Conscription: The Machiavellian Solution In Search Of A Problem (And Why It Will NOT Help The Youth Rights Movement)

With World War III looking more and more likely on the horizon each day that goes by due to current events, it is only a matter of time before one of the biggest American taboos returns to the forefront.  The specter of bringing back the military draft (conscription) has been raised occasionally since it was last abolished in 1973, but it never seemed to catch on since then for a number of reasons:  1) it was unnecessary and redundant with today's technology, 2) it would mess up and dilute the increasingly professional all-volunteer military, 3) most Americans don't support such a policy.  And that's to say nothing of the collective trauma from the ill-fated Vietnam War that has lingered ever since to one degree or another.  

And there are also the fundamental philosophical-ethical arguments against conscription as well, of course, including Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative:  "Always treat humanity as an end itself, and never solely as a means".  And predictably, Niccolo "ends justify the means" Machiavelli himself, often seen as Kant's philosophical foil, was a huge fan of conscription, as he felt that mercenaries would be untrustworthy in terms of loyalty (gotta love that false binary there with no room for nuance whatsoever).  

But every so often, the old zombie arguments (often in superficial shiny new drag) in favor of bringing back the draft resurface like a bad case of herpes.  They can be grouped into the following:  1) Necessity, 2) Equality/Equity, and 3) Social Engineering.  And here we will not only debunk them, but also debone, slice, dice, julienne, and ultimately lay waste to their scorched remains.

The "necessity" argument is probably the only good and coherent argument strong enough to justify the forcible confiscation of labor services (i.e. slavery, which is what conscription really is) of innocent erstwhile civilians in an otherwise free society worthy of the name.  That is, if the necessity in question is actually true.  Spoiler alert:  for most wars throughout history, to say nothing of peacetime, that was not really true.  That is because a) most wars throughout history were unnecessary wars of choice that could have been avoided, and thus inherently wrong except on the side legitimately defending itself, b) there are almost always alternatives to conscription even if a war is necessary, such as (gasp!) paying our troops more, rather than forcibly doing it on the cheap, and c) a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.  (And being the world's de facto police force is really NOT a war of necessity, by the way.)  And all of these apply a fortiori with today's technology, which reduces the need for the large numbers of troops in the wars of the more distant past.

(And any fair-weather "allies" halfway around the world who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves without forcing Americans to fight their battles for them, also deserve to lose by the way, a fortiori.)

Of course, to be fair, given a large enough scale AND a long enough duration of a war that really is NOT a war of choice and absolutely can't be pulled out of, the necessity argument CAN perhaps become valid in those select cases.  World War II and the American Civil War are textbook examples of such from history.  (Ditto for, God forbid, World War III, assuming it isn't largely an air and nuclear war, which would supersede this argument, albeit in a bad way).  But these "edge cases" are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then comes the "equality" or "equity" argument, sometimes called the "poverty draft" or "skin in the game".  That is, poor and working class people (who often join at least partly for economic reasons) are disproportionately overrepresented in the all-volunteer military, and the rich are grossly underrepresented.  That thus makes it easier for our elected leaders and their wealthier supporters to be cavalier about making war in general, knowing that they or their kids won't personally be affected.  Also along with that, it is seen as a gross injustice towards the poor and working class, and especially for racialized minorities, that they do such a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying.  While there is a kernel of truth to both components of this argument, that does NOT change the basic fact that the elites have ALWAYS been able to get themselves out of harm's way, draft or no draft, and practically ALL wars in recorded history have been primarily fought by the poor and working class for the benefit and wealth of the rich.  And the real corrective for that is to simply abolish poverty and the desperation that goes with it with a robust social welfare state including, but not limited to, Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, and free college.  And yes, per the iron laws of supply and demand, we will have to pay our troops significantly more than they are paid now, or more accurately, pay them what they are really worth for once!  And, of course, we have got to knock it off with the imperialistic wars of choice!

As for any supposedly "altruistic" or "humanitarian" wars (in the rare cases when it is not merely a cover for imperialism), hey, if you feel like YOU personally have a duty to risk dying for random people halfway around the world for whatever reason, be my guest.  You can even go start your own "Human Shield Brigade" with like-minded folks.  Just don't force or coerce other people to do it for you to soothe YOUR aching conscience, capisce?  Such "vicarious altruism" with other people's blood and treasure is really not altruism at all, but rather egoism in disguise.

(By the way, the mere presence of a draft does NOT preclude a country's leaders from being cavalier about war or getting stuck in long military quagmires.  See Vietnam, for example.  Or more recently, Israel.)

Regardless, in any case, two wrongs do NOT make a right!

Then there is the perennial "social engineering" or  argument, which is probably the most vexing one of all.  Not because is it particularly hard to debunk (it's really quite easy, as you will quickly see), but because of the way it sticks in people's minds so puzzlingly well even after the first two arguments are revealed to be hollow.  Basically, some people arrogantly seem to think that they somehow know what is best for everyone else at a personal level, and believe that they therefore have the right to force or coerce it upon them if they won't willingly accept it "for their own good" and the supposed "greater good" of society.  Such a thing is utterly patronizing and paternalistic, but we see it in so many other areas of life that few of us hardly even notice it anymore.  So when people claim that bring back a (presumably universal) draft would somehow be a panacea for whatever ails society, there will always be some people who listen and agree.  But regardless of how one feels about that and the limits of social engineering in a free society, it is literally the WORST argument there is for forcing people against their will to do something with as much gravitas (and danger) as military service.  Regardless of what ancillary utilitarian benefits there may be to a draft, it all comes back to Machiavelli versus Kant once again.  If we truly believe that human beings are ends in themselves and not just means to an end, then conscription is automatically a non-starter.

