The New York Times (“Iraq Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says”) reports that,
“President Obama said on Saturday that the airstrikes and humanitarian assistance drops he ordered last week in Iraq could go on for months, preparing Americans for an extended military presence in the skies there as Iraq’s leaders try to build a new government.
“‘I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,’ Mr. Obama told reporters. ‘This is going to be a long-term project.’”
Everything about the Middle East is “long-term”.
A month or two before the US invaded Iraq in A.D. 2003, Saddam Hussein warned that such invasion would result in the “mother of all wars”. Everyone laughed. Surely, lowly Iraq could not put up much of a war against the US.
A couple weeks after invading Iraq and dispensing a generous dose of “shock and awe,” President G.W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished!”
Except, as it turned out, we couldn’t solve the Iraqi problem in just weeks, and the war dragged on for another 8.5 years—until the “mission” (whatever that was—eliminate the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction?) was seemingly “accomplished” when the American military “finally” left Iraq in December of A.D. 2011.
In retrospect, Hussein’s warning about the “mother of all wars” may’ve been exaggerated, but it was way closer to the truth than Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”. In fact, Hussein’s description wasn’t even all that exaggerated given that the Iraq War was America’s third longest war (after Afghanistan, 13 years; and Viet Nam, almost 11 years). If Iraq wasn’t (yet) the “mother of all wars,” it might at least have been the step-mom.
Today, we’re again bombing in Iraq. This time the targets are ISIS soldiers. Is this a new “Mission” or is it just another episode of the original “Mission” (whatever that was)?
President Obama has warned again that we may be in for some “long-term” bombing that may take months rather than weeks. And, who knows, if we put some “boots on the ground,” it might even take a few more years to reach the sublime objective of a real “Mission Accomplished” (if anyone knows what the “mission” is) or, at least, a “Mission Escaped”.
Did anyone know what we were fighting for during the first 8.5 years of the Iraqi War?
Does anyone know what we’re fighting for now?
• I think there’s a lesson here: The US government is crazy to become further involved in Middle East peace or Middle East wars.
I believe the Bible is correct when it refers to End Times leaders declaring “Peace, peace” (“mission accomplished”) when there is no peace.
I doubt that any western government or power can impose “peace” in the Middle East.
It’s remotely possible that a new “Caliphate” run by Muslims might be able to forcefully impose “peace” (or at least some semblance of “order”) on the Middle East. But even that’s unlikely so long as the Sunnis are determined to behead the Shia and even one Shiite remains.
I believe the Middle East will remain unstable and prone to chaos, violence and war for the balance of our lives. The causes are not just geopolitical or religious (which can be mitigated by man’s efforts). The causes are also genetic—which cannot be affected by mankind’s efforts.
Circa 600 A.D., the prophet Mohammed reportedly married about a dozen women—one of which was his first cousin. Believing Mohammed to be perfect, Muslims have since sought to emulate Mohammed by also marrying their own first cousins (a custom forbidden to the Jewish and Christian faiths). Recently, several scientific studies have shown that, due to centuries of inbreeding with their first cousins, Muslims are disproportionately predisposed to genetic defect. As a result of this inbreeding, many Muslims are genetically prone to physical deformity, low IQs, mental illness and violence.
Insofar as we arm crazy people, we shouldn’t be surprised if they behead each other. Insofar as we fight crazy people, we shouldn’t expect our war to ever end.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has a better chance of establishing a permanent peace to the south side of Chicago than the federal government does of establishing peace to the Middle East.
Those who meddle in the Middle East under the pretext of “peace, peace,” will probably achieve only “war, war”—and the major meddlers undoubtedly know it. In other words, the governments who shout loudest for “peace, peace” in the Middle East intend to cause “war, war”.
If you want to involve yourself and your nation in endless war, keep meddling in the Middle East.
If you want some semblance of “peace, peace” for yourself and your nation, stay out of the Middle East.
To hell with ‘em. Let them kill each other to the last lunatic.
Some would dismiss that advice as callous and worse, economically naïve. After all, what would happen to the global price of crude oil if we simply allowed the Muslims to self-destruct? Wouldn’t the price increase cripple the US economy?
I doubt it.
I’d bet that any increase in the price of crude caused by allowing the Middle East to explode would be less than the price we’ve already paid for the last Middle East war, or the price we’re going to pay for the next one.
Peace is usually cheaper than war.
Plus, if we stayed out of the Middle East, we wouldn’t have to send our soldiers over there to kill or be killed.