First, a little bit about me and what this blog is, and then the first topic: how the United States is starting a new war (even though it refuses to say that), and why we shouldn’t be.
I’m Mike Eidson. I’ve been doing some political organizing in Florida for a few years now, and I’ve interviewed some of the people I’ve met along the way at FloridaProgressives.Com, both as an audio podcast, and, if that’s not your thing, as transcripts. After 15 episodes, I thought it was time to try something new: this blog, 100 Days of Politics. I was inspired by Al Kennedy’s 100 Days of Comics and thought I could stand to have my own 100-day writing exercise as well.
From the start of the Jewish New Year (although here I am, a day late on my first blog entry; I’ll have to double-up soon) to January 1st, 2015, I’ll be blogging about my political interests, whether it’s my commentary on news, my advocacy for progressivism, or things happening here in Florida, around the country, or around the world. I’m sure there will be no shortage of things to discuss, but having a daily routine (at least for the next 99 days) will help my writing skills and keep me connected to politics. So that’s why I’m doing this.
I may keep going after January 1st; we’ll see how this experiment goes. And I’m by no means quitting FloridaProgressives.Com, although I’m not sure when I’ll resume. However, I plan on doing text-only interviews on this blog, and when I do those, I’ll cross-post them at that site.
So, without further introduction, the ISIS debacle:
---
Caveats aside: ISIS are evil. There’s no denying that. And I (and I think a lot of anti-war progressives) am not isolationist, as the pro-intervention liberals are calling us. I also think the United States should get involved in a military capacity for humanitarian reasons, from time to time. I don’t think that’s an oxymoron, as Congressman Alan Grayson (whom I normally agree with) implies. Rwanda is a prime example of genocide that the United States ignored and should not have.
We should “do something” about ISIS. (And yes, “do something” is a really weak prescription; these things all rest on details and specifics.) However, let’s stop and think about what The Plan is, and then what The Situation After The Plan is.
The Plan is to do airstrikes and arm Syrian rebels. Airstrikes are problematic, but arming Syrian rebels is even more so. There are literally 1,000 opposition groups to Bashar al-Assad, and now we’re trying to find the ones there that are suddenly okay with not fighting him but are okay with fighting their (depending on the group) mutual enemy, ISIS.
The Situation After The Plan is that we expect the United States government and the Coalition to pick the “right” rebels, the ones that will do exactly what we want with the artillery we give them. Good luck with that. (And remember, ISIS has already started using some of our weapons from the Iraq War against us. That’s what they do.) The Situation is also that ISIS fighters will flee from the air strikes into civilian territory. What should the bombers do next? Well, we have a Coalition, folks, we can’t just pack it up. If that means we need some collateral damage (read: murder), then so be it. That would be the argument at least, and it is also the argument that keeps most progressives opposed to war. Because how can you look at photos like this (from Israel’s assault on Gaza) and say by any measure that the violence was necessary?
There’s also the obvious point that a bombing campaign by Westerners is absolutely great for ISIS recruitment and will motivate them to actually start planning attacks over here. Despite what Lindsey Graham says, all of us are not about to be killed, but some of us might be now, thanks to our actions.
And let’s remember, that just a year ago, Obama was trying to bomb Assad’s regime, the very people we are helping now by bombing ISIS. It’s almost as if there is no clear solution (other than bombing, apparently) to this ever-changing and complex region of the world. The recent approval to arm the rebels by the House and Senate has Obama praising the “bipartisanship” of Congress. In these polarized times, I feel like the “bipartisan” laws are the ones we really need to worry about!
There’s also the hypocrisy argument, which I don’t think goes as far as my anti-war friends think it does. Yes, it does mean that we are only picking certain atrocities to intervene on. When Saudi Arabia or Israel commits slaughter or abuses human rights, we do nothing, because of our long-standing ties with them. So, it’s true that we pick battles that parallel our supposed national interests. But that doesn’t negate “doing something.” In some ways, arguments about hypocrisy almost lead to the isolationist argument.
So, in terms in solutions, I’ve really got next to nothing. I think our current strategies of air strikes and arming Syrian rebels are mistakes, with the latter making us more entrenched and the Middle East even more deadly. And, as Glenn Greenwald argues, if ISIS were truly an existential threat (or, as Obama says, will be one), why are the pro-intervention advocates so opposed to American ground troops? Wouldn’t we need them to prevent an attack on the “homeland”?
This will be a topic I return to throughout 100 Days of Politics, and a war that probably won’t be over if this blog was called 1,000 Days of Politics. But that’s enough for Day 1. Long story short, helping save innocents trapped on a mountain from the terrors of ISIS? Good. Getting involved in a nation by perpetuating eight proxy wars? Bad.
---
I encourage responses, debate, corrections, feedback, questions, criticism, and all that in the comments section below or on my Twitter. Relevant, substantive comments could make their way into future columns. Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment