In his Memorial Day address yesterday at Arlington National Cemetery, President Obama noted that this is the first Memorial Day in 14 years when the US did not have large numbers of troops engaged in a ground war. Most people see that as a positive turn of events. The Republican presidential candidates, though, aren’t so happy.
As the Islamic State makes big gains across Iraq and Syria, the GOP candidates have been bashing the president as a weak leader who is letting the Middle East fall to extremists. Republican bloggers and columnists write about the brutal atrocities committed by the terrorists turned conquerors. However, none can offer a better alternative. Instead, they make vague hints of more troops and bemoan our troops leaving too soon.
Our invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster caused by the neo-con ideologues who believed U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators. Instead, we unleashed brutal sectarian forces that strongmen like Saddam Hussein had kept in check. Make no mistake, the emergence of the Islamic State and other extremists is the result of the U.S. invasion.
Let’s go over the situation in the Middle East. Most Republicans see the alarming rise of the Islamic State as our biggest threat. They are a brutal group of thugs using religion to justify sadism and they are gaining territory throughout Syria and Iraq. The Assad regime in Syria is fiercely battling the Islamic State but the U.S. also supports overthrowing Assad.
The Islamic State is made up of Sunni extremists and many of their victims are Shiite Muslims. Iran is the most powerful Shiite state in the region and has ground troops fighting the Islamic State but they support the Assad regime. Iran also supports the predominantly Shiite government of Iraq (as do we), as well as some of the paramilitary groups who are fighting IS. Iran, though, is also our biggest nemesis.
Our strongest ally in the region is probably Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country. They are fighting IS but they’ve also allowed the very conservative and radical Wahhabi sect to flourish in parts of the country. Many of the Islamic State fighters and leaders, as well as many of the 9/11 bombers, came from Wahhibism. However, the Saudis won’t reel in the Wahhabis because they don’t want to deal with the consequences.
Meanwhile, in Yemen, a proxy war is playing out between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran. The Saudi and U.S. supported leader was overthrown by rebels supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. However, it turns out that the guy we were supporting, cut a deal with Al Qaeda in Yemen, giving them control of a province in an effort to get more support from us.
I’m sure I’ve got some it wrong and overly simplistic, but that’s roughly my understanding of the situation. Regardless, why would we want to get more engaged in the wars in this part of the world? Sure, the Islamic State is a disturbingly brutal group but, right now, they are not a direct threat to us.
More importantly, though, why would we turn over the keys to our foreign policy to the people who created this mess in the first place? They got it of wrong before and destabilized the whole region, lost thousands of American lives, and cost trillions of American dollars. There’s absolutely no reason to believe they will get it right now.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
A permanent state of war is good for business, so why would chickenhawk Republicans be against that?
Right on, Dan R. I am also a veteran, and I agree entirely with what you’ve stated. Nor am I a pacifist–I’m a proud Marine. Served from 1970 through 1973. However, I agree that we need a draft or some sort of universal public service for a good variety of reasons. And I’ve lost respect for many fellow vets like John McCain who have never seen a war they didn’t want to join. One problem is that many fellow vets “bought the program,” as was said during Viet Nam. It is sad that any vet believes that he/she has to unquestionably support the policies of the U.S. government which may be in power at any given moment to give balm to the feelings of hurt at losing friends or having been injured himself/herself.
Just as I have not yet heard any valid reason for the USA going into the foolish caldron that was Viet Nam, I have not yet seen valid reasons for the USA militarily engaging anything in the Middle East.
Correction: If the Make Hate War, was ended.
The US has not been ratified as the government of governments, and it is a reach too far. The UN was hobbled and discredited through US machinations and betrayals of charter ideals of majority rule in Korea, and in the Zionist award of Israel. Andre` Lewin of the French UN Association offered a plan to Reinvent the UN, saying that if it didn’t already exist we would be inventing it.
The International organizations like the IACO, WHO, Unicef, and a long list on do incredible worthy work keeping the world rolling along with rules that work for international betterment and safety.
