Crossing the line.
We heard more from John Kerry this week. Kerry, who voted in favor of the Iraq war back in 2003, is eager to demonstrate that he "gets it" and that this time is different. There is a post-modern cast to this drive towards war, as if by simply acknowledging past abuses the administration inoculates itself against committing them again by doing much the same thing in much the same way: aggressive war, waged against a nation that has not attacked us, under the banner of protecting the world from a brutal dictator armed with WMD - the "problem from hell," as U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power termed it. Only it's completely different now. You see, this time, the dictator used the weapons of mass destruction. Last time, sure, he had used them, but only more than a decade before (when he was our ally). Totally different.
Obama, Kerry, and others have latched onto this trope about defending an international norm that goes back ninety years; one that only Hitler and Saddam Hussein violated. I am grateful for people like retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson for blowing a hole in this line of attack. What, one might ask, is the distinction between using Sarin and using napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange, or depleted uranium? The short answer is that we have used all of the latter four, while our enemies have used the more garden variety poison gas. These are all indiscriminate, deadly weapons, based in chemistry, that can kill large numbers of people. Not that being blown up by fragmentation grenades is any walk in the park. You have to wonder how these people can make so measured a choice in these matters.
And yet, here we are, ready to ride headlong into this burgeoning regional conflict - in some ways, just the latest chapter of the international / inter-faith battle that earlier manifested itself as the Iran-Iraq war, with the Sunni-ruled Gulf states (and the U.S.) backing Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Shi'ite Iran on the other side. The consequences of diving into this fight are highly unpredictable, but Obama and team appear willing to take whatever chances are necessary. They are determined to confront Iran; this is just the means by which they are choosing to do it.
If you agree with me, call your congressperson, your senators, and let them know you think this is a bad idea. There's a good chance they'll vote this down if enough of them hear from us.
luv u,
jp
Obama, Kerry, and others have latched onto this trope about defending an international norm that goes back ninety years; one that only Hitler and Saddam Hussein violated. I am grateful for people like retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson for blowing a hole in this line of attack. What, one might ask, is the distinction between using Sarin and using napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange, or depleted uranium? The short answer is that we have used all of the latter four, while our enemies have used the more garden variety poison gas. These are all indiscriminate, deadly weapons, based in chemistry, that can kill large numbers of people. Not that being blown up by fragmentation grenades is any walk in the park. You have to wonder how these people can make so measured a choice in these matters. And yet, here we are, ready to ride headlong into this burgeoning regional conflict - in some ways, just the latest chapter of the international / inter-faith battle that earlier manifested itself as the Iran-Iraq war, with the Sunni-ruled Gulf states (and the U.S.) backing Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Shi'ite Iran on the other side. The consequences of diving into this fight are highly unpredictable, but Obama and team appear willing to take whatever chances are necessary. They are determined to confront Iran; this is just the means by which they are choosing to do it.
If you agree with me, call your congressperson, your senators, and let them know you think this is a bad idea. There's a good chance they'll vote this down if enough of them hear from us.
luv u,
jp
Comments