The War Machine

Since 1776, America has been at war for 221 years of it’s 242 year history. There has never been a peacetime president. There has never been a decade America has been without war. There has never been a time when these wars haven’t come primarily at the expense of civilians and non-politicians. With national defense spending exceeding that of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined, America’s intervention into foreign affairs will seemingly never end. If they continue to be as perpetual as they already have been, peace will remain more of a platitude than an option.

While the rest of us were learning about the details of the hastily-passed omnibus spending bill, US politicians (including the president) were boasting about spending $700 billion this year and $716 billion next year on the military. Given that the drums of war always seem to be heard rumbling faintly off in the distance, it was only a matter of time before foreign intervention was on the agenda again as usual.

And right on time, once again, Syria found itself in the crosshairs.

In early April, amidst victory against ISIS and U.S.-backed forces and only days after Trump announced removing troops from Syria, Bashar al-Assad was accused of being responsible for an alleged chemical attack against a Syrian town held by rebels that left dozens dead and more injured. Trump immediately denounced Assad for the attacks, calling him an “animal” in a tweet which included insults to Russia and Iran. Both Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Sen. John McCain have called for action to be taken, with suggestions ranging from “limited strikes” to more funding for rebels. Conservative commentator and radio talk show host Mark Levin wants to see the Trump administration “take a stand for humanity.” Other nations were also getting involved. France’s President Macron claimed to have evidence that could potentially lead him to order air strikes against Syrian forces, and British Prime Minister Theresa May was in agreement with Trump in that the chemical attack “should not go unchallenged.”

Needless to say, Russia warned things might get messy if the West takes military action against Assad, even going so far as to say they would shoot down any missiles aimed in Syria’s direction (The Russian military has even stated that Britain staged and directed the chemical attack).

And then, on Friday night, despite years of Trump being against the bombing of Syria and being in support of the president requiring congressional approval before doing so, the U.S. led airstrikes on Syria with aid from France and the United Kingdom, firing a barrage of 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles (with an estimated cost of $92.4 million) at specific targets alleged to be the sources of the chemical attack. Trump’s reasoning: “To establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons.”

Many politicians and pundits in favor of the bombing are claiming this was not enough. John McCain, also chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants a more comprehensive strategy, not just for ISIS and Syria but for the whole region with a focus on fingering Russia and Iran as reasons for the turmoil in parts of the Middle-East. When Trump bombed Syrian targets in April 2017, McCain thought then that airstrikes weren’t enough. Sen. Marco Rubio has added his support of wanting a comprehensive strategy, and though Lindsey Graham has praised Trump and the military for the show of force, Graham stated that he is afraid the airstrikes are “going to be seen as a weak response.” Nikki Haley recently announced further economic sanctions on Russia following the airstrikes.

What doesn’t make sense is why Assad, being victorious against ISIS, rebels and with the removal of U.S. troops from Syria, would invite the world’s ire upon himself and his allies only to undo everything that has been accomplished. Of course, there are some claiming that because he is a dictator, this means he is crazy by default and willing to do stupid things, but the level of stupidity it would take to willingly become the next Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein is an insult to the intelligence of anyone paying attention to the story. While he may be guilty of things that should draw legitimate condemnation, watching any interview with Assad will reveal he is not a stupid man, especially not one stupid enough to become another deposed Middle-Eastern dictator meeting a demise no reasonable person would wish on their worst enemy.

As Tucker Carlson asked in his tweet, what would be the benefit to Syria, to America and to the rest of the world in attacking Syria? Why would waging war with Assad and Putin, which will bring far more destruction to the area and thousands more deaths and refugees, be a reasonable answer for the deaths of several dozen people? Continually provoking Russia to defend Syria could lead to a world war with bombs being dropped here. If Putin is backed into a corner, it’s reasonable to think he will send all he’s got because he knows, they know, what comes next is American occupation and the dividing up of their country (“to the victor go the spoils”). So, is moral grandstanding worth even flirting with that risk, one that could involve World War III?

No.

A quote by H.L. Mencken: “Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

Perpetual War & American Complacency

Perpetual war conditions the populace to be used to the idea of war and that it is never too far away, always ever-present. No American generation has ever avoided the slimy tentacles of war. Americans are raised to expect their armed forces to fight bad guys and hobgoblins all over the world so much so that in place of what should be called “aggression” is the Orwellian term “defense” (In 1949, the Department of War became the Department of Defense). When all you are is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. Today, if someone opposes intervention in foreign affairs or undeclared wars, they run the risk of being accused by mainstream news journalists of being unAmerican or involved with reactionary white nationalism.

One of the most encouraging and frustrating things amid all of the war propaganda pumped out by the mainstream news media is a resistance to the willingness to go to war among Americans. Surveys after last year’s April airstrikes show that half of those surveyed supported the decision but didn’t anticipate any improvement in the situation. Half may seem like a dauntingly large number, and it is, but when considering the divine providence mentality that became the wind in Bush’s sails in the post-9/11 era of terrorism hysteria, it is an encouraging improvement. Surveys performed throughout the height of the War in Iraq showcase a floundering of support for keeping troops on the ground with even support for the initial reasons for invading waning. Thanks to the internet, people are much more capable of getting information about a story and deciding for themselves what is most likely, and given the last several decades of U.S. foreign policy and the effects it has had on the Middle-East, civil liberties, and mass immigration, it’s easy to not only be skeptical of U.S. interventionism but to find ample evidence of its disasters. When you are always around fire, you begin to smell like smoke.

However, despite strong stances on topics like war, to keep from being labeled a pariah among friends and family, to avoid being singled out at university or work, and to evade being considered a thought criminal, many Americans refrain from discussing topics like religion and politics, particularly the specific, timely reverberations we may observe from a distance or experience firsthand (i.e., child molestation in the Catholic Church or the long-term aftereffects of foreign intervention on military personnel returning home).

Debate & Discussion: Seeds for Peaceful Solutions

We’ve probably all heard, “It’s best not to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table,” but the phrase “religion and politics” is a misnomer. The real term ought to be “morals and ethics.” There is definitely a time and place for it, but this is the single greatest discussion we could choose to have with the people around us. Complacently avoiding these kinds of conversations keeps awkwardness down between friends and family but allows professional, career politicians the opportunity to assume the role of society’s guardian angels who run for election in an effort to guide us, usually off cliffs like lemmings. The tragedy of being conditioned to hand over the capacity of self-determination to chairpersons and congresspersons is similar to parents being raised to feed their children into the U.S. education system. The idea of a parent voluntarily educating their own children at home is often seen as primitive and socially awkward, yet the idea of being forced to pay to have your child educated by average strangers teaching prevailing politically acceptable material for hours a day throughout the most crucial years of their life is seen not only as acceptable but as the preferred method of social education. Peaceful changes, whether involving things like alternative education or the end of needless wars, begin with speaking out with well-reasoned, well-articulated arguments. If people are not allowed or willing to bring about change peacefully, it will come about violently.

These basic individual responsibilities of self-determination and having genuine ethical discussions are too often shrugged, and Big Brother gets bigger, whether it’s by allowing elected officials to take the moral and ethical reigns away from a large number of people in a given area or by giving the reigns of educating children to the State. These two aspects of American society contribute in a large degree to social decay. Governments grow their power and become more isolated and more protected from the people they claim to represent, while the people who elect them have less power over their own lives, less protection from the government and more isolation between one another. Big Brother continues to grow into the Biggest Brother and begins picking on the other ones and causing a ruckus. The only proposed way of “uniting” under Big Brother is by assimilating opposing underlings into a Borg-like political hive mind, which does not happen peacefully.

Thankfully, the human spirit, a person’s individuality, will always be at war with these coercive, collective utopian ideals, and resistance to overbearing government will likely always persist, no matter how daunting things may seem. Nonetheless, it starts with effectively communicating ideas of peace, liberty and free markets in an effort to connect to the humanity that resides in the vast majority of all rational human beings. Open discourse is a gift and we need not take it for granted.

Quote by Ben Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, and as nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Like this: Like Loading...