As predicted, another momentous event has caused the likes of
Clifford D. May to advocate the opposite of what logic says ought to be
America's response.
The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed, and instead of
advocating the end of America's involvement in places where it should never
have gone, Clifford May has seized the opportunity to advocate the maintenance
of what he calls the “endless war.” He did so in an article he wrote under the
title: “The end of al-Baghdadi but the Islamic State marches on,” published on
October 29, 2019 in The Washington Times.
This comes as no surprise to the people who are familiar with the
Jewish trick of accusing the others of their own desires, and building a
delusional case on that false premise. For example, the Jews have been accusing
the Palestinians of rejecting the two-state solution when, in fact, they were
the ones rejecting it because they always wanted to swallow all of Palestine.
But now that they believe America will support whatever they do, whichever way
they do it in Palestine, the Jews are speaking confidently about their
rejection of a two-state solution on the premise that it would deny them the
acquisition of all of Palestine.
Animated by that same upside-down mentality, Clifford May accuses
all Muslims in the world of the desire to fight an endless war against
Judeo-Christianity. And based on this falsehood, he advocates an endless war
led by America against Islam. He does that by admitting at the start of his
discussion that the death of Baghdadi “is a battle won,” which suggests that
America should pack its war gear and go home, but he then says of Muslims that,
“all are prepared to wage an endless war to achieve their objectives,” which is
his way of inciting America to keep fighting the Muslims.
But how does Clifford May advance such argument in a piece of work
that seems on the surface to hold together? He does it by talking about war as
if it were an activity that America is able to conduct at no cost to its people
in terms of lives lost or squandered wealth, most of which is borrowed from
potential adversaries who are sitting pretty, improving their economies and
keeping their young alive and in school.
In fact, nowhere in his article does Clifford May write about the
cost of conducting an endless war. Instead, he dedicates the bulk of his talk
to participate in a haggling match of utter triviality. Here is how that went:
“It surprises me how many remain confused about Islamists. That
was illustrated by the headlines that appeared on Sunday in The Washington Post
obituary of Baghdadi. One read: Baghdadi, Islamic State's terrorist-in-chief,
dies at 48. A second read: Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic
State, dies at 48. A third read: Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State,
dies at 48. Worth considering: How odd it is to think of Baghdadi as austere?
As for his Islamic scholarship, he had degrees from the University of Baghdad
and the Saddam University for Islamic Studies. Which brings me to a final
point: The ideology which Baghdadi espoused is not different from those of al
Qaeda, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter prefer a tie and jacket to a
turban and dishdasha. Iranians are well-educated, cultured, fluent in the
language of diplomacy, and comfortable in the company of unbelievers”.
To find out what Clifford May should have done that he didn't do,
we turn to an article that was published on the same day in the same
publication. It came under the title: “The growing veteran suicide epidemic,”
and the subtitle: “Why Congress must support research that addresses veteran
suicides.” It was written by Robert Graham, and published on October 29, 2019
in The Washington Times. Here is what Robert Graham has said that Clifford May
should have mentioned, if only in passing, but did not:
“Sixty-thousand veterans have committed suicide over the past
decade. Our nation lost more service members at home than in active war zones.
Sadly, a majority of those veterans who took their own lives died in the same
way their brothers and sisters did on the battlefield –– by a firearm.
Firearm-related veteran suicides is an epidemic that lies beneath the surface
of the national discourse, but it affects us all. As communities across the
nation feel the pain of this issue, they are asking their elected officials to
find and address its root causes. However, in order to get to the source of
this problem, we need more information. And sadly, as it currently stands, we
do not have the required data and facts”.
And here is one reason––if it's not the only reason––why the
veterans of American intervention in Arab and Muslim affairs, feel that their
lives were reduced to an absurdity not worth maintaining: They were lied to
when told they were defending America. They feel that killing unarmed or
lightly armed Arab men, women and children in their homes, serves the interests
of Jews such as Clifford May while costing America instead of serving it.
The sense of shame, guilt and regret is what pushes these veterans
over the edge. Many in American politico-journalistic circles, know of this
reality but nobody talks about it.
Meanwhile, a handful of veterans who did well after returning
home, are not helping tell the story of their less fortunate brothers and
sisters.