Otherwise, it is a Machiavellian solution in search of a problem, whatever that problem may be.

And all this is before we even get into the issue of age.  As Phil Ochs famously sang in the 1960s, "It's always the old, who lead us to the war, it's always the young who fall".  And that remains true to this day.  If we really want to "share the sacrifice equally" like some modern conscription advocates claim to want, then by that logic, perhaps we should draft people in their 40s and 50s and beyond too.  And of course, the very first to be drafted should be the billionaires, followed by the millionaires, and so on down the pyramid.  After all, they are the ones who benefit from it the most, while being historically the most underrepresented.  Or even fairer still, perhaps we could have "consensual conscription" where all wars are put up to a (non-secret) popular vote, and those who vote yes are drafted as needed, followed by those who abstained, and those who voted no would be exempt from the draft.  But otherwise, there is really no such thing as an equitable draft, since drafts are by their very nature discriminatory.

Finally, there also sometimes is brought up the idea that being back the draft would somehow help the youth rights movement.  It is true that the lowering of the voting age, age of majority, and drinking age from 21 to 18 was partly spurred by the Vietnam draft and the idea that it was wrong for someone to be considered old enough to die for their country but too young to vote, drink, etc.  But guess what?  The existence of a draft was neither necessary nor sufficient to effect such a change.  First, the draft was in effect with a draft age of 18 from 1941-1946 and from 1948 to 1973, and yet it took three decades until 1971 to lower the voting age and until 1973 to lower the drinking age and age of majority in most states to 18.  And meanwhile, Canada and the UK didn't have any draft since 1945 and 1960, respectively, and yet they still managed to lower the age for full adult rights to 18 by the early 1970s, which then became an international consensus.  And no Western country, draft or no draft, raised its drinking age from 18 back to 21 except the USA in the 1980s and Lithuania in 2018, the latter country doing so after they brought back the draft in 2016.  And in general, countries that currently have significant conscription don't seem to be more youth-rights friendly than those who don't.

It's more likely that demographics were the biggest factor:  in 1968, fully half of the American population was under 18, and a vast majority was under 25.  The same was true in many other countries well.  Thus they had a strength in numbers that we wouldn't see in today's ageing population.  Bringing back the draft would almost certainly backfire on the youth rights movement today, even if it may invigorate the anti-war movement all the same.

So let's put this zombie idea to rest once and for all.  If WWIII happens, then all bets are off of course, but in any case, it is NOT a net benefit to the youth rights movement.

And to those who still think we should bring back the draft, we say, "YOU FIRST!" Go on.  (crickets)

(Mic drop)

Just Say NO To World War 3!

It has come to our attention that there is a faction in the USA and elsewhere of largely neoconservatives who are incessantly itching for a hot war with Iran more than ever.  The casus belli this time (as though the warmongers really needed a new one) is 1) that Iran has long supported and funded both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is true, and 2) that Iran's fingerprints are (allegedly) all over Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, which is debatable.  That is in addition to Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, of course, which was the previous justification, as well as their proxy attacks against American troops in Iraq and Syria.

(For the record, we thoroughly condemn Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, without qualification.)

That said, going to war with Iran directly would be a major strategic blunder for a number of reasons.  First, a ground war and occupation there would be an even worse quagmire than the ill-fated ground wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Secondly, even a predominantly air war, which could set Iran back centuries if we really wanted to, would ultimately create a "failed state" which would be a magnet for extremists in the future.  The inevitable blowback sooner or later would be horrendous to say the least.  As the saying goes, "you break it, you own it".  At the same time, a half-assed war would in fact be the worst of all options in the long run, and any forcible "regime change" will inevitably create a dangerous power vacuum sooner or later.  And finally, a war with Iran would be very likely to draw in Iran's staunchest allies:  Russia, China, and North Korea, three nuclear-armed countries that any sane person does NOT want to get into a hot war with!  That would be World War 3, essentially, and even if it somehow doesn't go nuclear (which is far from guaranteed), it would still be truly horrendous and extremely costly in both lives and resources.  Any "victory" would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

(Nuclear war is simply too horrible to even contemplate, something no sane person could ever support, period.  But just one miscommunication and it can happen.)

In other words, the USA attacking Iran would not be like cutting of the head off of the proverbial snake, but rather more like a Hydra whose heads will keep multiplying each time one is severed.  OOPS!

At the very least, a three-front war like that (without going nuclear) would NOT be even remotely possible to win with an all-volunteer military for very long.  The Reserves and National Guard can only buy us so much time for what will likely be a very long and bloody war of attrition that would likely dwarf World Wars 1 and 2 and the American Civil War combined.  That's the biggest elephant in the room.  So for all the people who want to go to war with Iran (or any the other aforementioned countries), let's put it up to a vote.  Those who vote "yes", well, greetings, you have just been drafted!  Those who abstained will be next if needed.  Those who vote "no" shall be exempt.  And the vote should be repeated annually to decide whether or not to renew the war effort for yet another year.  And if that is still somehow not enough for a truly existential war that already began and where withdrawal is truly not an option, and a more comprehensive draft is still somehow needed, then draft the billionaires first, then the millionaires, and so on.  It's only fair.

With absolutely NO apologies to the modern-day Ayn Rand disciples who are itching to fight Iran, and yet paradoxically quail at the very thought of personally having any sort of skin in the game themselves.

(Normally I would agree that a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and that in any case they could easily have enough recruits for an all-volunteer military if they simply paid them enough.  And in principle that still remains true.  But a World War 3, due to its inherently massive scale and duration, would kinda be the exception that proves the rule.)

So seriously, warmongers.  KNOCK IT OFF.  Yesterday.  Do everything you possibly can to defuse any impulse to start such a war.  Yesterday.  The life that you save may very well be your own.

