On August 30, 2014, the New York
Times published two articles relating to the Middle Eastern group known as ISIS
or ISIL. One article came under the title: “To Defeat Terror, We Need the
World's Help” and the subtitle: “The Threat of ISIS Demands a Global
Coalition.” It was written by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other article
came under the title: “Stop Dithering, Confront ISIS” and the subtitle:
“Confront ISIS Now.” It was written by US Senators John McCain and Lindsey
Graham.
In his article, John Kerry gave a
full account of what the American administration has done so far on the matter,
what it is currently doing, and what it plans to do in the future, both
unilaterally and in conjunction with other allies and partners.
As to the McCain and Graham
article, they begin by admitting: “The president clearly wants to move
deliberately and consult with allies and Congress as he considers what to do
about ISIS .” What this means is that they
should keep their mouths shut, and wait to see what the president will do next,
as hinted in the Kerry article. But if they did that, they would have made
themselves irrelevant to the discussion. However, given that they have the
right to participate, they should be able to do so provided they explain what
points of strength they bring to the table that would add value to the
discussion. Did they do that?
Well, judge for yourself. Here is
their explanation: “But the threat ISIS poses
only grows over time. It cannot be contained. It must be confronted. This
requires a comprehensive strategy, presidential leadership and a far greater
sense of urgency.” How is this different from what Kerry has laid out? They
don't answer this question but they do something bizarre – the kind that people
do when they are hungry for something but cannot justify asking for it. Look at
this piece of acrobatics: “If Mr. Obama changes course and adopts a strategic
approach to defeat ISIS , he deserves support.”
What this does is tell the readers
that the President does not have a strategic approach, that they have one, and
they wish he would change course and come to their side. So you want to know
what their strategy is; and they give details: “[it] would require our
commander in chief to explain to war-weary Americans why we cannot ignore this
threat.” Well then, how do they know about this threat that the administration
does not? Simple, they listened to the secretary of homeland security who
called Syria
“a matter of homeland security.” And they listened to the attorney general, the
director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense, all of whom
“echoed the warnings about ISIS .” But these
are the administration which they say doesn't know what the threat is. Oh boy!
This prompts the question: What is
it really that these two senators want? They tell what it is, knowing what the
counter-argument will be, which is why they respond to the question only after
paving the way to it. Here is what they do: “It is a truism to say there is no
military solution to ISIS . Any strategy must
squeeze ISIS ' finances. It requires an
inclusive government in Baghdad … an end to the
conflict in Syria … a
regional approach to mobilize America 's
partners in the effort.”
So far, there is no deviation from
the Kerry plan. Thus, the two go further and add the following: “But
ultimately, ISIS is a military force, and it
must be confronted militarily.” Is that new? Not really, and they know it: “Mr.
Obama has begun to take military actions against ISIS in Iraq , but they
have been half-measures. We need a military plan to defeat ISIS .
Such a plan would strengthen partners who are already resisting ISIS . [They] are the boots on the ground, and the United States
should provide them with arms, intelligence and other military assistance.” How
is that different from Obama's half-measures?
They don't answer that question
directly, but having taken a bizarre approach up to now, they continue on that
streak and add more bizarreness to it. They admit: “A comprehensive strategy
would require more troops, assets, resources and time. [This] should involve
Congress. We have consistently advocated revising the Authorization for Use of
Military Force. Now could be the right time to update it ... Mr. Obama could
win Congress's support.”
Hey guys! Yes, you two esteemed
senators. Are you suggesting that the President should move from half measures
to full measures urgently right now ... and only then come to the
good-for-nothing congress after the fait accompli and ask for an update to the authorization
retroactively? Well, there is a better suggestion out there: Why don't you do
your f**ing work first, let him do his, and then see if you can work with him
and do better?
What seems to bother these two
guys and the people that stand behind them to nudge is that the American people
are war weary. The two want the President to summon his personal skills, mix
them with the aura of his office, and convince the American people that 13
years of continuous war is not something that should bother them. They must
embrace the idea of a never ending war, learn to live with it and ultimately
come to love it.
Well, no one sane will say that the past 13 years have been
good for America .
So the question to ask is this: Whose purpose a perpetual war will serve? We
already know that wars are the oxygen which keeps the Jewish ideology alive. Is
there someone else? Yes, there is. As it happens, a day after President Obama
gave a news conference in which he explained his thoughtful approach; one that
will stay based on facts and not knee-jerk responses, Britain
increased by a notch the level of threat from terrorism.
Moments later, the Prime Mister of Britain , David
Cameron, gave a speech and a news conference in which he said the sort of
things that the likes of McCain and Graham love to hear. Except for one thing.
He offered nothing in terms of assistance to the people who are fighting in the
war theater where America
is involved if not to its eyeballs, to its knees.
Instead of doing that, he did – yet again – what the two
ill-famed colonial powers have been doing for a century, which is to defend the
dismal record of their colonial history, never admitting that Sykes-Picot or
anything they did was bad for the people of the region or the world. This time,
he refused to take responsibility for Britain 's
participation in Iraq 2 with
these words: “The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war 10
years ago … [or] the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy.”
He went on to blame the ISIS threat on the now replaced
Prime Minister of Iraq whose government, he said, has excluded half the
population from the decision making process. Cameron said all that without
mentioning that the system of governance which allowed for this to happen was
imposed on that society by the “Western” allies, including Britain .
Not only did Cameron refuse to take responsibility, he even
refrained from promising any level of participation in the effort he says is
needed in Iraq and Syria at this
time. Why is that? Because he knows that a few sweet to the ear (harsh) words
delivered in a British accent will send enough men and women in America into a
state of orgasmic ecstasy that will make them clamor to see their country go to
war, war, war ... alone if need be.