Blowback - More evidence for the wisdom of non-interventionism
There are a number of reasons to not like (or vote for) President Trump. It was only four or five years ago since Trump correctly criticized Obama's foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East (particularly Syria). Then, in the first 100 days of his presidency, he pulled his most hypocritical move to date - the bombing of the Syrian air base used to launch (chemical?) attacks on ISIS in northeastern Syria (or should I just call it ISIS?).
We all know of the recent bombing in Manchester, England. Today the bomber's sister said that the suicide attack in England was revenge for Trump's launching of cruise missiles on the Syrian air base.
This is as good an example of what Ron and Rand Paul call "blowback" as there is.
We all know of the recent bombing in Manchester, England. Today the bomber's sister said that the suicide attack in England was revenge for Trump's launching of cruise missiles on the Syrian air base.
This is as good an example of what Ron and Rand Paul call "blowback" as there is.
The extremist elements of Islam have waged war against Western society since Mohammed decided that conversion by the sword was righteous in the eyes of Allah. Every effort to seek a peaceful solution by the West has only been viewed as time to "buff up" in preparation for the next jihad by the extremist Islamists.
As the most successful example of Western civilization, America has been a key target for the Islamists. We helped Osama Bin Laden defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, saved the Holy city of Mecca from the Iraqi dictator, stopped the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs, and we got 9/11 in return.
Chamberlainesque thinking of somehow avoiding conflict and staying out of the fray to secure "peace in our time" is dead end thinking. It doesn't work. Never has. Strong support of Muslims trying to achieve a non-violent society is one thing that will help, but unfortunately non-involvement is not an option open to us.
Like it or not, if we understand the oppressive end of a worldwide caliphate, we have to be prepared to aid all nations under assault by jihadists. That includes Muslim nations, a deteriorating Europe, Russia, China, and the Philippines.
And as for the Middle East? They've been fighting and killing each other over religion, even between different sects of the same religion, for centuries upon centuries. Who in their right mind would ever presume to change that kind of thinking by "talking it out"? Only a politician with an extremely high opinion of himself. No, the only way to deal with a people like that is the same way you deal with schoolyard bullies. You stomp their ass into a mudhole and then you stomp it dry. Once that is accomplished most are usually ready and willing to "talk about it".
From human rights watch:
All available evidence strongly suggests that on April 4, 2017, a Syrian government warplane attacked Khan Sheikhoun, a town in the northwestern governorate of Idlib, with a nerve agent, killing at least 92 people, 30 of them children. The death toll likely makes this the deadliest chemical attack since an attack killed hundreds in Ghouta, near Damascus, in August 2013.
The Khan Sheikhoun attack sparked international outrage, but the attack on Khan Sheikhoun was not the only recent chemical attack by the Syrian government. Three developments since late 2016 show that the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons has become widespread and systematic:
Government warplanes appear to have dropped bombs with nerve agents on at least four occasions since December 12, including in Khan Sheikhoun;
The government’s use of helicopter-dropped chlorine-filled munitions has become more systematic;
Government or pro-government ground-forces have started using improvised ground-launched munitions containing chlorine.
In at least some of the attacks, the intention appears to have been to inflict severe suffering on the civilian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity.
I wonder how it would go over with Trump asking Putin to help out with this like Barrack Husein Obama did.
"A number of reason to not like Trump"
But zero reasons to like the liar in chief Obozo and ditto for the evil hag!
This is a radicalized family hard to think another excuse would not be used for this treachery had the Trump tomahawk strikes not occured.
Nothing to gain . I agree that we have added fuel to the extremist fires with our Mid East actions. Both Bushes Iraqi invasions were a disaster and same with Obama taking out Ghaddafi in Libya.
I am no expert Jbrenner. Using chemical weapons
Is something that should not be done any where.
I would have preferred a couple of tomahawks land on Assads head as a deterrent to any who would kill so indiscriminately with those outlawed
Methods. If the leaders knew they would be targets they would most definitely think twice.
Just having them is not a good reason to invade.
Really the biggest problem for humanity is the shadow govt., that profits from arms dealings and the wars they create to use them. They have no "care" for people.
Anyone with vision can imagine the entirely different direction the middle east could be heading in, had the U.S. and coalition forces been kept in place to provide enough support for Iraq to fully cement their democracy.
Fully cementing a democracy sounds good but with the Sunnis ,Shia and Kurds all hating each other splitting the country might have been the only way.
Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.
(As an aside, we should note that there was a political, as well as a military, dimension to American influence in Iraq: Obama continued to support the government even as Sunni fear and anger grew. "We were encouraged," he said in 2013, "by the work that Prime Minister Maliki has done in the past to ensure that all people inside of Iraq — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — feel that they have a voice in their government."