QED

How To Smash The Permanent War Racket For Good

On the 20th anniversary of "Quagmire Accomplished" in Iraq, Dennis Kucinich wrote a great article about the utter disaster it has been, and the massive human costs and follies of wars of aggression in general.  I agree with him 100%.  Also, we should note that it was part of a much larger racket as well, that is, a state of permanent war that the oligarchs have been benefiting handsomely from for decades, all while cannibalizing our own country in the process, as Chris Hedges has noted in another good article.

My response to that article was as follows:

As Major General Smedley Butler said back on 1935, "War Is A Racket". It was true then, and is true now, *a fortiori*.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html 

I will note that bringing back the draft would not really solve anything. Conscription did not prevent Vietnam from dragging on, and even (largely) universal conscription still doesn't prevent Israel from their own perpetual war against Palestinians and occasionally other neighbors as well. And plenty of non-imperialisitic countries have all-volunteer militaries currently, because they know it's a strategically superior choice in the 21st century. 

And then, there is that annoying little detail that conscription is a form of slavery, of course. And the working class would still bear the overwhelming brunt of it, while the elites would still find a way to stay out of harm's way. The middle class, however, would be further hollowed out. 

Would it heal our divided nation if brought back today? That is very doubtful. I think it would look far more like the (often very racist) 1863 Draft Riots of NYC than the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era. 

In other words, the grass may look greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed all the same. 

One good idea though would be my own variant of General Butler's idea, "consensual conscription", where for all wars going forward, it should be put up to a vote by those of military age. Those who vote no will be exempt, while those who abstain or vote yes will be eligible to be drafted into that war. And renew the vote every year. If the majority vote no, the war must end within 90 days, period. Also, raise the eligibility age to include people in their 40s, 50s and even early 60s. You know, those who are of the age to start the wars but not actually serve in them. Those who are 4F or CO would join the newly-created Human Shield Brigade, which is exactly what it sounds like: a sort of Peace Corps on steroids whose primary purpose is to nonviolently put their bodies on the line to protect civilian populations wherever they are deployed. 

Everyone would have skin in the game, and yet no one would be forced or coerced into participating in a war they do not believe in, or any war for that matter. 

And eradicating poverty with UBI, free college, single-payer Medicare for all, and stuff like that would also end the so-called "poverty draft" as well. Of course, that would mean we would have to (gasp!) pay our troops what they are actually worth, that is, significantly more than they are currently being paid. And since the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, they could easily print their own money to do so.

Problem solved.

More details, not included in my response:

The Selective Service System should be put back into "deep standby" like it was from 1975-1980, where all registration is suspended.  Only reactivate the registration requirement when an actual draft is either in effect and/or likely will be in the near future.  And yes, if that ever does happen, women should be included as well.  It's really only fair, right?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you really want equality, you got it, Toyota!

For the record, the TSAP of course does not support bringing back an actual draft.  A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and any fair-weather "allies" unwilling or unable to defend themselves without the help of foreign conscript armies from halfway around the world also deserve to lose as well.  And if there were a truly "just war", conscription would be unnecessary, as volunteers would be plentiful.  But in those vanishingly rare instances where we are actually in a war of necessity, and volunteers are no longer enough, the sacrifice should be shared equally.  Not only in terms of gender, but also age, class, race, and so on as well.

If anything, the billionaires should go first, THEN we can talk about drafting the broader working class.

Regardless though, any conscription for the sole or primary purpose of social engineering, as opposed to absolute necessity for defense as a last resort, has absolutely zero place in a free society.  It is an alien culture that ultimately belongs to totalitarians.

Also, the half-century old War Powers Resolution of 1973 needs to be updated and tightened so the President cannot just start indefinitely undefined wars willy-nilly, and the President should be held fully liable for any damages resulting from the abuse of this power.  Wars or any war-adjacent military actions in foreign countries lasting more than 90 days should require a formal and official declaration of war by Congress per the Constitution, and if not it must be halted within 90 days, no exceptions.  No more indefinite or nebulous AUMFs without a very strict sunset clause.  No more decades-long quagmires ever again.  Like, EVER.  And the nuclear launch codes must be taken off of "hair trigger alert", and only given when the President's senior advisers approve.

And of course, the profit needs to be taken out of war.  The crony capitalism of the mercenary-industrial complex needs to end yesterday, full stop.  And all it would take would be a few tweaks of the tax code, plus the intestinal fortitude to actually enforce it.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely NOTHING!"

-- Edwin Starr

"Come the war, come the avarice, come the war, come hell...Come attrition, come the reek of bones, come attrition, come hell...This is why, why we fight, why we lie awake...And this is why, this is why we fight..."

-- The Decemberists

"Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant, United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore. Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore."

-- Phil Ochs

"I declare the war is over, it's over, it's over..."

-- Phil Ochs

"But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you would only try, is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes.  And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before.  If we win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore"

-- Phil Ochs 

Afghanistan: A War We Lost Before The War Began (Part Deux)

With America's longest war in Afghanistan coming to an inevitably disastrous end after 20 years, it is worth noting all of the things that had been memory-holed about its origins.  The 9/11 attacks that had been used as a pretext for the initial invasion had always been under a cloud of suspicion as possibly being an inside job (to one degree or another), or at least that the whole story had not been told about it.  But for argument's sake, let's just take at face value for a moment that these horrific terrorist attacks were entirely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and his vile al-Qaeda henchmen as per the official story and ignore their undeniable Saudi connections.

First, Senator Ron Paul had his own plan by October 10, 2001 on how to deal with these terrorists and bring them to justice that would not have even required so much as an invasion, let alone regime change in Afghanistan.  Per the US Constitution, there is a remedy for bringing such non-state rogue actors to justice, known as the "Letter of Marque and Reprisal", which Ron Paul supported.  It would have put a bounty on their heads and thus authorized not only the military but also privateers from anywhere in the world to go on a manhunt and get these perpetrators.  And it would have been far cheaper and with far fewer casualties as well.  But clearly this proposal fell on the very deafest of ears, because reasons. And as they say, the rest is history. 

Secondly, Jordan Schachtel points out that within the first week of damaging aerial bombing by the USA and NATO in mid-October 2001, the Taliban were actually willing to negotiate an offer to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral third country to be put on trial there, in return for us ending the bombing.  Had President Bush actually taken them up on that offer, the war would have ended in ONE WEEK instead of 20 years, Bin Laden would have been brought to justice, and tens of thousands of causalities on both sides and trillions of dollars could have been averted.  But Bush, clearly under the influence of Cheney and the neocons, arrogantly rebuffed their offer and continued to escalate the war, because reasons. And as they say, the rest is history.

(The Bush administration and the corporate MSM deliberately conflating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who at best grudgingly tolerated each other as co-belligerents against the West, certainly contributed to this strategic blunder and folly of epic proportions.)

Thirdly, not long after that, during the early stages of the ground invasion of Afghanistan in December 2001, Bin Laden was once again in America's sights.  He was apparently hiding in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, heading rapidly towards the Pakistan border. But the powers that be "accidentally" lost him and thus let him and his buddies escape into Pakistan, and did not even bother to have our troops so much as cross the border until nearly a decade later when, under the leadership of President Obama, he was ultimately snuffed out by the US Navy Seals on May 1, 2011.  Why it took that long can only be explained by the Machiavellian powers that be wanting to prolong the war for their own nefarious gains, because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history.

Fourthly, anyone who claims to have supported this war on feminist grounds (as if wars for imperialistic white-savior conquest could ever be feminist) should answer the following question:  why did our government not simply arm and fund the WOMEN over there, instead of forcibly installing and propping up a corrupt male-dominated puppet government that was left utterly dependent on a male-dominated foreign power for all of 20 years?  Nevermind, we already know the painfully obvious answer.  Because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history. 

And finally, unlike today, at least Vietnam and Iraq both had a "decent interval", as President Nixon called it, between the completion of America's troop withdrawal and the shit really hitting the fan over there.  In both cases, it was about two years.  Had we just pulled out much sooner while the Taliban was still weaker, that would have likely been true for Afghanistan as well to some extent.  We had numerous opportunities to make a fairly clean break and temporarily "save face" at a cost of significantly less blood and treasure, but chose not to, because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history.

And if you still think this was all about 9/11 or "making the world safe for democracy", well, we've got a nice bridge we'd like to sell you.  As Major General Smedley Butler once famously said, "War Is A Racket".  And as he also said at the end of his book:

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

But alas, of course his words of wisdom also fell on the very deafest of ears ever since.  The neocons on the right, the "bleeding heart interventionists" on the pseudo-left, and the oligarchs' mercenary-industrial complex that they serve and who ultimately profit very, very handsomely from it all, will see to it that this racket never ends on their watch.  Because reasons.  And as they say, well, the rest is history...

UPDATE 1:  The ever-insightful Peter van Buren wrote an excellent article about the war's history as well.  Food for thought indeed.  We know all too well what happens when we ignore the lessons of history. 

UPDATE 2:  On August 30, 2021, the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan was completed, one day before the official deadline of August 31.  That is, the very last US troops have now finally left Afghanistan for good.  As tragic as the circumstances were in which we left, sooner or later it had to be done.  And now, it is finished.  This time, let us actually LEARN and REMEMBER the lessons that we should have learned after the tragic fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

Afghanistan: A War We Lost Before The War Began

The headlines these days about Afghanistan have been quite sobering to say the least.  It looks increasingly likely that this 20 year old quagmire of a war will end the same way as the Vietnam War did.  "Operation Frequent Wind" certainly comes to mind, not least due to the frequent windbag politicians who got us into this inherently unwinnable mess that had literally no practical exit strategy to speak of.

Like Vietnam on crack, this is "a war we lost before the war began", as Phil Ochs put it in his song "White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land" about that other unwinnable quagmire.  Afghanistan has been called "the graveyard of empires" for a reason, after all.  The moment President Bush decided to force regime change in Afghanistan, as opposed to simply going in to fight al-Qaeda and bring Bin Laden to (rough) justice for 9/11, that was a "mission creep" that created a dangerous power vacuum and basically dug our graves over there.  Yes, the Taliban were and still are backwards, brutal, violent, repressive, theocratic, misogynistic, and even totalitarian, but guess what?  The Taliban was never really a material threat to the USA, and the local "allies" (read: warlords) of ours that de facto replaced them in nearly all of the country outside of Kabul have thus created a chaotic anocracy, which basically translates to "pick your poison".  Eventually, Afghanistan even became fertile ground for ISIL for a time, who as we have seen is far more evil and dangerous than even the Taliban.  And if and when the weak Kabul government and military finally rolls over and plays dead for the Taliban, remember:  if they do it after 20 years, then no matter how long we stay, whether 10, 20, or even 100+ years, the end result would be the same regardless.  At best, the USA only delayed the inevitable, at a massively unacceptable cost of blood and treasure.

Yes, in both of these wars, our troops technically won every single battle.  But in the long run, as the famous quote says, "Yes, I know.  It's also irrelevant."

So yes, the TSAP still, albeit with a heavy heart, fully supports America's troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.  As a wise man once said recently, if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban after 20 years, it does not mean that we left too early, but that we left 19 years too late.  It is tragic and heartbreaking indeed that it was basically all for naught, as the part about bringing al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice would not have required forced regime change in Afghanistan at all.  Bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan for most of the time, after all, and nearly all of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.  (That was of course memory-holed as quickly as Bin Laden's family members were surreptitiously whisked out of the country back to their home country, Saudi Arabia.)

We have said it before, and we will say it again.  There is NO (Western) military solution in Afghanistan, period.  Or Iraq, or Syria, or anywhere else in the region, basically.  The closest thing there is to a solution would be for us to give every *woman* an AK-47 or M-16 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 the powers that be over here would of course not be too keen on that idea.  After all they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?

If and when the Taliban returns to their old tricks of brutal and misogynistic repression, then WOE to any cowardly Afghan men that fail to protect their women and children!  And by rolling over for the forces of evil, they make a mockery of our troops as well.

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home alive, and stop abusing them in these unnecessary quagmires of choice that really only benefit the oligarchs.  The best time to do it was 20 years ago. The second best time to do it is right now.

UPDATE:  On August 15th, the capital Kabul has effectively fallen to the Taliban, and President Ghani has fled the country in fear as his own troops basically rolled over and played dead.  This highly unfortunate turn of events has happened at a much faster pace than anyone had predicted.  But the hypocrisy of those Republicans who blame President Biden for this sad state of affairs is quite rich considering that Biden not only followed the very same troop withdrawal plan set by Trump himself, but actually pushed back Trump's withdrawal deadline by nearly four months.  Yes, really.  Like Vietnam, as the saying goes, America may have won every battle, but in the end, that's also irrelevant.

I mean, you KNOW it's bad when Ron Paul (and/or his son Rand Paul) comes across as the voice of reason!  And whether you love him or hate him, it is clear that throughout all 20 years of this ill-fated war of (mostly) choice, while both Democrats and Republicans alike would mindlessly flip and flop around, Paul has basically been on the right side of history all along.

Getting out of Afghanistan is the ONE thing that Trump, Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Ron/Rand Paul could ALL agree on.  Even if Trump denies it now.

And finally, as for America's very clear moral obligation to the Afghan people that we would otherwise leave behind, we believe Emma Lazarus said it best:  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  In other words, "refugees welcome".  The Kabul airport must be secured now to allow safe passage out of the country.  Beyond that, after the current evacuations and rescue operations are complete, that is it.  It's over. 

After 20 years of this infernal quagmire, C'EST FINI!

As the late, great Major General Smedley Butler famously said, "TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Did Trump Just Start A War With Iran?

On January 2, 2020, Trump apparently ordered a drone airstrike near Baghdad, Iraq, that killed Iran's top general, Qassim Soleimani.  This assassination was of very, very questionable legality given that Trump did not notify Congress (or really anyone else, for that matter) before giving the orders.  And now Iran is openly threatening (unspecified) revenge and retaliation for this foolish and reckless act of bravado and hubris by the Manchild Who Would Be King.

We are well aware that General Soleimani was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, nor is his own Revolutionary Guard Quds Force particularly cuddly either.  They have in fact been officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State years ago due to their notoriously rogue activities in the region, including their support for violent militias in Iraq.  But when the "leader" of the USA decides to go rogue himself and arbitrarily assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation that we are NOT actually at war with, that is a dangerous and irresponsible escalation that threatens to unleash a conflagration across the whole region, if not even further.  At the very least, it will delay any hope for peace in the region by at least a generation, and at worst can perhaps even trigger World War III.

And of course we can kiss goodbye practically forever any chance of reviving the Iran nuclear deal that, while imperfect, was in fact working to keep Iran from getting their hands on The Bomb for the foreseeable future--before Trump pulled out of it of course.  If Iran didn't have a reason to want nukes in the past, well they sure do now!  This latest stunt thus clearly does FAR more harm than good, and we at the TSAP condemn his reckless and irresponsible actions.

(As for motives, can you say, "Wag the Dog"?)

Trump's Syria Withdrawal Is Reckless And Treacherous, But...

Trump just announced that he will be abruptly pulling all troops out of northern Syria, while allowing Turkey to invade Syria, essentially throwing our Kurdish allies to the wolves after all they did for us for so many years now.  Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex, but not only from them.  The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.

It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey.  Very base and cowardly indeed.  

We at the TSAP thus condemn Trump's withdrawal for the way he is doing it and the timing of it.  But...

That said, sometimes even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point.  ISIL, though clearly still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now.   Long past time for that, in fact.

And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).

"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy.  In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that.  The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.  (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)

Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, 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 in general is thus the lesser evil on balance.

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.  We have said it before, and we will say it again.   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.  Seriously, think about it.

For Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to get out yesterday.  For Syria, it is more nuanced and complicated thanks to Turkey's latest incursion into Syria, and of course what that means for the Kurds (spoiler alert: it isn't good).  Thus, being a bit less hasty with withdrawing the 1000 or so troops in Syria specifically would probably be the least-worst idea right now.  And in all of these countries, a post-withdrawal Marshall Plan would also be a good idea as well to help deal with the aftermath.

Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

UPDATE:  Just 24 hours after he recklessly shunted troops to the side in Syria (he didn't actually remove them yet from Syria, but plans to) to pave the way for the Turks to invade and slaughter the Kurds (which they are apparently doing right now), he ordered 1800 troops to Saudi Arabia, because reasons, perhaps to provoke Iran.  This man is extremely dangerous right now, amd clearly unfit for command even as dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States.

Why We (Partly) Agree With Trump on Syria (and Afghanistan)

Trump just announced that he will be pulling all troops out of Syria, and reducing troops in Afghanistan as well.  Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex.  The truth, however, is more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.

It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey. Very base and cowardly indeed.  

