President Obama’s
demeanor was calm, cool, and calculated as he walked up to the podium with an
air of authority and assurity on September 10th. However, as he
began to speak his skin began to whiten, his voice became more privileged, and
he started to sound more like a Texas Oilman than a community organizer from
Chicago. His tone was eerily reminiscent of those who’d gone before him: Bush
1, Clinton, and W (pronounced “dub-ya”). We all knew what he was going to say,
that the US military was going to war with “ISIL” (or “ISIS” or the “Islamic
State” or whatever the hell they call themselves these days), but what we didn’t
know was the extent to which the “greatest military in the history of the world”
would engage.
First off, I am sure
everyone and their mother noticed that President Obama did not say that “we are
going to war.” Why? Because according to his tone and rhetoric we are going to
do something substantially less. We are only participating in “targeted
air strikes” and a “sustained counter terrorism strategy… like we have been
doing in Yemen and Somalia for years.” I had to stop.
“Wait, what? Did he really just hold up Yemen and
Somalia as shining examples of the New American War?” (More on this later)
President Obama is a
very deft politician and knows how to sell a red plan and make it look blue. He
was not so foolish as to attempt to tell the American people that he was
putting “boots on the ground” in Iraq again, but he did very slyly change the
way that Presidents sell war policy in the public eye. No longer do we live in
the era of “speak softly and carry a big stick.” We are now living in the Age of
the Obama’s Doctrine: Modern Warfare.
If I may, I would like
to outline this new X-Box-like destruction philosophy to examine each of its
components for their import on global stability.
The 21st Century War Machine
Both Bush Presidents
and Clinton have all gone on national TV to announce aerial campaigns in the
Middle East, but none of their strategies contained the air power now available
to the US military. In his speech President Obama reassured Americans that he
would not put Americans in harms way in this campaign because the military
would employ strategies similar to those “in Yemen and Somalia that we have
been doing for years.” He glossed over those two campaigns but let’s evaluate
them a little, shall we? What has happened in Somalia and Yemen in the past few
years that they should be held up as shining examples of New American Warfare?
Well, first off they have been conducted via drone.
DRONE
Though fighter jets
are still researched, produced, and used, our military has not had to
put “boots on the ground” in Yemen and Somalia because they have been able to
put robots in the sky. While the Politicians would have you believe that these
robot-led campaigns are quick, precise, and surgical, they hide the fact that
they are illegal, imprecise, and messy. Civilian casualties are not rare in
these operations. As a matter of fact, they are so frequent that they have
their own designation: collateral damage. Even an American citizen, Anwar
Al-Awlaki, was killed on foreign soil without the benefit of a trial, which is
guaranteed in the US Constitution. Furthermore, Congress, those who are supposed
to represent you, have no say in these policies. The Patriot Act gave explicit
powers for the President to hunt down Al-Qaeda after 9/11 but those (ill
advised) privileges have evolved into an accountability-free pass for the
President to kill whomever he/she deems a threat.
All that to say that
President Obama’s tone seemed to indicate that these “targeted air strikes”
were less than significant. “It’s no big deal. At least we’re not sending in
the infantry. So, trust me,” he seemed to be implying. No, we do not trust you,
Mr. President, because yours and W’s Death-By-Terminator strategy is just as
brutal as your ground game. Maybe even more so because they cause you to
dismiss the deaths of innocents as an acceptable side effect, no matter how
numerous they are.
INCREASED GROUND SUPPORT
Secondly, Mr. Obama
claimed that he was going to (ironically) increase ground support. (I don’t
want to gloss over the fact that sending in troops, no matter their role, is
technically putting “boots on the ground,” but for the sake of brevity I am
going to have to let it be.) Mr. Obama lauded his efforts so far in the current
crISIS by claiming that the couple of hundred strategy staff that he sent to
Iraq so far had already given them and the Iraqi and Kurdish armies a
significant strategic advantage. Now he is going to send 475 more to train “moderate
Syrian rebel forces” in the ways of Modern Warfare. Where are they going to do
this? Saudi Arabia, a country with ties to “state-funded terrorism”. And who
are they training? Some of the same moderate Syrian rebels that have now (as I
am sure some will in the future) allied themselves with ISIS. (By the way, in
case you have forgotten Osama Bin Laden’s original reason for declaring jihad
on the US was due to the presence of US military personnel in the Holy Land
a.k.a Saudi Arabia.) It is not even eerie how similar this situation is to the
past CIA training of the Mujahadeen, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; it is history repeating
itself.
SUSTAINED COUNTER TERRORISM STRATEGY
Thirdly, Mr. Obama
mentioned that he would employ a “sustained counter-terrorism strategy”. What
does this actually mean? In actuality your guess is as good as mine. The White
House released a statement that basically reduced this broad definition to
include i) cutting off funds to ii) strengthening allied defenses to iii)
stemming the flow of fighters to and from the battlefield internationally. What
they did not say is the other components that they will most definitely be
using including, but not limited to, their spying apparatus in the NSA, their
CIA assets in the regions, and their aforementioned drone capabilities.
HUMANITARIAN GOALS
Lastly, the President
pointed out that the campaign against ISIS would have humanitarian goals. What?
