube? Why do we have an IC community if all our leaders have to do is surf the net?

Why does this feel so much like yellow cake from Niger and mobile bio weapons labs?

What about the Russians? Don't they have a fleet or a carrier group or something in the Med? Don't they have a high stake in this game too? Are we looking to go to war with Russia as well?

Who is creating US policy in this case? Is Dr. Stranglove lurking in the shadows on Pennsylvania Ave. or is our Nobel Peace Prize swinging chocolate messiah just that stupid and enabled by an equally stupid congress?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 12:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Peter of Lone Tree said...

"...or is our Nobel Peace Prize swinging chocolate messiah just that stupid and enabled by an equally stupid congress?"
No; but he and his enablers are afraid that they'll be "JFKd". In other words, he's chickenshit.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 2:25:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

No 1.
Obviously WE THE PEOPLE are not in the policy making loop?
Didn't HBO get elected as a peace person?
jim

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 7:57:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

No 1,
Where is the WINTER WARRIOR now?
jim

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 7:58:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home