That said, sometimes even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point. ISIL, though still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now.   Long past time for that, in fact.

And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).

"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy.  In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that.  The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.  (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)

Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, 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 on balance.

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.  We have said it before, and we will say it again.   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.  Seriously, think about it.

Look, we dig why the generals don't want to pull out anytime soon, especially not abruptly, and it's not just about job security either (though that is likely part of it too). No one wants it on their conscience if things go horribly wrong afterwards, and such consequences can in any way be linked (however tangentially and speciously) to such a withdrawal.  But Trump clearly has no conscience, and it was his decision, so we now get to let any potential adverse consequences weigh on his nonexistent conscience.  Thus, the generals should really see this as a golden window of opportunity to finally extricate ourselves from the quagmire of the Middle East wars--and even in a worst case scenario, everyone's hands will be clean but Trump's either way.  So what are we waiting for?

Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

JANUARY 2019 UPDATE:  Looks like the other notorious loose cannon of foreign policy, neocon John Bolton, is trying to delay the Syria pullout by "months or years".  So much for that.   In the meantime, is always fun for genuine progressives like us to watch neocons, neoliberals, neoconfederates, and Trump supporters fighting against each other.

Quagmire Accomplished, 15 Years Later

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! 

Trump Is "Wagging the Dog"--But Will He Get Us All Killed?

As the Russiagate scandal is closing in on the Trump administration and it is becoming increasingly clear that the jig is up, Trump is getting increasingly bold in his attempts to "wag the dog", that is, to distract the American people from the ever-growing scandal.  His latest attempt to do so is to apparently provoke a war--even a potential nuclear war(!)--with North Korea.   And the (other) already-unhinged dictator, Kim Jong Un, is making threats against the USA in response to Trump's reckless "fire and fury" and "locked and loaded" threats against North Korea.  Clearly, he is playing a very dangerous game to say the least.

In other words, Trump is perfectly willing to literally risk getting us all KILLED for no other reasons than 1) so he can temporarily distract us from the Russiagate scandal, 2) to possibly extract favorable deals from China, and 3) to get to play "war" and "tough guy" (with other people's lives) at the same time.  This comedy of errors is clearly NOT funny anymore, if it ever really was.  I hate to say it, but suddenly the idea of a President Pence (shudder!) doesn't really look quite so scary anymore by comparison.

Bottom line:  The Donald absolutely MUST be impeached or forced to resign, yesterday. Otherwise, there may not even be a tomorrow.

How To Really Defeat ISIL For Good

The USA and coalition forces have been bombing Daesh/ISIL (which we prefer to call them so as not to inadvertently profane the name of the Goddess) for over a year now, 17 months to be exact.  And Russia has been bombing them for nearly three months now.   And yet they still seem to be spreading, even though they are clearly on the losing side in the long run.   After the first few weeks of bombing in August/September 2014, the fight basically became a stalemate which lasted until Russia started their airstrikes in Syria, tipping the balance against Daesh once more.

Now the hawks such as Donald Chump are, unsurprisingly, calling for an escalation of this war.   Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  In fact, it was our own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place!  But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want.  In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them 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.

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 take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)

Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  VIVE LA FEMME! 

Two Minutes To Midnight

World War III may not have begun in earnest just yet, but the risk of it occurring still looms large if the conflicts over in the Middle East region continue to accelerate.  The biggest elephant in the room is not Daesh (ISIL), Iraq, Syria, Iran or any country over in that region--it is the USA and Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel, who combined possess enough nukes to kill at least 8 billion people.  All it will take is one miscommunication and BOOM--it's game over for all of humanity.  And the two primary countries have not exactly been very friendly to each other lately.  Combine that with the threat of climate change, and the World Doomsday Clock, currently set to three minutes to midnight, might as well be set to two.  A certain Iron Maiden song comes to mind.

Meanwhile, rich war profiteers of the mercenary-industrial complex (MIC) are literally making a killing off of it all.  Like the song says, the golden goose is on the loose, and it's never out of season.  Major General Smedley Butler wrote an excellent book about it back in 1935, War Is A Racket, that should be required reading for everyone and would seem to apply a fortiori to our time.  The profiteers/racketeers and their sycophantic lackeys in government keep on pushing for more and more American military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and other countries, when it is clear that America's meddling essentially created Daesh in the first place.  In fact, not only did the 2003 invasion of Iraq pave the way for the current crisis by destabilizing Iraq, but the USA had also been arming various "rebel" groups in Syria in the hopes of toppling Assad.   And many of those "rebels" turned traitor and joined al-Qaeda and what would become Daesh as well.  It is exceedingly likely that the oligarchs did so deliberately in order to further their Machiavellian machinations.

The time to end all of this insanity and evil is yesterday.  The TSAP hereby proposes a law be passed that we call the War Pigs Act, named after both the ineffectual War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Black Sabbath song War Pigs.  The first part of the new law would put some teeth in the War Powers Act by closing the loopholes and holding the President liable for any consequences of a war that is not authorized by Congress and is not during a state of emergency caused by an attack on the USA.  And absent a formal declaration of war by Congress, absolutely no war may last beyond 90 days (60 days followed by a 30 day withdrawal), save for a temporary authorization of force that expires 90 days after the authorization passes or 180 days after the war began, whichever occurs first.  After that, the must be a formal declaration of war, or the war must end.  Period.  The second part of the law would implement some of Maj. Gen. Butler's recommendations from his book, taking into account that we currently have an all-volunteer military.  Take the profit out of war, first of all.  And for any war lasting beyond six months (which by definition would now require a formal declaration of war), require an annual limited plebiscite of all citizens that would be eligible for military service.  Make it a non-secret ballot such that those who vote "yes" would be drafted if we run out of volunteers, followed by those who abstain from the vote if necessary.  Those who vote "no" would be exempt from any such draft.  A kind of "consensual conscription", if you will.  We would all have skin in the game.  Women would be included as well, but before they draft the very first woman, we should draft men in their 40s and 50s first.  The demographic group who starts the wars but rarely fights.  It's only fair, right fellas?

