Here We Go Again

Deja
Vu All Over Again

The ascension to power of the Islamic
State in the Levant (ISIL) is providing fodder for all sorts of
demands for retaliation. So far, no one has warned of a mushroom
cloud. The beheading of journalists and aid workers has galvanized
public opinion and increased the shrillness of those who clamor for
war at the first threat, imagined or otherwise. This group is
barbaric, of that there can be no doubt but have we reached the
threshold for a declaration of war? I am not certain that we have
although I do think there is a risk that must be addressed.

Air strikes have begun in Syria against
various targets of terrorism and have been going on in Iraq for some
days now. The talking heads on TV are scorching the earth to find
anyone that may be presumed to have any kind of intelligence or
military credibility to comment on the topic. Actually, they are
looking for anyone that can drum up some kind of ardor for military
action. They aren't too interested in those who think this isn't
such a great idea. In its enthusiasm the new “coalition of the
willing” is quite excited to participate in aerial bombardment but
those willing to actually put people on the ground to do the nasty
work of rooting out combatants from their urban hideouts are scarce.
Of course, our group formerly known as the “neocons” are champing
at the bit for the United States to return warriors to the
battlefield to die in the quest for Middle Eastern hegemony but so
far the President has been unwilling to furnish them. Only the
Kurds, whose homes and peoples are under attack, and the imaginary
Iraqi army are willing to provide what we so euphemistically call
“boots on the ground.”

The past few days have revealed yet
another threat to the “homeland” so the bloodlust is stoked to
provide political cover for the President to send bombs and missiles
to avoid the prospect of those radicals reaching across the Atlantic
Ocean to visit mayhem on the American people. But has the case for
war been made? Has a clear and present danger been identified that
would justify the expenditure of more lives and treasure? At last
count the cost was $7.5 million per day and I am certain that has
risen precipitously since engaging the enemy inside Syria. After the
snow job we got in order to provide “probable cause” to invade
Iraq I must confess to a bit of skepticism about NSA and CIA reports.
This is another one of those cases where there are no good options
and we have been cleverly played to provide the means of knocking off
the enemies of Hafez Assad in Syria and the Ayatollah in Iran who are
jubilant to see the United States making recruiting posters for their
efforts.

Here is my problem. The chief
instigator of radical Islam is the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.
All but a couple of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack were Saudis.
Wahhabism is the brand of radical Islam that the Saudis practice and
Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi. They are the chief financiers of
radical Islam along with Qatar and Kuwait, both ostensibly allies of
ours. The Saudi ruling family has been promising the Caliphate for
years and they are deathly afraid of their own people rising up and
overthrowing them like the people of Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Syria
and they need a way to blunt the threat without fighting their own
people. In addition, the Saudis really don't want Iran to be a
bigger power than they are because the Iranians are Shiite Muslims.
Sort of like Baptists and Catholics a few centuries ago. If you
don't understand the history of the region you can't understand the
present and the present is much more complicated than we are led to
believe.

So, here we go again and who else is
excited besides the Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Qataris?
Why, those who profit the most from the machinery of death, the
armaments industry. All of that money we spend on war, where do you
think it goes. As an old investigative phrase goes, “just follow
the money.” Current reports are of billions in defense contracts
to the private sector for all sorts of support machinery and
intelligence gathering. The benefactors? Northrop-Grumman,
Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and a myriad of acronyms of
surreptitious companies that provide deep surveillance for the
military. You may ask “what does the military actually do?”
Well, the military takes those products provided to them by those
contractors and adds the human element. The folks we put in harm's
way and those millions of taxpayers who have their taxes siphoned off
from schools, roads and hospitals to feather the nests of the
stockholders of those companies. Incidentally, defense stocks are
up.

I realize there is some level of threat
to the United States proper and its citizens. I just think the
response is poorly conceived and lacks a clear definition of our
goals. The most incisive comment I have heard made concerning this
military action was made in a Charlie Rose interview with President
Rouhani of Iran. I will try to quote it as accurately as I can. He
said, “why do you think you can solve the problems you created with
actions that only recruit more enemies?” There you have it.
President Obama knows this and that is why he has been resisting
action as long as he has but the dogs of war have been unleashed and
no one knows when they will be called to heel.

My Take is this. I wish we perceived
the threat of climate change as clearly as we perceive this threat.

Write me with your thoughts.