As the war drums keep beating, the US is now involving itself more in the regional Middle East conflict involving ISIL/ISIS/IS. As many readers have seen in the media, America now seems to be ready to bomb ISIS inside of Syria. “The enemy of our enemy is our friend” doesn’t seem to hold true in this case. In fact, what is the strategy here? Has Congress declared war on Syria or ISIS? Not that we’ve seen.
All sides in the Syrian civil war have committed atrocities and war crimes, according to the United Nations:
What is it that the US gains by involving ourselves in this conflict? The answer is simple…the loss of American lives and money. Our involvement with the Middle East is only “strategic” as long as we are dependent on protecting our imports of oil. Is there a solution to constantly making the wrong decisions in our management of the Middle East? Yes.
In the Examiner’s opinion, there is a small measure of truth that comes from the very far right. Namely, Ron Paul. Although we disagree with his positions in so many areas, he has been very clear in his opposition to our interventionist policies overseas. Using American tax dollars and military force, to enable oil companies to ship oil to the US without providing their own security is not only causing our continued intervention in the Middle East, it’s also subsidizing cheap gas which will inevitably destroy the very environment we live in. The libertarian mantra of less foreign intervention and smaller government is completely correct in this area. There is no reason to continue funding our military for the “defense” or our country, when our only “defensive” actions seem to be bombing and attacking third world nations and groups that have no real military to speak of.
The other area that we could work on is in focusing on our own place in the world. We need to use less energy, or use energy smartly. It’s that simple. If the US stopped subsidizing oil shipments by providing military protection then oil companies would have to provide their own protection. That would mean oil prices would go up. Hard on the pocket, but necessary in order to kick the oil habit. Surely our oil profiteers would have an incentive to keep up mobile and using energy. So higher prices wouldn’t lead to catastrophe, just what’s known as a “market correction” in our current methods of using energy.
As far as the war we’re engaging with ISIL/ISIS/IS….Dr. Paul lays it out pretty well:
“Early this year, a radical Islamist group, ISIS, began taking over territory in Iraq, starting with Fallujah. The organization had been operating in Syria, strengthened by US support for the overthrow of the Syrian government. ISIS obtained a broad array of sophisticated US weapons in Syria, very often capturing them from other US-approved opposition groups. Some claim that lax screening criteria allowed some ISIS fighters to even participate in secret CIA training camps in Jordan and Turkey.
This month, ISIS became the target of a new US bombing campaign in Iraq. The pretext for the latest US attack was the plight of a religious minority in the Kurdish region currently under ISIS attack. The US government and media warned that up to 100,000 from this group, including some 40,000 stranded on a mountain, could be slaughtered if the US did not intervene at once. Americans unfortunately once again fell for this propaganda and US bombs began to fall. Last week, however, it was determined that only about 2,000 were on the mountain and many of them had been living there for years! They didn’t want to be rescued!
This is not to say that the plight of many of these people is not tragic, but why is it that the US government did not say a word when three out of four Christians were forced out of Iraq during the ten year US occupation? Why has the US said nothing about the Christians slaughtered by its allies in Syria? What about all the Palestinians killed in Gaza or the ethnic Russians killed in east Ukraine?
The humanitarian situation was cynically manipulated by the Obama administration — and echoed by the US media — to provide a reason for the president to attack Iraq again. This time it was about yet another regime change, breaking Kurdistan away from Iraq and protection of the rich oil reserves there, and acceptance of a new US military presence on the ground in the country.
President Obama has started another war in Iraq and Congress is completely silent. No declaration, no authorization, not even a debate. After 24 years we are back where we started. Isn’t it about time to re-think this failed interventionist policy? Isn’t it time to stop trusting the government and its war propaganda? Isn’t it time to leave Iraq alone?”