Watch as war becomes a thing of the past.  As Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said, "TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Tell Congress: NO MORE WARS!

Six months after the current war against ISIS began, President Obama is currently trying to get Congress to pass a new Authorization for the Use of Miltary Force (AUMF) to continue this war up to three more years.

As far as what the Obama administration hopes to accomplish by fighting fire with gasoline, we really don't know.  But doing so is unlikely to really achieve anything good in the long run, and will likely just make things worse overall.  And indeed, it is already backfiring, as anyone who is paying attention can clearly see.  The original justification for "humanitarian" bombing, namely rescuing the Yazidis who were trapped on a mountain and were about to be exterminated, has since evaporated, and any other justification for further airstrikes is pure mission creep, plain and simple.  Pretty soon they will be calling for boots on the ground when the airstrikes inevitably fail to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they happen to call themselves this week, and we all know where that leads.  Truly, the road to hell is paved with (ostensibly) good intentions.

Honestly, there really is only one solution in that part of the world, and we are only half-joking about this one.  Give every woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their countries and mow down anyone who stands in their way.  Let Allah sort it out.  Problem solved.  But of course, none of the powers that be over here would be too keen on that.  After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  Though replacing all of our current Big Wetiko "leaders" with women would really not be a bad idea at all, come to think of it.  Perhaps then the USA would not be so eager to continue on our omnicidal path of endless war and imperialism, which let's face it, is fundamentally a "guy thing".

Thus, we all need to ask Congress to NOT authorize any more of this stupid, futile, and unnecessary war.

War is Over, If You Want It

As of January 1, 2015, the war in Afghanistan (or rather, combat operations of that war) will officially end after over 13 years of incessant bloodshed, longer than even the Vietnam War.  The USA will keep about 10,000 troops as a residual force to train Afghan troops to fight against insurgents such as the Taliban, and such troops will remain over there for (hopefully no more than) two more years.

This withdrawal is LONG overdue, about 13 years overdue to be precise.  All of those who claim that we are pulling out "prematurely" are clearly deluded if they think that staying any longer will really solve anything.  That ship has already sailed, and this war (like all of the others we are engaged in) is simply no longer sustainable.  In fact, we need to end ALL of our wars and withdraw ALL of our troops yesterday, as war itself is no longer a sustainable activity, if it ever really was.  Let other countries fight their own battles for once, and stop being the 21st century Rome of the world unless we wish to suffer a similar fate.

Honestly, there really is only one solution in that part of the world, and we are only half-joking about this one.  Give every woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their countries and mow down anyone who stands in their way.  Let Allah sort it out.  Problem solved.  But of course, none of the powers that be over here would be too keen on that.  After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  Though replacing all of our current Big Wetiko "leaders" with women would really not be a bad idea at all, come to think of it.  Perhaps then the USA would not be so eager to continue on our omnicidal path of endless war and imperialism, which let's face it, is fundamentally a "guy thing".

As John Lennon and Yoko Ono once sang, "war is over, if you want it".  It's long past time to give peace a chance.

War Is Over, If You Want It

Well, it's now official.  The USA has begun airstrikes in Syria now, in addition to escalating airstrikes in Iraq, with no end in sight.

As far as what Obama hopes to accomplish by fighting fire with gasoline, we really don't know.  But doing so is unlikely to really achieve anything good in the long run, and will likely just make things worse overall.  The original justification for "humanitarian" bombing, namely rescuing the Yazidis who were trapped on a mountain and were about to be exterminated, has since evaporated, and any other justification for further airstrikes is pure mission creep, plain and simple.  Pretty soon they will be calling for boots on the ground when the airstrikes inevitably fail to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they happen to call themselves this week, and we all know where that leads.  Truly, the road to hell is paved with (ostensibly) good intentions.

Clearly, we need to abort this stupid war of choice in the first trimester, so to speak.  If Obama continues beyond 90 days, then We the People (via Congress, right!) may indeed have the authority to impeach him if he continues to wage war without Congressional approval as per the War Powers Act.  At the very least, Obama needs to have his Nobel Peace Prize revoked yesterday, as he has failed to promote peace.  To the flip-flopping Secretary of State John Kerry, we have a question for you.  How do you ask a man (or woman) to be the last to die for a mistake?  Because we wouldn't know anything about that.

As for all of those fools who claim that "we can fight them over there, or we can fight them here", we at the TSAP have a message for ISIS and their ilk:  Don't even THINK about coming here!  If you come anywhere near our soil, you will be pretty damn lucky if all you get is deported.  And if you dare try any sort of funny business here, there will be a gunman hiding behind every blade of grass in this country, and WE WILL BURY YOU--WITH PIG OFFAL.  No 72 virgins for you, parasites.  Besides, virgins are in short supply these days it seems.  You have been warned, now cease and desist before you REALLY wake the sleeping giant!

To Congress and President Obama: No New Wars!

Due to the growing chaos in Iraq, there has been a recent push to re-start the nearly decade-long Iraq War.  While President Obama has explicitly ruled out "boots on the ground", he is still considering airstrikes.  Which will likely accomplish zilch on the ground except for pouring gasoline on a raging inferno.  And then we will still be puzzled as to "why do they hate us"?  SMH.

To Congress and Obama, please stay out of Iraq.  Please don't keep propping up an autocratic regime over there that was actually the root cause for the recent political instability.  And even if we did send in troops, the best it would do is provide temporary relief that will evaporate shortly after leaving.  And clearly the USA is NOT in any position for another decade (or decades) of war.  The time for war is in the past.  Our own country is falling apart.  And if you win the wars at home, there will be no fighting anymore.

