The chasm between creating an image to win a presidential election and possessing a mature understanding of geo-political reality reminds me of: "I'm not a real (doctor, lawyer or name your expertise) I just play one on TV." We have had the deep misfortune of having two presidents in the beginning of the 21st century who played a part to get elected, much like producers create a character on a hit TV program that garners a large following, but no one would consider actually placing the person in the actual position.
Dailykos was established during the time of the first impostor, one who played a laconic Texas cowboy whose motto was from the WWII song, "Praise the lord and pass the ammunition." It didn't have to make sense but it defined the macho simplicity of the heroic masculine figure. He appointed another character, complete with cowboy boots and unencumbered by any knowledge of the country and its people, Paul Bremer. With incredible hubris he demanded full plenepotentiary authority, which he received. Like a real life movie cowboy he made his decisions without much thinking, disbanding the mostly Suni Iraqi military, leaving them nothing to do but become insurgents. How many of them are now the backbone of ISIS will never be accurately known.
Barack Obama was first elected when the disaster of that war was becoming irrefutable, and the financial policies caused by both of his predecessors concessions to bloated financial entities had come close to destroying the world's economy. He brilliantly ignored specifics and ran on "hope and change" which with the help of McCain's ineptness was enough to win a close election. Such a master politician happens to be at a loss when faced with the historic clashes of civilizations as we are now experiencing. Just as George W. Bush invaded a country with no justification in international law or serious consideration of the consequences, Barack Obama ran on ending this war, which was predicated on ignoring these consequences. "You break it you own it" were the prescient words of then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bush broke it, but Obama could have anticipated the damage that was done by the country he would lead.
This article is beyond either criticism or defense of the current president or his predecessor. It is a snapshot of what we are about to embark on, which I see as a beginning of a tragedy disguised as a limited military engagement. While not a nation with embassies and diplomats, to dismiss it as simply a terrorist group does not convey the nature of this entity with many names, from ISIL, ISIS, IS, to Caliphate. It is not a political ideology such as communism, but a deeply held religious cultural ethos of which our country has little understanding.
This article, in today's LA Times, gives a preview of what we are unleashing in just our "pinpoint" bombing of tactical targets of the Islamic State. :
Opposition to U.S. airstrikes targeting Islamist militants in Syria appears to be growing among rebel groups and their backers in the country, threatening internal support for the Washington-led aerial offensive.
Since the strikes began last week, opposition activists have staged protests and denounced the U.S. air assault as misguided and an attack on Islam. Critics say the bombardment should be aimed at forces loyal to the government of President Bashar Assad, not his opponents.
"The coalition is against the blessed Syrian revolution, using the excuse of Daesh," said a brigade commander with the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army who goes by the nickname Abu Qusay. "Daesh" is the Arabic acronym for the militant group Islamic State.
Rather than President Obama addressing the actual responses to the people that we shall be bombing, he crafted his description as if it were a promotion for a new television series; but there is a difference. But this reality show follows no such script. No, this will be something quite different; the rage of those whose families and lives are destroyed by missiles from the United States of American. We are no more likely to be greeted as liberators than VP Cheney assured us would be the case in Iraq. This coalition, mostly of Christian nations with a history of colonialism of these very lands being bombed, will be fought with the ferocity of those whose very way of life is being attacked, and the fact that we do not share their cultural identity will make them hate us more, not less. (see addendum below for book describing this reaction)
Those people described in the article above were the same as those whom we "liberated" in our invasion of Iraq, whom according to the script should have been enjoying a liberal democratic government with a secure free society by now. As long as these were only previews of coming attractions, the writers from the Bush administration can claim that unanticipated events intervened. In the immortal words of Secretary Rumsfeld, "Stuff Happens." So what if hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed and maimed, it's not our fault they didn't follow our script.
President Obama is extending this process of fiction as reality, when now we know better. While his administration did not promote this war, he is now taking ownership of the consequences. He is passively not focusing on the arsonist who set the fire, and by his vacillation, accepting responsibility because he is on duty to deal with the remnants of the their profound irresponsibility.
Obama is not alone, of course, and there are those with the mentality of the Neo-cons, of the Bush years who still are shouting absurdities designed to show the limits of our current Commander in Chief. An example is this interview with Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute by Judy Woodruff, described as "offering his perspective on what the intelligence community misjudged about the Islamic State."
This was featured on PBS Newshour last night. Feel free to watch it here if you like, but the message boils down to this.
"Obama says it's up to the Iraqis to liberate their country from ISIS. This is nonsense, as it is our responsibility. We should fully mobilize and go into Iraq and Syria and to defeat these terrorists"
Yep, that's what he says we should do. His words would have had more credence among the British and French of the late nineteenth century, when it was understood that the white man's burden included conquering primitive societies; but there was a benefit. After the soldiers did their job subduing the opposition, the foreign service took over and governed, all in the name of civilizing and Christianizing the heathens. And of course it was only right that the the conquering nations got benefits, special trade deals with the countries under their dominion.
Obama, tragically, is still making policy based on partisan political, rather than geopolitical, calculation. As such his arguments, not being based on realty, seem timid and ineffectual. Not only he, but most of the compliant media ignores the reality of the reactions of those whom we bomb, or is the word still "liberate." So we, as a country, have no conversation on what we have caused by "regime change" in Iraq, and how to address the resultant chaos, other than partisan vitriol. Obama labels the Islamic State as "Evil" and pretends that this is other than meaningless to those who are willing to die for their own civilization. What we depict as their "barbarism" is to them dedication. It is like the Bush proclamation of "Those who are not with us are against us." Their brutality is their conviction, a sign that they are "all in." to defeat the "crusaders" who are determined to conquer their world.
While this is a Democratic web site, even we must move beyond partisanship and accept the damage done in the Levant energized (not as a response to) the attacks of 9-11. Any president who took office in 2009 would have been faced with the rightful hatred by Iraqis for destroying a despotic, but functioning, country.
Partisan Politics=Public Relations=Distortion of Reality=Promotion of illusion=No possibility of addressing actual challenges.
"We broke it->we own it -> we are obligated to fix the country we broke. Of course we are not going to acknowledge this. Simplistic Neo-cons such as the interviewee quoted above can pretend that we can invade, occupy and have a type of de-Nazificaton program, in this case de-Muslimization, and inculcate a multicultural liberal democracy by edict. Even for a TV series this is too absurd to sell to an audience.
It would be nice to have some sort of closure of this essay, but I don't have one. The screen play would be easy to write, but a plan of action for the real world eludes me. As it obviously does our political leaders.
Maybe this will prompt some ideas that others will share.
=
=
=
=
Addendum:
To understand the reality of the Arab Muslim world, I recommend "The Closed Circle, An Interpretation of the Arabs" by David Pryce-Jone" This is the London Times Review:
The author examines the forces which “drive the Arabs in their dealings with each other and with the West.” In the postwar world, he argues, the Arabs reverted to age-old tribal and kinship structures, from which they have been unable to escape. In tribal society, loyalty is extended to close kin and other members of the tribe. The successful nation-state—the model that Westerners understand—generates broader loyalties, but the tribal world has no institutions that have evolved by common consent for the general good. Those who seek power achieve it by plotting secretly and ruthlessly eliminating their rivals. In the Arab world, violence is systemic.