So, USA, we’re talking about another war. Or maybe we’re not—I’m a little confused still. Actually, while we’re talking about this, I’m confused about how many wars America is still involved with. But we can talk about that later.
The fact that we’re even entertaining the idea of another conflict is wearying in it’s own right. Add that to the recently mounting political tensions across the globe and it feels like we’re verging on catastrophe.
That probably speaks to why such a profound number of We The People are, at the very least, hesitant at the prospect if not outright opposed to adding another futile war to America’s resume.
Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) was pretty gung-ho about kicking Syria’s door in, and that was even before Secretary John Kerry and President Obama spoke publicly about what the administration has planned and the unclassified reports covering the Syrian chemical attacks were released.
“If you really want to make an impact, you can’t wait too long,” Engel said on the possibility of bombing Syria. And that’s an idea that’s being passed around in almost every message that’s been given by the administration—that this must be answered and it must be answered promptly.
Our cousins across the pond decided that they didn’t want leading role in a war they didn’t want to fight. “We learnt lessons of Iraq,” said Ed Miliband, the opposition leader in parliament who says that they made the Prime Minister “see sense” with their “nay” vote to attacking Bashar al-Assad and his Syrian regime.
In less than 24-hours, NATO had come to the same conclusion, more or less, as the U.K. when they said definitively they wouldn’t participate in an attack; making it more and more likely that the U.S. would be the only invites to a unilateral attack.
Of course that didn’t dissuade our elected officials who, with Secretary Kerry as their spokesman, reiterated that something must be done and that these chemical attacks must not go unanswered in the face of the “undeniable proof.”
And despite the fact that the administration made clear that “any decision the President makes will not look like Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya,” this looks shockingly similar to Iraq, Afghanistan and even Libya.
So far, the administration has said that they won’t put boots on the ground and that it’ll be a limited narrow attack, which sounds an awful lot like political rhetoric for “drone attack” which practically serve as unmanned war crimes themselves.
And that might even be the best-case scenario. Even with the Secretary’s assurance that “there’s no military solution” and that “it must political, done at the negotiating table,” I have to wonder how long that will last.
We’re not backing away from an issue that doesn’t concern us. They can say that it’s an affront to the globe, and a threat to our national security, but that’s a tough sell in a millennium that’s already seen two wars it didn’t want to fight.
It feels like the biggest threat would be to send American troops into another hostile territory, which seems inevitable when these “diplomatic talks” don’t pan out. The best strategic move to protecting the American people would be to stop sticking Uncle Sam’s nose where he doesn’t belong or have jurisdiction.
So, that’s my big question now: How long will these diplomatic discussions last until We The People are told that “military involvement is unavoidable” and they force-feed the American public another war it doesn’t need or believe in? So, USA?