One of the central questions on today's “Meet The Press” was
whether the United States is responsible for what is going on right now in the
Middle East and should it be its fight at this point? There is broad consensus
in the United States that soldiers should not be sent back into Iraq. This
debate comes as President Obama is asking Congress for resolution to formalize
its engagement with ISIS.
First, today's Meet the Press in terms of format, guests and
smoothness in its pacing [read: no awkward stumbles at all] was perhaps one of
the best that Chuck Todd has done since taking over as moderator. We would
still like to see interview guests on the program actually meet the press and have the journalists on the panel asking some
questions. However, today that was unnecessary as Mr. Todd asked direct concise
questions that elicited insightful and candid responses. One clear example of
this was when Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that the American people did not
elect Republicans to majorities in both houses to see them fight within their
own ranks – over tying funding for the Department of Homeland Security to the
president’s immigration executive orders.
When Mr. Todd was interviewing Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), he
asked the senator if the United States responsible to stay in the Middle East
with a military presence to try to stabilize the region. The senator did feel
that United States did bear some responsibility to be there, but not to go it
alone. To which, Mr. Todd then
switched to Russia and whether or not the United States should arm the
Ukrainians. (As we stated in prior columns, we are not for arming Ukraine as that
would be a mistake. Rightly, Mr. Todd noted that the Russian army would crush
Ukrainian Army.
However, it is a bit of a false equivalent to put Russia and
its aggression in the Ukraine side-by-side with what is essentially chaos going
on in the Middle East. The reason is because the United States went into the Middle
East and broke it even more than it already was. Whereas in the Ukraine, Russia
has essentially invaded that country with covert troops and tanks and whatever
hardware support that the Russian nationalists need.
[On a bit of a side note: Senator Reed said he was in favor of supplying defensive weapons to the Ukrainians in the form of radar and anti-tank missiles along with economic assistance. This is a strategy to bleed the Russians, a 'Vietnam-ing" of them if you will. After we defined it in the sixties and seventies, the United States vietnam-ed Russia in Afghanistan and will employ a bit of that strategy in Ukraine. (Just as the U.S. does to itself in the Middle East.)]
To answer the question as to whether or not the United
States bears responsibility and should be in the Middle East fighting ISIS, we
would put it this way. The worst foreign policy decision since going into
Vietnam full force has been the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so yes. It has been
the source of endless problems abroad and at home. If we hadn't spent $1
trillion in Iraq, think of all the bridges and roads that could have been
repaired, the people put to work, and the lives saved. There may not even have to have been an
interview today with the Sec. of Veterans Affairs, Robert McDonald, if had it
not been for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There would be no need for this
president to have to go to Congress and ask for resolution to formally fight ISIS.
Incidentally, in discussions like the one that was conducted
today, it’s where Sen. John McCain is at his most levelheaded best. Sen. McCain
mentioned that in the administration's proposal for this resolution there was
no mention of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and what to do with the regime that has
killed well over 100,000 of its citizens. We may not agree with Sen. McCain on
how the United States should engage that dictator, but he indirectly brought up
a valid point that if the administration wants a formal resolution then it has
to provide a serious proposal with details. What does it mean to formally
engage ISIS? Does that mean that there will be US ground forces fighting them
are we prepared for to see more casualties coming home from Iraq? The details have to be outlined and the
timetable has to be, to use Mr. McCain’s term, ‘conditions-based.’
Now many in Congress don't want to give the president the
resolution for political reasons - that they don't want to share in the
responsibility if things go wrong. As Sec. McDonald said in his interview,
these people need to be held accountable (900 fired for not doing their jobs), but they have not been in the case of
Congress. Congress needs to take responsibility as well, and use the power of
the purse, again noting the Mr. McCain.
But again, the administration has to present a serious proposal for this
resolution. In actuality, what the administration really seems to want is a
formal okay from Congress to keep doing what the military doing, which is
bombing the hell out of ISIS while putting no boots on the ground.
The United States does bear responsibility for what is going
on right now in the Middle East but not for everything, not the Syrian civil
war. While the discussion on the program continued, we recalled Joe Biden who
had the idea way back when that will probably end up being the end solution - that
Iraq will become in essence three different states in loose union with one
another. Think about it, if any one group has deserved to have its own state
that would be the Kurds. I think most people would agree that the Kurds are the
only ones who have kept up their end; perhaps because they are the most determined,
and self-determining people among
those in Iraq.
When Mr. Todd interviewed Sec. McDonald he showed a video
clip of the secretary verbally sparring with Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO), and
we were glad to see. The former CEO Procter & Gamble did not sit idly by
while a member of the House of Representatives went off on some bellicose rant
to simply show up the secretary in a hearing. The secretary is holding people
accountable, and by the answers that he gave it seems as though things are
improving at the Veterans Administration. The man is obviously not motivated by
money so maybe this graduate of West Point feels the obligation to give back and
fight for the veterans, which we would call admirable. You have to give props
when they should be given, we guess. And on a final note, he illustrated that
admirability when he responded that he encouraged the administration being
listed as ‘at high risk’ to bring light to what the problems are, but what he's
also done for himself is set goals to correct those very problems. See the
graphic below:
Panel: Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist, The Washington Post; Joe Scarborough, MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" April Ryan, White House correspondent for the Urban Radio Network ; David Axelrod, former senior advisor to President Barack Obama
And just one more
thing. There was another act of terror perpetrated last night in Copenhagen,
Denmark, in which three people died where the shooter pledged allegiance to
Isis in the name of Islam. But here's the truth about these individuals who
commit these horrible acts for ISIS and Al Qaeda – they are all going to lose
in the end, and the reason is because what they really believe in is nothing.
Ideology is not religion. Religion is faith and faith is hope and that is something that these people have
none of.
No comments:
Post a Comment