However even Andre` Lewin judged that the UN needed an “Army” of its own. In fact his points aim for the UN as the Government of Governments.
It is a bad sign for the future of humanity that crimes properly reported by too often murdered journalists do not in fact simply trigger an appropriate response. For the decision about the use of force to protect innocents to land on the US President’s desk before it is a clear duty of the UN to react to will ensure US bloodletting to little benefit of the US people.
The fear of banning the bomb that keeps the US from deciding conflicts on their merits as a nationalistic decision to limit the waste when being smart and focused on threats in order of importance to the nation ought to be first would throw soldiers out of work who are afraid to stop and too worn out to get the note about civilian soldiering.
They do not return and get to build bridges and airports and roads and buildings.
Obama has set some to becoming Solar Power installers, something also invested interests actually fear might cut profits and is made more expensive and difficult when renewables are the only real alternative.
Mearsheimer from the UofC recommends all nations just forget about it, that UN thing, and all get atomic weapons.
During WWI and WWII then more the US was the Arsenal of Democracy, and since the wars that the US has been fighting as winner of the Economic Warfare mean its cyberwar is the first front, and for the US itself, the only other real Front is the war on its own people, the Drug War which has killed 60,000 Mexicans since 2007, and continues to be the reason for large Police departments who would not be needed at their current sizes if the War on People or the Make Hate War.
As long as the export market for US weapons is dependent on alliances then the Industrial Complex must seek out off shore wars, and the Republicans will do that. You would about want to throw up your hands and just let the corporations like Rayathon move all their operations to wherever it is they are parking money to keep it from being taxed, and let them sell their weapons to whomever they want to.
Give the Coast Guard 15 killer subs, and protect the US Space program and the grid with computer firewalls while investing in itself, and ending the war on its own and those dying on the border.
All good comments.
One of my concerns is historical. In reading world history, we often learn that many an empire fell because it exhausted its military. My sense is that all our military services need a break. Time to fall back, recover, rest–mentally as well as physically. It seems Republican leadership can’t think past military action. It is their solution to all world events. They will exhaust and destroy our military.
I recalled how I replied to Bush’s infamous 2002 “unmanned aerial vehicles” Cincinnati speech yesterday. Not that either of my NC senators were listening:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/damned-dirty-hippies-by-bloggersrus.html
Give the keys to foreign policy to the GOP again? No f*ckin’ way!
The Republican candidates most likely to actually secure the nomination seem to have very little depth of understanding of the subject. But what is truly terrifying is that they are all getting their advice on the subject from “experts” who were either the architects of, or vocal supporters of, the greatest foreign policy disaster in generations.
It is not as if their were no credible voices pointing out all the very obvious negative consequences of the inexplicable lust for invading Iraq that the neocons had. But not a one was advising President Bush.
The day Jeb Bush gave that painfully stumbling foreign policy speech in which he declared himself “his own man” his campaign released a list of those from whom he is receiving foreign policy advice. Almost without exception they were all advisers to his brother, his father or both. The other Republican candidates are getting advice from others of the same neocon worldview.
I am a veteran. I am not a pacifist. I have no issue with the proper application of American military power. I do have an issue with taking tens of thousands of casualties and spending trillions of dollars in the pursuit of neocon fantasies that damage rather than enhance American interests in the world. Not to mention destabilizing the entire Middle East and demonstrably (and quite predictably) strengthening Iran.
These guys seem to have never met a war they didn’t like. It is hard to imagine why they all dodged the draft when they had the opportunity to experience first hand the thing they seem to love so darned much.
At the very least, we need to reinstate the draft before these guys are in charge again. It would be too much to hope that their sons wouldn’t still be able to avoid service anyway, but if more than a tiny fraction of America’s families found their sons and daughters at risk from the hair brained schemes of these nitwits it would be much harder for them to hoodwink the nation again. Folks would be paying much closer attention.
Well said.
Bravo!!!