In the ridiculous “debate” now going on between various factions in what passes for a government in this sad Republic (if I may be so bold as to still name it such), regarding our potential intervention in the civil war currently raging in Syria, much seems to hinge on the method by which the victims of that war are wounded or killed.
Indeed, and for some years now, it has been United States policy to cause all manner of international uproar over the fact that nations, other than our own, might have and –shudder– actually use a WMD – otherwise known as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
In the first place, there is one thing has never been defined to my understanding or satisfaction; that is, how large must a singular act of destruction be in order to qualify as “mass”?
In the second place, by what logic is it somehow worse for destruction to be caused by a singular act that meets the mysterious criteria of “mass” versus the same net amount of destruction being caused by repeated application of WID (Weapons of Incremental Destruction)? After all, did not our very Republic introduce the use of such WMD to end WWII in Asia under the theory that a couple of massive acts of destruction would, in the long run, result in less total damage than the continued application of WID? (Please note that I use the word destruction to describe the destruction of both people and objects.)
Do not misunderstand me – I well appreciate the horror of chemical weapons, and, to an even greater extent, biological weapons and I understand why the world community condemns their use. Even so, is not dead, dead and destroyed, destroyed? Were we truly a civilized world, would we not better condemn WAMD (Weapons of Any Manner of Destruction)?
Perhaps I have seen so many wars, and the lies used to justify them, that my brain has gone soft in that regard. Still, I think it past time for humanity, and these United States in particular, to understand that wars are almost never about right versus wrong – and that they are almost always about the transfer of wealth and power from one person, or group, and another and that further, we who consider ourselves to be “common people” are always among the losers in any war.
Even worse than the constant wars waged for the enrichment of the few, we (humanity) still wage wars over the different ways to interpret what can only, and honestly, be termed nonsense. I refer, of course, to the wanton killing of each other over religious dogma. At least, if one wins a fight with one’s neighbor over a piece of land, one has benefit of that land after the battle is over (at least until another, more powerful neighbor comes along). If one “wins” a fight over ideas of fantasy, what can result but death and destruction with no advantage gained by any of the participants – excepting, perhaps, the imagined approval of their invisible benefactor.
One of the arguments in favor of intervention in Syria is that our Republic should be some manner of universal champion for the downtrodden. Were that so, would we not be a better champion to use our influence to cease supplying the smaller nations with the weapons they use in their wars? Yes, it is very profitable to the few but it never fails to return to us in kind (simply remember that many American military personnel were killed in Afghanistan by weapons we furnished the Mujahideen when they were battling the USSR).
Is it not time for us to admit that the real issue is war itself and that it matters little to the victims of war by which acronym the weapons that killed them are known? We have become a nation of constant war and no such nation, in the history of the world, has long prospered.
Why not revert back to what we once were… a nation of producers and free traders which viewed other nations as potential customers and trading partners rather than as enemies?
Certainly and always, if our nation is directly attacked by another, we must do whatever is necessary to repel such an attack. To my fading memory, that has not happened since December 7, 1941 and even that event was not without significant provocation on our part. Before that, I have to go back to 1812 to find another good example. The point being that the direct attacks upon the United States that justify going to war have been very few and far between.
Before any of you protest, I will respond in advance, September 11, 2001 was not a direct attack on the United States by another nation. Yes, it was an attack, but one perpetrated by a group of deranged individuals who, evidently, had some writ from their god to do it. I know of no way to stop occasional acts of insanity by groups who are motivated by their own misguided imaginings, whether it be by Islamists, by the KKK or by any other fringe group that presumes to save the world by destroying it.
For sure, these groups cause death and destruction to innocent people. But, to react in anger by killing other, equally innocent people to gain some sense of revenge hardly becomes a great nation.
This year’s “Freedom Fest” (which we attended) had as its theme “Are We Rome?” and had various presentations which illustrated the similarities between the two great republics… the military overreaching, the gradual degradation from sound money to fiat currency, the gradual movement from a republican government to a dictatorship. The parallels are such as should get the attention of all Americans because, if our story is truly the same as that of Rome, we all know how it ends.
If we continue to be a nation based on war, war can only be our undoing. Those acts that we try to convince ourselves are noble and generous to such nations we presume to “help” are actually generating hatred and future enemies. Yes, we have a strong military today, but our economy is in such shambles that it cannot sustain such a military for much longer. Nor should it. And, once we begin to show the inevitable weakness, the Vandals will soon be at the gates.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson