According to our president, we are initiating the bombing in Iraq and Syria in order to neutralize ISIS, a group of religious fanatics the U.S. helped grow and gain strength in order to overthrow the Assad regime.
We’ve reached a point where it’s impossible to identify who our allies are and who the enemy.
Last year, President Obama claimed that Assad’s soldiers had gassed their own citizens, including many women and children. They had crossed his “red line” and the U.S. was now ready to involve itself militarily in Syria’s civil war. Why? Because we don’t like their president, Mr. Assad, and the gassing claim would give the U.S. a justified humanitarian rationale to enter Syria. It was another example of U.S. imperialism where we are willing to force regime change in any country where the leadership refuses to be dominated and controlled by U.S. interests.
But Mr. Obama had some problems. The people of the U.S. were tired of war and were reluctant to support his decision and there was no clear evidence that it was Assad’s military that was responsible for the gassing. President Assad had nothing to gain from sponsoring such an attack on his own citizens, whereas, the rebel forces did. If they could incite the U.S. into action, they would have a great advantage in their battle.
To the rescue Vladimir Putin. Mr. Putin saved Mr. Obama from great embarrassment by getting Syria to agree to rid itself of its chemical stockpile. The U.S. then agreed to stand down with its military threat.
Which brings us to today’s theatrical drama. Two American journalists, James Foley and Steve Sutloff were captured and beheaded by members of ISIS. The ugliness of these events and the passion for revenge it provoked are understandable. However, this is not the first time that Americans who were captured by anti-American groups were executed. Never before did the U.S. consider going to war. What makes this different?
Mr. Obama, in his speech informing the country of his plans to bomb Iraq and Syria, took the moral high ground claiming that these people (ISIS) were immoral and inhumane. I agree that the arbitrary taking of human life is immoral and inhumane but wonder what strange sense of morality and righteousness allows the U.S. to assume this position and judge others.
Is it more humane to fire missiles from drones at homes, cars, and other targets, killing and maiming thousands of innocents, including women and children? Is it more humane because it’s done from a computer monitor thousands of miles away and the people pulling the trigger never get to see the bloodshed and suffering for which they are responsible?
Is it more humane for the U.S. to support Israel’s massacre of innocent Palestinians in Gaza with money and weapons? Was it more humane to unleash bombs in Bagdad in 2003, killing and maiming thousands of Iraqi’s, destroying their homes and infrastructure on the basis of the Bush administration’s lies?
As Martin Luther King stated many years ago, “The U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in human history.”
In an interview on CNN, James Foley’s mother described how her attempts to raise money to free her son, James, from captivity were undermined by government officials. They informed her that raising and giving money to a terrorist organization was against the law. Yet, the U.S. refused to negotiate with ISIS for James Foley’s release. In other words, nothing was done to try to rescue him.
Then there’s Steve Sutloff. His family has claimed that he was sold to ISIS by the so-called moderate rebels for $25 to $50 thousand. And, these are the moderates we want to arm and support. So much for integrity.
The capture and beheading of these two young men has presented President Obama with a new opportunity to gather popular support for a military presence in Syria which I believe is the underlying goal for all this. That’s why I see this whole episode as theater.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
The theater of politics
Posted on October 7, 2014 by Dave Alpert
According to our president, we are initiating the bombing in Iraq and Syria in order to neutralize ISIS, a group of religious fanatics the U.S. helped grow and gain strength in order to overthrow the Assad regime.
We’ve reached a point where it’s impossible to identify who our allies are and who the enemy.
Last year, President Obama claimed that Assad’s soldiers had gassed their own citizens, including many women and children. They had crossed his “red line” and the U.S. was now ready to involve itself militarily in Syria’s civil war. Why? Because we don’t like their president, Mr. Assad, and the gassing claim would give the U.S. a justified humanitarian rationale to enter Syria. It was another example of U.S. imperialism where we are willing to force regime change in any country where the leadership refuses to be dominated and controlled by U.S. interests.
But Mr. Obama had some problems. The people of the U.S. were tired of war and were reluctant to support his decision and there was no clear evidence that it was Assad’s military that was responsible for the gassing. President Assad had nothing to gain from sponsoring such an attack on his own citizens, whereas, the rebel forces did. If they could incite the U.S. into action, they would have a great advantage in their battle.
To the rescue Vladimir Putin. Mr. Putin saved Mr. Obama from great embarrassment by getting Syria to agree to rid itself of its chemical stockpile. The U.S. then agreed to stand down with its military threat.
Which brings us to today’s theatrical drama. Two American journalists, James Foley and Steve Sutloff were captured and beheaded by members of ISIS. The ugliness of these events and the passion for revenge it provoked are understandable. However, this is not the first time that Americans who were captured by anti-American groups were executed. Never before did the U.S. consider going to war. What makes this different?
Mr. Obama, in his speech informing the country of his plans to bomb Iraq and Syria, took the moral high ground claiming that these people (ISIS) were immoral and inhumane. I agree that the arbitrary taking of human life is immoral and inhumane but wonder what strange sense of morality and righteousness allows the U.S. to assume this position and judge others.
Is it more humane to fire missiles from drones at homes, cars, and other targets, killing and maiming thousands of innocents, including women and children? Is it more humane because it’s done from a computer monitor thousands of miles away and the people pulling the trigger never get to see the bloodshed and suffering for which they are responsible?
Is it more humane for the U.S. to support Israel’s massacre of innocent Palestinians in Gaza with money and weapons? Was it more humane to unleash bombs in Bagdad in 2003, killing and maiming thousands of Iraqi’s, destroying their homes and infrastructure on the basis of the Bush administration’s lies?
As Martin Luther King stated many years ago, “The U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in human history.”
In an interview on CNN, James Foley’s mother described how her attempts to raise money to free her son, James, from captivity were undermined by government officials. They informed her that raising and giving money to a terrorist organization was against the law. Yet, the U.S. refused to negotiate with ISIS for James Foley’s release. In other words, nothing was done to try to rescue him.
Then there’s Steve Sutloff. His family has claimed that he was sold to ISIS by the so-called moderate rebels for $25 to $50 thousand. And, these are the moderates we want to arm and support. So much for integrity.
The capture and beheading of these two young men has presented President Obama with a new opportunity to gather popular support for a military presence in Syria which I believe is the underlying goal for all this. That’s why I see this whole episode as theater.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.