What's left after 15 years since George W. Bush had the not-very-bright idea of invading Iraq in 2003? One MILLION people dead in total, thousands of American servicemembers dead and many times that number wounded, trillions of dollars in the hole, the horrific scourge of ISIL that would not otherwise have even existed, and no one held accountable at all. Add the 16+ year long Afghanistan quagmire to the mix, and the more recent incursion into Syria, and the death toll and total costs rise even higher still.
The moral of the story: Wars have consequences, often serious and far-reaching ones. So going to war should NEVER be done unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not willy-nilly. Unnecessary wars of choice create terrorists faster than we can kill them. And whether it's a "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" sort of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists. And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same. Quick withdrawal is thus the lesser evil.
In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL. Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air. And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well. Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them. And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword. (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)
The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that. Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.)
Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor. VIVE LA FEMME!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't support putting women into elected offices just because of a person's gender. I oppose gender quotas for elected offices. I don't support a women takeover of government. Women and men should collaborate and work together to solve the world's problems. This is an idea that works and which will continue to work.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for the war in Iraq was because of neoconservative decision making. The goal was to create a U.S. allied puppet state in Iraq after Saddam Hussein wanted to stop selling oil in U.S. dollars. The result would have lessened U.S. hegemony.