WWIII Averted, For Now

It looks like the United States, Russia, and Syria have reached a diplomatic deal that would stave off war for now.  Syria would have to declare, turn in, and destroy all of their chemical weapons in short order.  Of course, doing so during an active civil war would be a lot easier said than done, but this is a good first step toward defusing a ticking time-bomb in a volatile region and preventing a wider war.  Though long-term success is far from certain, such a deal definitely reduces the risk of World War III from happening in the near future.  And it may increase the chances of a cease-fire in the not-too-distant future.

The True Spirit of America Party believes that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, and that violence will only beget more violence in the long run.  While there is mounting evidence that the Assad regime and their lackeys are responsible for at least some of the chemical weapon attacks on civilians, it is also clear that both sides have a ton of innocent blood on their hands.  Those who have committed such horrific atrocities need to be brought to justice, but bombing Syria will clearly do far more harm than good overall.  What may start out as a "limited" air war can quickly turn into another Iraq or Vietnam, or worse as Syria and possibly other countries (i.e. Iran) or Hezbollah fight back, other countries get drawn in, and the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels attempt to take over the failed state of Syria.  At best, we would be killing a couple hundred or thousand people (inevitably including civilians) just to make a point, and end up likely repeating it in the future as the bloody civil war continues unabated.  At worst, we risk igniting WWIII, the road to universal slaughter.  And on balance of probabilities, history suggests that once we start such a war, contrary to our president's wishful thinking, we would have little choice but to put countless boots on the ground for the long haul (years or even decades), and thus be stuck in a serious quagmire for the foreseeable future. (Where will we get all those extra troops from?  Shhhh...don't say the D-word!)  Unless of course America resorts to using nukes, which would become the worst (and most hypocritical) atrocity that our country has ever committed in its entire history, except perhaps the attempted genocide of Native Americans.

So does that mean America should turn a blind eye to the horrific mass murder of innocent civilians?  Of course not.  That is a false choice that the hawks like to throw out there, and other options still remain.  By all means, we should continue to work on stopping the violence via diplomatic means in conjunction with other nations.  We should increase humanitarian aid to the people of Syria.  We should also do our part to take in the large number of refugees that the Syrian civil war is creating.  All of these things would at the very least take the edge off the crisis, and may even bring lasting change.  And as soon as it is feasible, atrocity perpetrators on both sides of the conflict should ultimately be brought before the International Criminal Court so that justice is served.  But war is not the solution--it is part of the problem.  Just ask any survivor of the numerous Middle Eastern wars of the past half-century.  Killing to stop the killing will only lead to more killing, and too much blood has already been spilled in the 21st century alone. 

To President Obama (and Congress): Do NOT Attack Syria!

The True Spirit of America Party would like to let President Obama and Congress know that attacking Syria is a foolish, reckless, and morally bankrupt "solution" to Syria's growing civil war.   While we wholeheartedly condemn the atrocities committed by the Assad regime, we still do not believe that the United States should go to war with Syria.  And here are the top ten reasons we oppose it:

10)  Most of our own allies, including our staunchest ally of them all (the UK), oppose such action.
9)  Going it alone unilaterally worked so well in Iraq, didn't it?  Oh wait....
8)  We risk another quagmire like Iraq, or worse.   Air strikes alone would not solve anything, and would be like fighting fire with gasoline.  A full-blown ground invasion would indeed effect regime change, but it would create a dangerous power vacuum like in Iraq.  We may have won in Iraq, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, and one more such "victory" will likely be America's undoing.
7)  We risk a far wider war than we are prepared for, possibly drawing in other countries such as Iran, Iraq,  Israel, and Jordan.   Perhaps even Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.   WWIII is a definite possibility! 
6)  Many of the rebels are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and perhaps other terrorist groups as well.  Do we really want to inadvertently help them get into power over there?
5)  We are still not 100% positive that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks, since some rebels have supposedly admitted to "accidentally" doing it themselves.   (That being said, we do know that the regime has deliberately killed countless innocent civilians over the past two years by conventional means)
4)  Intervening in civil wars, at best, creates a temporary pause in the killing.  At worst, it adds to the killing.  There is really no military solution to the Syrian crisis, and killing a few hundred (or thousand) people just to make a point is probably the most morally bankrupt option of all.
3)  America is not in a position for yet another war of choice.  Now is definitely NOT the time to risk so much blood and treasure.  Focus on rebuilding OUR nation instead.  America needs to stop policing the world, mind our own business, and retire from that position now.
2)  Syria is really not a credible threat to the security of the United States or its interests.  They are NOT a clear and present danger to us.
1)  Above all, a preemptive war of choice, absent an imminent threat to us or our allies, is always immoral, and two wrongs don't make a right.

We hope our leaders heed such advice before they decide to cross the Rubicon.  Otherwise, this may be America's last war, and not in a good way.  History speaks for itself.

The War Is Over--At Least in Iraq

On December 18, 2011, after nearly nine years of occupation, the Iraq War is finally over.  Just in time for the holidays, the last remaining troops have been removed from Iraq and can finally come home.  This is certainly cause for a celebration.  And unlike Vietnam, we actually won this war for the most part despite the fact that our victory was rather Pyrrhic indeed.

However, Afghanistan is another story.  Our troops are still there, and it is still not entirely clear when we will get out, despite the fact that we got Bin Laden in Pakistan and neutralized many other senior members of Al-Qaeda.  And we need to promptly end that war as well, and leave on the prevailing (somewhat) high note lest it become the next Vietnam.

War is over, if you want it.