Really, what? I applaud the effort of any government who would open its borders
to a flood of refugees or would use its wealth to provide for those seeking
refuge from violence, but a supply drop every now and then to remote areas does
not whitewash the civilian casualties that will inevitably result from this
so-called “sustained counter-terrorism strategy”. In other words, the few you
save with MRIs do not justify the thousands you kill with drone missiles.
World War Always
A few days after
President Obama’s address Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to the Middle
East to try to drum up support from “regional allies.” Why? Because otherwise
the campaign would look very Crusade-y. The President referenced a collation of
friendly nations who would ally themselves (without naming any names), but he
knew he needed Arab nations to participate as well. Otherwise the coalition
would look a little too pasty in the faces of soldiers from France, Poland,
Italy, Denmark, Canada, and Australia walking around Arrakis. Britain, America’s
closest ally, along with Germany, decided that they would not participate. Iran
also decided to join the party. (Wrap your head around that for a
minute: Iran and the US are allies in this campaign). Mr. Kerry’s attempt to
gain the cooperation of more Arab states is simply a legitimization tactic
aimed at not making this an East vs. West conflict. He succeeded in part by
gaining the support of the United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq (not
Turkey), but they did not specify the extent of their commitment. (UPDATE:
Since writing this piece Mr. Kerry also has succeeded in drumming up the
support of some 40 or so countries in a Monday [9/15] meeting in Paris, some of
which have committed to support roles and others [Saudi Arabia and U.A.E.
included] to active engagement such as air strikes.)
Every war is world war
three these days. The Internet has made it possible to share information, and
consequently emotional reactions to information, at the speed of light.
Therefore, a Nigerian problem becomes an American problem; an Egyptian problem
becomes an Israeli problem; and a Russian problem becomes a French problem all
at the same time. Not all of these consequences are bad, but they do define a
new world order that has not been set in stone by the willing engagement and
sanction of the People of Earth. What used to happen in wartime situations is
that country X would encounter problem Y and then seek solution Z, possibly
with the help of allies A, B, and C. Now, information travels so fast that both
traditional allies and enemies receive the same information about what happens
to country X as fast as country X itself. Therefore, the whole world is
instantly demanded to take sides. In a world where one to three countries have
all the gold, and therefore make all the rules, this is a very dangerous
situation. Because country X’s problems become the world’s problems.
The problem is that
country X in our situation, the US, is not the moral leader of the world
it fancies itself to be. In fact, it is the polar opposite. The US military is
the part, parcel, and cause, directly and indirectly, of a lot of the suffering
that goes on in the world today. Hell, the guns, tanks, and mortars that ISIS
is using have “Property of the US Government” written on the side of them.
Therefore, what role does the US military have in setting the world to rights
when it is their presence and toys that have destabilized the world in the
first place?
“BREAKING NEWS: Such
and such happened. What is the US response? Stay tuned to fine out.” (God, I
hate the fucking sensationalist say-anything-to-turn-a-profit-on-advertising
mass media.)
I think Mr. Obama’s
approach is a bit wiser than his predecessors, but it still reeks of imperialism.
In his address he spoke of America’s “responsibility to lead”. Where did this
responsibility come from? Did the world hold a referendum that I didn’t know
about where they voted the US as their sovereign? No, but that doesn’t stop our
government from basing their emotional reaction to world events as a personal
attack on their credibility as the world “peace keepers”. In reality, the
United States has wrought more destruction upon the world than any people group
in history, but the modern communication systems have made sharing information
so fast and easy that every world problem becomes a US problem in real-time.
President Obama’s
speech to the nation was clear: the US military will not put infantry on the
ground in Iraq and Syria. Instead it will simply use its arsenal of space age
fighter jets and drones to blow shit up; send “military advisors” to continue
to convince these Eastern peoples that thinking like a US trained soldier is
the way to peace and prosperity (by the way, what do you want to bet these some
of those “advisors” are actually “Call Of Duty”-esque Special Ops soldiers with
covert missions?); maintain a “sustained counter-terrorism strategy”, which is
code for using a lot of high-tech gear that will most likely result in scores
of civilian causalities; and provide humanitarian aid. I cannot even buy into
that last one enough to be snarky about it.
What he was not clear
about is that the US and the world have moved into a new realm of international
conflict. Countries don’t fight countries anymore. Now, you either get with the
Business-Civilization Program of development (BCP) for the Earth or you go on a
terrorist watch list and are subject to the full wrath and power of the US
military. President Obama said it himself, “if you threaten America you will
find no safe haven.” The scary part is that I am threatening America just by
disagreeing with the BCP by writing this post. Am I now a terrorist? Do I now
have no safe haven? There was a time when such questions were laughable. These
days, not such much.
In an era where
Presidents can kill even citizens with impunity and robots and the Police stand
as a ready military against any voice of dissent, no one is safe. Sure, today
the target is ISIL. Tomorrow, who knows? What is for certain is that wars are
no longer fought eye to eye on battlefields. From September 10th,
2014 until the American military machine is dismantled, wars will be a matter
of westernized business-nations allying and mobilizing almost instantly against
any person or group that threatens the stability of the New World Order. It’s
not dystopian fiction anymore, people. We are living it.