William R. Mann
Gunfight at the AQ Corral
By William R. Mann
"There is many a boy here to-day who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell." – William Tecumseh Sherman 1880 Speech, Columbus Ohio.
There is a subtle smear campaign being carried out by the Left today.
President Obama's Left paints opposition to intervention in Syria in broad colors of Isolationism. Don't buy into it! How is staying out of a Middle Eastern civil war and quagmire Isolationism? How is it Isolationism to not act where there is no defined American Interest, no coherent Regional and National Strategy, no comprehensive Plan, and no Exit Strategy?
Secretary of State John Kerry would also liken this proposed Syrian punishment [for lack of a better word] to a moral obligation to stem Chemical Weapon use. Balderdash. During WWI the horrors of persistent agents like Mustard used during various battles, and decades afterwards lying in unexploded munitions, contaminated soil and water supplies in France's and Flanders' Fields all created a postwar revulsion and backlash. This resulted in broad disarmament agreements and conventions for the prosecution of warfare and the treatment of POWs during the 1920s.
Yes, there is a Geneva Convention now that prohibits Chemical Weapon use. Today we lump Chemical Weapons together with Biological and Nuclear weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction. The very term, Weapons of Mass Destruction, is all but an oxymoron. A maniac shooting up a school or a shopping mall is described as a Mass Murderer. How many people must he kill before the incident is called Mass Destruction? The Geneva Convention has been largely ignored by many warring parties. It certainly did not deter Mussolini from using poison gas in Ethiopia. Hitler, gassed himself on a WWI Battlefield, still had no trouble using Zyklon B, Carbon Monoxide, and other ghastly means to murder 6 million Jews. Who did anything at those times in the face of overwhelming proof? The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Conventions and did not respect it during World War II. Need we further remind ourselves that Nuclear Weapons are capable of much more damage and poison to the Earth? America used two weapons of Mass Destruction on Japan. Nuclear weapons are not banned. Dead is dead. The murdered victim, whether killed deliberately or cynically and callously listed as "collateral damage," is no less dead. Are not Napalm, or a Flame Thrower, or a Bunker Buster also capable of mass mayhem and mass death in collateral destruction?
Is not Obama's stated "red line" really more like a "Red line?" Statist regimes' "good intentions" require enemies, moral causes, and constant wars. Despite their protestations to the contrary, every such regime needs and uses these conditions in order to sustain their power through contrived moral causes or, in the last resort, a broad and phony appeal to patriotism. How much collateral death has resulted from Mr. Obama's Drone Wars on Al Qaeda leaders?
I truly appreciate the British Parliament as the clear thinkers here. Thank you Britain for just saying no. Britain owes no debt to the US regarding Syria. Britain has bled plenty in the last 10 years helping America. Ditto Australia and Canada. Contrast: There was an appropriate moment for FDR to help Churchill [Britain], but there was no corresponding moral obligation to help Stalin and the USSR. Yet FDR had to wrap and twist the terms of Lend-Lease to Britain so as to also justify and disguise his aid to the USSR. The Americans broadly supported Britain, but not Stalin. FDR, always the politician, bowed to the Red Lobby in America. Stalin, inexplicably, had many fans in the American Left in that era. Had we let the Reds and Nazis fight it out, and reinforced and bolstered Britain only, the war might well have ended with a Federal Europe and without a USSR menace to the East.
