Follow the Money

Our illustrious government is trying have have it both ways. What I mean by that is in the 1980s, the Reagan administration knew full well that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons, not only on the Iranian army, but also on his own people, the Kurds. This is not conjecture, this is fact. It is also true that the Reagan administration was selling components to the Iraqis that were being used in the manufacture of mustard gas weapons. Recently declassified Pentagon documents confirm that we (and I use that term loosely) also knew about that. The United States condemned the use of chemical weapons, but imposed no sanctions and kept the pipeline of components open and provided battlefield intelligence about how and where to use the weapons against the Iranians.

So. Now we are outraged at the inhumanity of the Syrian regime using sarin on their own people? We are suddenly taking the moral high ground? We have been utterly complicit in a regime’s use of chemical weapons and now we want to attack an idiot because he used chemical weapons and, probably, got the strength of the mixture wrong? Why weren't we outraged when Iraq was the culprit? This dichotomy is how the rest of the world sees us. It's no wonder we might be just a tad unpopular.

I am seriously confused. It really makes me wonder what our government’s true motivations are. My cynicism tells me to take a step back and try to follow the money. All wars are about money, ever since the weapons were fists and stones. Who stands to gain if we launch a bevy of Tomahawks at Syria? I do not know the answer to that question. As far as I can see, everybody loses. Everybody. Well, except the few who won’t. I wonder who they are because they’re calling the shots in this ridiculous and egregious bullshit. I do understand that, should we attack Assad’s regime, the people of Syria will just be in the way and that we will just be adding to the unbelievable body count. And not one, not a single one, of those civilians deserved to die.

Where Did He Go?

John McCain's experience in Vietnam isn't everything about him. He was captured thirty-one years ago and released about six years later in 1973. That was a long time ago. He still carries the scars of that captivity, on both his body and his psyche. How could he not? He learned more about himself in those painful brutal years that anyone ever should. I'm wondering how much of that he's forgotten. He has used his Vietnam experience to bludgeon his opposition when it comes to foreign policy. He, apparently, still believes that Vietnam was a noble cause and that the US could have won that conflict had it not been for the "senseless" and "illogical" actions of the civilian leader at that time. It's no wonder that he wants to stay in Iraq until a "victory" can be constructed. Unfortunately, the situation in the Middle East is more complex that it was in Vietnam. They are different animals. Applying Vietnam logic to Iraq and Afghanistan is like translating a suicide squeeze to a game of tennis. No, Vietnam isn't everything about John McCain, but it is a resounding seventy percent of him.

This, for me, pretty much dispels any notion that Senator McCain would be a better option in "wartime" than Senator Obama. If the tactics he claims to embrace, increase troop numbers, get more aggressive in the streets, and broaden the base of operations, are examined carefully, they just don't hold water. What they hold is blood, of American and Iraqi youngsters both. The successful combatants in a protracted war almost always win by attrition. They spend more than the other side. It is not particle physics. It is continuing to fight until the other side runs out of blood. I'm not sure than can be done in our current national quest. I don't think convening negotiations across a table is a cowardly endeavor. I think it takes more guts to open the mind and negotiate from a position of strength. I'm not sure Senator McCain embraces that notion.

This is not to say that the Iraqis and other Arabs who want us all dead will negotiate in good faith, but there should be some kind of dialog, not just chest pounding and bomb throwing. Our enemies in this conflict are not all bloodthirsty child killers and neither, obviously, are we. Leadership is key. Without it we are all doomed.

I read "Faith of Our Fathers" and was deeply moved by it. But the humility presented in that work seems to have evaporated. The honor of it has been tarnished over the years by his unfortunate involvement in the Keating Five scandal. Every human makes mistakes and forgiveness and understanding should be our watchwords when we find ourselves sitting in judgment. But the man I wanted to be President as early as twenty years ago and as recently as five years ago seems to have disappeared.

And that, for me, is a very sad thing.