For in almost every political theory there is an inscrutable element which in the heyday of that theory goes unexamined. Behind the appearances there is a Fate, there are Guardian Spirits, or Mandates to a Chosen People, a Divine Monarchy, a Vice-Regent of Heaven, or a Class of the Better Born. The more obvious angels, demons, and kings are gone out of democratic thinking, but the need for believing that there are reserve powers of guidance persists. [1].
Walter Lippmann Public Opinion (1921)
Their views were not discussed in the U.S. when originally written in 1996 but they are available now for the public to read. Given that their recommendations correspond to the subsequent instability affecting all three nations, this prompts a review of many issues affecting the narrative presented to the public. One important issue is U.S. public opinion. U.S. public opinion from 2003-present about military involvement in the Middle East shows an alarming acceptance of the government's stated reasons justifying its waging war.
Before the U.S, invasion and/or liberation of Iraq, geopolitical thinkers Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser either contributed or provided their thoughts which helped generate a review published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." The authors summarize what geopolitical factors will most impact Israel's prospects to defend itself while achieving peace in the region.
They state in this study that:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq-an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right-as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. [1].
Their proposed actions needed to accomplish these objectives adumbrate the future conflicts spreading through the region. Forget for now whether actual conditions in the region justified such proposals. My focus is limited to their objectives corresponding closely with the actions of which the U.S. either approved and\or undertook after 9-11. The U.S though stated different reasons for undertaking such actions though.
Listen to then U.S. President George W. Bush's speech delivered in 2003 in front of Congress and broadcasts to the nation. Did he argue that regime change in Syria and Iraq was necessary pursuant to the objective stated above? No. Of course, regime change in Syria and Iraq may be justified for other reasons. But, Syria has never posed a threat to U.S security nor did Iraq possess the caches of WMDs in 2003. The public likely believed Bush because nearly 70% of Americans supported invading Iraq. [2]. This number declined through 2011 when the U.S. withdrew following Iraqi President Maliki's refusal to sign the Status of Force Agreement, which would have allowed for continued U.S. occupation. An occupation lasting eight years though has slightly reduced U.S. support for military action.
A U.S. opinion poll taken on October 10, 2014 shows 66% approve of airstrikes against ISIS, but 52% disapprove of the using U.S. ground troops. [3] [4]. This support level results from the psychological impact on Americans being subjected daily to reports of ISIS' chronic beheading. The ISIS threat seems to embody a threat so horrific that using military action against it finds support even among the most war-weary Americans. Yes ISIS is horrific but their operations in Syria and their being funded, trained, and supported to some degree by Jordan and Turkey [5] parallels with the strategy proposed for Israel stated above in "Clean Break...." One might dismiss these parallels as mere coincidences. Maybe they are. Polls are too reductionist, though, to uncover the underlying complexities of such geopolitical conflicts.
Before we accept another war as a fait accompli, Americans should demand that its leaders prove such parallels are unrelated coincidences. The opinion polls showing the current support levels for military actions suggest the public has made no demands. Or, maybe they are aware of these parallels and are simply indifferent to the degree that they impacted the tragedies and continued instability in the Middle East. But, I don't see any studies done measuring public knowledge of the dynamics causing instability in that region.
Shouldn't the various factors contributing to ISIS creation and operations prompt Americans to transcend the limited thinking needed to answer simple and closed end questions like "Should we or shouldn't we bomb?"......"And, if so, at what point should we use ground troops?"
1. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." accessed at Information Clearing House http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm
2. "Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-08." Pew Research Center. March 19, 2008. http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
3. Klein, Aaron. "Mideast War in March?: NATO Considering intervention as opposition fights Syrian regime." Feb 24, 2012. WND. http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/mideast-war-in-march/
4. Jones, Gareth reporting and Jason Webb ed. "Americans are training Syria rebels in Jordan: Spiegel." March 10, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310
5. Ekins, Emily. "Poll: 66% Favor Airstrikes Against ISIS, but 52% Oppose U.S. Sending Ground Troops." Reason-Rupe Poll. October 10, 2014. accessed at http://reason.com/poll/2014/10/10/poll-66-favor-airstrikes-against-isis-bu
No comments:
Post a Comment