The US, by contrast, has a true and moral commitment to Israel. They are our traditional, democratic and spiritual allies. They represent the oldest, most important roots of Western Civilization. This commitment should be a no-brainer. Instead, President Obama skulks around making secret deals with Islamists [and the Muslim Brotherhood] and includes them in his international dealings, as if they are civilized partners in promoting Democracy. Were we to back Israel only, and let the Shia, Sunni and Islamists fight their Civil War to conclusion, then our battlefield participation would be a non-issue. Democracy, without the MB, and Muslim extremists, would have a chance. At least the Arab governments, it seems to me, might well be more tribal, but less warlike, abler to engage in commerce and trade, and be far less anti-Semitic. Less anti-Semitism, of course, would also require Europeans to renounce their own broad anti-Semitism. That is far less likely to happen as long as Islamists influence those cultures and governments
I think SEN Rand Paul has it about right. Mr. Paul thinks any Syrian adventurism is unwarranted and not in the National Interest. I find it interesting that Mr. Obama is essentially stalling his proposed actions until the period approaching the 9/11 Anniversary. Why? Not many dare suggest his real motives; they are afraid. Most people fear opposing this White House machine. Statist Presidents use the force of government Bureaucracy to smear and denigrate any outspoken opposition. Mr. Obama's Administration uses this technique openly and often with his misuse of the IRS and the NSA and other Executive Agency Policies and Actions to silence his "enemies."[Note: In Fascist Italy, Mussolini was personally a demagogue and a feckless leader, but his Blackshirts and other Fascist Government Fronts were a force with which to reckon. Other Statist Régimes in history have acted similarly.]
Certainly, no American should have to fear speaking out against President Obama, should they? President Bush welcomed opposing voices as the normal course of American politics. Why does not Obama do likewise? Absent personal political duress, President Obama does whatever he wants and to Hell with the Situation or with the American People. Is it too cynical to suggest that Mr. Obama desires to have a ready excuse for broad attacks on American interests by Islamists before, during, or after his planned response? Is this why he now comes to Congress?
President Obama, does nothing without Progressive political hegemony and personal power and image in mind. By going now at this late date to Congress, Obama can now blame the Isolationists and Republicans for delaying him. He goes to the blame-well often. When will sentient Democrats and Republicans alike stand up to this and just say "No!" Ask yourself: Why is Obama now a "Warhawk?" I believe it is all about his personal skin, image, political power salted by a large dose of hubris.
At least FDR was acting ostensibly as Patriotic American and in the American Interest by helping our British cousins with Lend-Lease. Israel can take no such comfort about President Obama ... on many levels. The Israeli Press and Government Officials realize this and are acting accordingly. Let us hope that the Congress stops this adventure.
© William R. Mann
September 2, 2013
"There is many a boy here to-day who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell." – William Tecumseh Sherman 1880 Speech, Columbus Ohio.
There is a subtle smear campaign being carried out by the Left today.
President Obama's Left paints opposition to intervention in Syria in broad colors of Isolationism. Don't buy into it! How is staying out of a Middle Eastern civil war and quagmire Isolationism? How is it Isolationism to not act where there is no defined American Interest, no coherent Regional and National Strategy, no comprehensive Plan, and no Exit Strategy?
Secretary of State John Kerry would also liken this proposed Syrian punishment [for lack of a better word] to a moral obligation to stem Chemical Weapon use. Balderdash. During WWI the horrors of persistent agents like Mustard used during various battles, and decades afterwards lying in unexploded munitions, contaminated soil and water supplies in France's and Flanders' Fields all created a postwar revulsion and backlash. This resulted in broad disarmament agreements and conventions for the prosecution of warfare and the treatment of POWs during the 1920s.
Yes, there is a Geneva Convention now that prohibits Chemical Weapon use. Today we lump Chemical Weapons together with Biological and Nuclear weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction. The very term, Weapons of Mass Destruction, is all but an oxymoron. A maniac shooting up a school or a shopping mall is described as a Mass Murderer. How many people must he kill before the incident is called Mass Destruction? The Geneva Convention has been largely ignored by many warring parties. It certainly did not deter Mussolini from using poison gas in Ethiopia. Hitler, gassed himself on a WWI Battlefield, still had no trouble using Zyklon B, Carbon Monoxide, and other ghastly means to murder 6 million Jews. Who did anything at those times in the face of overwhelming proof? The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Conventions and did not respect it during World War II. Need we further remind ourselves that Nuclear Weapons are capable of much more damage and poison to the Earth? America used two weapons of Mass Destruction on Japan. Nuclear weapons are not banned. Dead is dead. The murdered victim, whether killed deliberately or cynically and callously listed as "collateral damage," is no less dead. Are not Napalm, or a Flame Thrower, or a Bunker Buster also capable of mass mayhem and mass death in collateral destruction?
Is not Obama's stated "red line" really more like a "Red line?" Statist regimes' "good intentions" require enemies, moral causes, and constant wars. Despite their protestations to the contrary, every such regime needs and uses these conditions in order to sustain their power through contrived moral causes or, in the last resort, a broad and phony appeal to patriotism. How much collateral death has resulted from Mr. Obama's Drone Wars on Al Qaeda leaders?
I truly appreciate the British Parliament as the clear thinkers here. Thank you Britain for just saying no. Britain owes no debt to the US regarding Syria. Britain has bled plenty in the last 10 years helping America. Ditto Australia and Canada. Contrast: There was an appropriate moment for FDR to help Churchill [Britain], but there was no corresponding moral obligation to help Stalin and the USSR. Yet FDR had to wrap and twist the terms of Lend-Lease to Britain so as to also justify and disguise his aid to the USSR. The Americans broadly supported Britain, but not Stalin. FDR, always the politician, bowed to the Red Lobby in America. Stalin, inexplicably, had many fans in the American Left in that era. Had we let the Reds and Nazis fight it out, and reinforced and bolstered Britain only, the war might well have ended with a Federal Europe and without a USSR menace to the East.
The US, by contrast, has a true and moral commitment to Israel. They are our traditional, democratic and spiritual allies. They represent the oldest, most important roots of Western Civilization. This commitment should be a no-brainer. Instead, President Obama skulks around making secret deals with Islamists [and the Muslim Brotherhood] and includes them in his international dealings, as if they are civilized partners in promoting Democracy. Were we to back Israel only, and let the Shia, Sunni and Islamists fight their Civil War to conclusion, then our battlefield participation would be a non-issue. Democracy, without the MB, and Muslim extremists, would have a chance. At least the Arab governments, it seems to me, might well be more tribal, but less warlike, abler to engage in commerce and trade, and be far less anti-Semitic. Less anti-Semitism, of course, would also require Europeans to renounce their own broad anti-Semitism. That is far less likely to happen as long as Islamists influence those cultures and governments
I think SEN Rand Paul has it about right. Mr. Paul thinks any Syrian adventurism is unwarranted and not in the National Interest. I find it interesting that Mr. Obama is essentially stalling his proposed actions until the period approaching the 9/11 Anniversary. Why? Not many dare suggest his real motives; they are afraid. Most people fear opposing this White House machine. Statist Presidents use the force of government Bureaucracy to smear and denigrate any outspoken opposition. Mr. Obama's Administration uses this technique openly and often with his misuse of the IRS and the NSA and other Executive Agency Policies and Actions to silence his "enemies."[Note: In Fascist Italy, Mussolini was personally a demagogue and a feckless leader, but his Blackshirts and other Fascist Government Fronts were a force with which to reckon. Other Statist Régimes in history have acted similarly.]
Certainly, no American should have to fear speaking out against President Obama, should they? President Bush welcomed opposing voices as the normal course of American politics. Why does not Obama do likewise? Absent personal political duress, President Obama does whatever he wants and to Hell with the Situation or with the American People. Is it too cynical to suggest that Mr. Obama desires to have a ready excuse for broad attacks on American interests by Islamists before, during, or after his planned response? Is this why he now comes to Congress?
President Obama, does nothing without Progressive political hegemony and personal power and image in mind. By going now at this late date to Congress, Obama can now blame the Isolationists and Republicans for delaying him. He goes to the blame-well often. When will sentient Democrats and Republicans alike stand up to this and just say "No!" Ask yourself: Why is Obama now a "Warhawk?" I believe it is all about his personal skin, image, political power salted by a large dose of hubris.
At least FDR was acting ostensibly as Patriotic American and in the American Interest by helping our British cousins with Lend-Lease. Israel can take no such comfort about President Obama ... on many levels. The Israeli Press and Government Officials realize this and are acting accordingly. Let us hope that the Congress stops this adventure.
© William R. Mann
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
