My wife and I recently watched a segment of the CNN series "The Nineties" and were reminded of just how violent a decade the 1990s was. The segment spotlighted the Waco, Texas, gunfight with the Branch Davidians cult; the Unabomber ,whose mailed bombs killed several and worried thousands; the Oklahoma City bombing; and the initial attempt by Al-Quaida to topple the Twin Towers. We breathed a sigh of relief that the 1990s were two decades behind us.
Days later we read the reports of pipe bombs that had been mailed to public officials in Washington, New York and other locations. It seemed like we were back in the worrisome days of the 1990s or the aftermath of 9/11.
What was most troubling about this week's spate of attempted bombings was that the target list seems to have been taken from President Trump's speeches and tweets. Bombs were sent to Hillary Clinton, former President Obama, former CIA director John Brennan, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and liberal activist/donor George Soros. The link between all these targets is that they are Democrats and have been criticized viciously by President Trump.
To his credit, Trump issued a carefully worded statement calling for national unity and conversation, not violence. But this same president has called some of these targets "crooked," "dumb," and other ambiguous but mean-spirited adjectives. He enjoys leading chants of "Lock her up" at his rallies, calls news reporters "enemies of the people" and praises a congressman who body slammed a reporter who had the temerity to ask him a simple question about a national issue.
Trump supporters deny that his venomous criticisms had anything to do with the pipe bombs. Some even claim that the mailed packages were a Democratic plot to cast blame on Trump. But words matter. A kind word turns away wrath. An angry, hateful word promotes violence. Regardless of whether the person or persons responsible for these attempted bombings took their cues from the president's words, those words have debased our society and ruined political debate.
Throughout history, words have mattered. Thomas Jefferson's words helped launch a new republic. Adolf Hitler's words led to World War II and 20 million deaths. John Kennedy's words challenged Americans to put men on the moon. Franklin Roosevelt's words helped reassure Americans despondent because of the Great Depression. Abraham Lincoln's words redefined the Union's war goals and defined the principles of American democracy.
Because words matter, they should be chosen carefully.
Showing posts with label al-Qaida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al-Qaida. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Monday, June 30, 2014
Iraq is the mistake that won't go away
Iraq is the foreign policy disaster that won't go away. Eight years after President George W. Bush set the United States on a campaign to reform the Middle East by toppling a cruel and ruthless dictator, Iraq is in many ways worse off than it was under Saddam Hussein and before more than 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis died in the unending warfare the 2003 invasion touched off.
President Obama, who had opposed the war from the beginning and was eager to get U.S. troops out of the country, now has decided to send U.S. troops — advisers only — back into Iraq in a last-ditch effort to halt the spread of Islamic extremism. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has taken control of a large swath of Iraq and parts of Syria. ISIS leaders have proclaimed a new country, the beginning on an Islamic caliphate, and they have imposed a totalitarianism whose cruelty rivals Saddam's.
Thomas Ricks' book on the first phase of the Iraq War was titled "Fiasco," perhaps the most appropriate title in nonfiction history. The invasion of Iraq has been called the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. The invasion was based on several assumptions, all of which proved to be wrong: (1) Al-Qaida had a base in Iraq; (2) Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction"; (3) Iraqis would welcome American troops with open arms and flowers; (4) establishment of a democratic Iraq would transform the Middle East.
As bad as Saddam was, he had kept a lid on sectarian violence. Removing him and his entire governmental structure, including police, security and military, unleashed the Sunni vs. Shia violence that nearly tore the country apart in 2006. Sectarian violence is at work again as Sunni-dominated ISIS attempts to wrest control of the country from the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.
President Obama, who wanted no part of the Iraq War, has to re-examine his own actions. His eagerness to leave Iraq behind and his hesitancy to involve America in the Syrian civil war may have contributed to the rise of ISIS and the failures of the Iraqi government.
George W. Bush started this hubris-filled fiasco, but Barack Obama seems unable to find a way to stop it.
President Obama, who had opposed the war from the beginning and was eager to get U.S. troops out of the country, now has decided to send U.S. troops — advisers only — back into Iraq in a last-ditch effort to halt the spread of Islamic extremism. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has taken control of a large swath of Iraq and parts of Syria. ISIS leaders have proclaimed a new country, the beginning on an Islamic caliphate, and they have imposed a totalitarianism whose cruelty rivals Saddam's.
Thomas Ricks' book on the first phase of the Iraq War was titled "Fiasco," perhaps the most appropriate title in nonfiction history. The invasion of Iraq has been called the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. The invasion was based on several assumptions, all of which proved to be wrong: (1) Al-Qaida had a base in Iraq; (2) Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction"; (3) Iraqis would welcome American troops with open arms and flowers; (4) establishment of a democratic Iraq would transform the Middle East.
As bad as Saddam was, he had kept a lid on sectarian violence. Removing him and his entire governmental structure, including police, security and military, unleashed the Sunni vs. Shia violence that nearly tore the country apart in 2006. Sectarian violence is at work again as Sunni-dominated ISIS attempts to wrest control of the country from the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.
President Obama, who wanted no part of the Iraq War, has to re-examine his own actions. His eagerness to leave Iraq behind and his hesitancy to involve America in the Syrian civil war may have contributed to the rise of ISIS and the failures of the Iraqi government.
George W. Bush started this hubris-filled fiasco, but Barack Obama seems unable to find a way to stop it.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Civil war in Iraq threatens to undo U.S. hopes
Back in the latter part of the George W. Bush administration, Americans were debating whether Iraq was in a state of civil war as Sunni and Shiite Muslims praised God and passed the ammunition. They were killing each other faster than a Stalinist purge.
A surge in troops and a new strategy for American forces quelled the fighting and the killing, at least for a while, long enough for U.S. troops to make a halfway respectable exit from the country they had invaded in 2003, expecting to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Now the Americans are gone, and it's up to the Iraqis to run their country and protect their citizenry.
Unfortunately, things are not going so well "over there." The end of American combat involvement and the rise of a Syrian insurgency have opened the door for what has to be considered a real civil war in Iraq. The ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is conquering territory and advancing on the capital of Baghdad, having already taken over Mosul, Fallujah and Tikrit. The ISIS has proclaimed that it will obliterate the borders established by the victors following World War I, which broke up the Ottoman Empire. Those borders have been criticized for years as having little to do with ethnic or religious populations but were little more than convenient lines on a map.
If the ISIS succeeds in conquering all of Iraq, which seems to be a strong possibility, America's 10 years in Iraq and thousands of deaths will seem like a waste of time, lives and treasure (estimated at well over $1 trillion). Instead of stamping out Al-Qaida, which was not active in Iraq in 2003, America's overthrow of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship is resulting in establishment of an Al-Qaida-related regime in Iraq and, perhaps, in Syria as well.
North of the old Iraqi border, Bashar al-Assad appears to have weathered an insurgency that threatened his family dynasty. The Obama administration had opposed Assad and called for him to step down. Instead, with the help of Iran and its Lebanese Hezbollah army, Assad is regaining territory that had been lost to the rebels. But the ISIS could, conceivably, establish a rebel territory encompassing parts of Syria and Iraq, a formidable and oil-rich swath of the Middle East.
American military might seems helpless to staunch the destruction and overthrow of the Iraqi government U.S. lives helped establish, and that Shiite-dominated government seems incapable of fielding an army capable of defeating well-organized insurgents. The final outcome of this drama cannot bode well for American interests in the region.
The United States' strategy in the Middle East has failed and floundered for more than a decade, if not for a century.
A surge in troops and a new strategy for American forces quelled the fighting and the killing, at least for a while, long enough for U.S. troops to make a halfway respectable exit from the country they had invaded in 2003, expecting to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Now the Americans are gone, and it's up to the Iraqis to run their country and protect their citizenry.
Unfortunately, things are not going so well "over there." The end of American combat involvement and the rise of a Syrian insurgency have opened the door for what has to be considered a real civil war in Iraq. The ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is conquering territory and advancing on the capital of Baghdad, having already taken over Mosul, Fallujah and Tikrit. The ISIS has proclaimed that it will obliterate the borders established by the victors following World War I, which broke up the Ottoman Empire. Those borders have been criticized for years as having little to do with ethnic or religious populations but were little more than convenient lines on a map.
If the ISIS succeeds in conquering all of Iraq, which seems to be a strong possibility, America's 10 years in Iraq and thousands of deaths will seem like a waste of time, lives and treasure (estimated at well over $1 trillion). Instead of stamping out Al-Qaida, which was not active in Iraq in 2003, America's overthrow of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship is resulting in establishment of an Al-Qaida-related regime in Iraq and, perhaps, in Syria as well.
North of the old Iraqi border, Bashar al-Assad appears to have weathered an insurgency that threatened his family dynasty. The Obama administration had opposed Assad and called for him to step down. Instead, with the help of Iran and its Lebanese Hezbollah army, Assad is regaining territory that had been lost to the rebels. But the ISIS could, conceivably, establish a rebel territory encompassing parts of Syria and Iraq, a formidable and oil-rich swath of the Middle East.
American military might seems helpless to staunch the destruction and overthrow of the Iraqi government U.S. lives helped establish, and that Shiite-dominated government seems incapable of fielding an army capable of defeating well-organized insurgents. The final outcome of this drama cannot bode well for American interests in the region.