(But they did not feel that. Sheikh Zeidan al-Jabri led a series of Sunni protests and sit-ins in Anbar, which were eventually violently dispersed by security forces at the end of 2013.
("For a year, we did not attack anyone; we were an example of democracy on an international level," he told me from exile in Jordan. "And what did the world do? The world simply turned its face from us and gave Maliki the permission to attack the demonstrations and kill hundreds of innocent demonstrators.")
I am glad your husband returned safely.
There is no way to know if the different factions could have ever learned to live peacefully side by side, but certainly without any enforcement of peace, it was guaranteed not to work.
I hate Obama and everything his administration did and his throwing the peace achieved in Iraq is at the top of the list.
So many sacrifices of lives and limbs in addition to the $Trillion. Our soldiers have to operate in a civilized and controlled manner to their detriment. For the jihadists anything goes. Same of course with the dictators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppykq...
If we're not committed to carry out all of the above before we begin an intervention in a foreign country, then to begin at all is nothing but a stupid waste of American blood and treasure.
Which brings a thought to mind; have we ever been asked to intervene in any of these situations or have we just stuck our noses in uninvited?
The only way a country like that was going to change was for us to run the entire country for two generations - similar to what we did in Japan and West Germany following WWII. Nation-building doesn't happen overnight or in the space of a couple of years, but over 3-4 generations.
To me, we absolutely had the right of the conqueror to do whatever we wanted. But we massively fumbled the ball in fundamentally misunderstanding what would be required and then mobilizing the will of the American People behind a long-term solution - and I will freely admit it was a dicey proposition at best. As it was carried out, it was a project doomed to fail from the beginning and we would have been better to ask Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to assist in the governance roles rather than allow Iran to gain control by subterfuge and intrigue.
Sure, one can argue that standpoint, but one also concedes that that nation will turn to communism and actively oppose the formation of other capitalist societies. Capitalism does not happen by itself. The Founding of the United States was a freak anomaly resulting from just the right conditions - not the normal progress of civilization. I look no further than to the Western World since WW II to see descent toward socialism from a time in which true freedom (for the entire world) hinged on the outcome. The United States has been somewhat slower to descend than Europe, but we are descending nonetheless.
"Is building new capitalistic markets the responsibility of any government?"
The proper role of government is to protect rights and provide an atmosphere of limited government in which may be realized the expression of natural rights and a market economy. One of the failures in Iraq stemmed from the Keynesians in government who believed that if Government sets policy the People will follow. That is not always the case (and certainly wasn't the case in Iraq).
The government certainly must choose a foreign policy and among those decisions is the active promotion of market economics vs one of protectionism. And there are certainly enough foreign policy blunders on either side to provide cannon fodder for a robust debate. To me, the heart of the matter is this: if it is something you want for yourself, why wouldn't you want to share it with others?
1) In some cases, sharing something with others will not be in your best interest, particularly if the sharer becomes your competitor instead of your customer.
2) Sharing new technology with a culture not ready for it, either technologically or philosophically, is fraught with danger, as shown in the montage of Star Trek TNG Prime Directive moments, particularly at 6:54 to 8:00 of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qRR...
3) It is not the government's responsibility to create a market; it is your responsibility. When the government gets involved, some citizens may approve, but certainly others will not. This goes to the foundation of a limited government.
2. The nations of Africa can certainly point to the introduction of modern firearms as the impetus behind military juntas - which not only deny natural rights but redirect resources to the support of the few in power. It is a perversion of the appropriate role of government. I agree with you that there are inherent dangers in introducing certain technologies to the uninitiated. But there again the situation runs into the problems of who is going to restrain (or even identify) the items on the "banned" list? The Prime Directive moments are frequently about civilizations so technologically disparate that ignorance is the key to avoidance. No such tremendous difference (and therefore ignorance) exists in today's world, so the supposition that one can "hide" from other Earth cultures is unfounded. There is also the moral question: are we really doing any favors to those who's technological advancement is inferior to ours? While the thrust of the "Prime Directive" mentality is to not force the matter, does the opposite (allowing them to remain in ignorance) actually favor them? If the technological gap is becoming greater as time passes, under what circumstances would the inferior culture "catch up"? As a corollary, by doing nothing, we also allow the passing tyrant to more easily take advantage of the situation. I do not propose to have the answers, only that I don't see either course of action as a clear-cut moral "win".
3. If a government is instituted of and by the People, then it is the People who are creating the market even if the method is government. Now this is not to divert from the proper role of government which is to protect rights and can certainly devolve into coercion if not properly exercised, but that is what we face even within our own government: there is no guarantee. Does that give us the right to interfere in other nations without their permission? Absolutely not. But in nations where there is a legitimate question of which policies to pursue, we should absolutely back those forces which encourage adoption of limited governments which protect natural rights and market economies. Is it a tight rope to walk? Sure. But if we do not venture, we do nothing but allow for the forces of socialism and communism to win the day. It is an ideological struggle which can not be won by doing nothing.
Do they do so because of ignorance or because their cultural values are in actuality antithetical to those necessary for a free government? I knew several members of the military (officers) who were in Iraq and Afghanistan and noted that many there participated in the democratic elections with open pride. They wanted the freedom of self-rule. The problem was that their religious leadership and tenets were not compatible with the principles of a democratic/republican society and this was seen in their Constitution as well as the forced agreement of allowing the Shia to participate in what had been a Sunni-dominated government. Those elected to power (because they were now in the majority) were all too easily persuaded to then target those who had oppressed them in the past - aided in no small part by their ideological compatriots in neighboring Iran. It was a poisoned well to begin with and we did not identify that.
In contrast I would point to Vietnam, where recently that nation threw off the oppression of Communist rule and became a free-market and republican society. That they had been subjected to 40 years of Communism was because of the failure of the United States - and all those who espoused freedom - to fight on their behalf (noting that Vietnam was really a proxy war with the USSR and China). Now there certainly may be two arguments made here: one, that no freedom which isn't earned is real freedom. The other is that that nation truly wanted freedom in either case - all we did is allow an entire generation to fall under Communism by backing out.
I for one am well aware that without "skin in the game", no one appreciates what they have. It is what I watched when I was careful to park the bicycle I had worked so hard to earn in the garage while my brothers' bikes (Christmas presents I helped assemble) rusted in the rain. It may be that the Iraqi people after having fought this violent insurgency finally gain the collective will to establish and protect freedom. Or they may simply devolve back into the tribalism and religious zealotry which is the hallmark of the entire region. Only time will tell.
I am a firm believer that nothing should be given freely but I staunchly question the wisdom of inaction when it comes to an ideological struggle. In WW II, there was a coalition of nations who banded together to reject National Socialism (leaving Russia for its own discussion entirely). If that same struggle erupts today, however (and I believe that it takes the form of Islamic religious zealotry in ways even more dangerous than National Socialism), I am counting the number of erstwhile allies in ever-dwindling numbers. England in many cases refuses to call the most recent concert attack an act of terrorism. France has entire portions of its capital city which are off-limits to their own people. Sweden is awash with a rape epidemic due to the influx/invasion of "refugees" and even the United States is seeing similar things - especially when one factors in the drug gangs like MS-13 from across our southern border. Canada has passed "hate speech" laws that muzzle freedom and Australia revoked self-defense privileges from its citizens (via firearms). Our list of allies grows thin indeed. How much more before we cease to be a free nation entirely? I fear our end is not nearly as far as we think.
From Rand's "For the New Intellectual":
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.”
Rand's prescience on this point is one of her greatest observations on the condition of some "humans".
But go ahead. Tell me that modern interventions are different, and were done just to obtain oil. Yeah, right.
My one comment on the entirety of this thread is that each of us individually, but of far greater potential consequence, collectively - especially taking into account the realities of today, should mind our own business. Self defense (individually and collectively) at the ready, retaliatory force whenever determined necessary and productive.
The Middle East would, dominated by those who collectively continue to make it home to primitive and savage societies, were we to end our political/military attempts at manipulation of their lives, quickly resume the slaughter of each other as they have for over 1200 years, with little remaining focus or concern with "us."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_C...
I like it.
Why indeed should we get involved in the world's atrocities? Well then, the next question becomes: If by our inaction ISIS for example grows bigger and stronger and creates a world wide caliphate, shouldn't we have tried to wipe them out when they were relatively smaller and weaker?
The government has made it's bed and now has to lay in it at our expense.
In a word...it SUCKS!
The motivations of crazy bad guys are their own problem, indeed, and frankly none of our business until it directly affects us.
Even more so 30 years later.
That's illogical on my part. Based on that one data point, you don't even have to be a pathetic $hit trying to make yourself feel less pathetic to want to dismiss me mentally ill.
I read what Abedi's sister said. It makes logical sense, but I discount it. Criminals always have their bogus excuses.
I don't trust either side of that war, which is why I think we should stay out of it entirely.
Not trying to be a smart-ass (it just comes naturally to some of us.)