The United States' strategy in the Middle East has failed and floundered for more than a decade, if not for a century.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
A no-winner war in Syria
Secretary of State John Kerry has declared it "undeniable" that Syria used chemical weapons against the anti-government rebels in a suburb near Damascus. So now the world awaits the reaction from the United States and other Western powers who have declared the use of chemical weapons a tripwire for their intervention in the Syrian civil war.
No one defends the use of chemical weapons, but we shouldn't pretend that they have been off limits since World War I, when chemical weapons killed thousands and left thousands more wishing they were dead. Survivors suffered horrible problems, including disfigurement and scorched lungs that robbed victims of oxygen.
The World War I experience prompted nations to ban chemical weapons, and the ban has been largely effective, with chemical bombs used only in a few conflicts since 1918. But Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons that can be used against rebels, or, perhaps worse, can fall into the hands of the Islamist fighters eager to find new ways to terrify their enemies and kill more "infidels."
What can the United States and its allies do? If they intervene in Syria's civil war with direct combat against the Assad regime, they will sink their fortunes into Syria's cesspool of hatred and intrigue from which there is no easy escape. The United States badly misjudged the cost in time, money and lives of its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, so claims of an easy and simple intervention in Syria is not reassuring.
Western sentiments are with the populist Syrian rebels, despite the fact that al-Qaida fighters are a large segment of the rebel forces, and against the despotic and brutal Assad regime. Regardless of which side ultimately prevails, there is no positive outcome from the West's perspective. If the rebels win, a fractured, sectarian regime allied with Islamist terrorists is likely to emerge through years of violent infighting. If Assad prevails, he will rule over a country shattered by years of war and economic catastrophe, and he will have even more reason to oppose Western principles.
The United States cannot win in Syria, no matter who prevails.
No one defends the use of chemical weapons, but we shouldn't pretend that they have been off limits since World War I, when chemical weapons killed thousands and left thousands more wishing they were dead. Survivors suffered horrible problems, including disfigurement and scorched lungs that robbed victims of oxygen.
The World War I experience prompted nations to ban chemical weapons, and the ban has been largely effective, with chemical bombs used only in a few conflicts since 1918. But Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons that can be used against rebels, or, perhaps worse, can fall into the hands of the Islamist fighters eager to find new ways to terrify their enemies and kill more "infidels."
What can the United States and its allies do? If they intervene in Syria's civil war with direct combat against the Assad regime, they will sink their fortunes into Syria's cesspool of hatred and intrigue from which there is no easy escape. The United States badly misjudged the cost in time, money and lives of its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, so claims of an easy and simple intervention in Syria is not reassuring.
Western sentiments are with the populist Syrian rebels, despite the fact that al-Qaida fighters are a large segment of the rebel forces, and against the despotic and brutal Assad regime. Regardless of which side ultimately prevails, there is no positive outcome from the West's perspective. If the rebels win, a fractured, sectarian regime allied with Islamist terrorists is likely to emerge through years of violent infighting. If Assad prevails, he will rule over a country shattered by years of war and economic catastrophe, and he will have even more reason to oppose Western principles.
The United States cannot win in Syria, no matter who prevails.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Violence in Mumbai worse than economic crisis
Wednesday's coordinated attacks in Mumbai, India, are a reminder that the world has more to worry about than the global economy, and we Americans have more to worry about than the state of our 401(k) accounts.
Today's reports indicate that no one is sure just who is responsible for these attacks, but they appear to be directed by Islamic radicals, and they are frighteningly well-organized and carried out. In attacking Mumbai, the terrorists singled out Western tourists and business people working in the heart of India's toehold on the global economy and also India's economic modernization itself. Like the Taliban and al-Qaida, these terrorists want to turn back the calendar to about the seventh century, a time when tribal elders dictated trade policies, women were subservient and covered up, and modern values, ranging from democracy to live-and-let-live moral standards, were unknown or forbidden.
The attacks also are an affirmation that no place is safe. Although India has a long history of political violence, these attacks targeted upscale Western hotels, where tourists and business travelers had every reason to feel safe. They also tellingly targeted a Jewish center — a target that points the blame at Islamic radicals.
Wednesday's attacks reassert the axiom that no country can sit on the sidelines while Islamic radicals strive to bring down world markets, democratic institutions and the safety and security of travelers. The radicals want a new worldwide theocracy that will eliminate most of the freedoms achieved in the West since the Reformation and the Enlightenment. There are no "unaligned nations" in this battle, and no nation or nationality is safe. Nations that tolerate or harbor these terrorists, including Iran, Syria and Pakistan, must be penalized. They must be excluded from the world of civilized countries and from global trade and travel. Nations, such as Afghanistan, that host radical organizations while battling against them must be aided in their efforts to oust or capture the militants. Only coordinated global efforts, not some unilateral invasion or cruise missile strike, can succeed against the worldwide threat to civilization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
