Tag: Assad

Israel and the American-Made Power Vacuum in Syria

Michael Ottavio | United States

On January 21st, Israel announced that they had struck multiple Iranian targets in Syria following a missile attack that was intercepted by Israeli defense systems.  This major escalation follows the beginning of U.S. troops withdrawing from the area at the start of the month.

In a strong message to Tehran, Israel launched wide-ranging strikes against Iranian targets in Syria.  This missile strike came in response to an Iranian surface-to-surface missile fired towards the Israeli occupied Golan Heights.  The Iranian missile that was intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system originated from an Iranian occupied area outside of Damascus, roughly 31 miles from the Golan Heights area.

Back and Forth

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the missile strike hit munition storage sites and a military training camp, as well as another Iranian occupied site near Damascus international airport.  Israel has stated that they made Syria aware of the strike and warned them not to interfere, but the Israeli missile strike turned on Syrian air defense systems after they began firing on the Israeli jets carrying out the strike.

All this escalation comes after a very volatile few months and talks of a total U.S. withdrawal from Syria.  According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), this was the “most intense and violent attack against the regime forces and their allies in terms of casualties since May 2018.”  Israel continues to take a hard stance against the Iranian presence in Syria, and now as the last pillar of stability in the Middle East, they must vehemently defend their borders from hostile nations.

Two Powers Collide

The United States is now in the beginning stages of withdrawing their troops from Syria after they once again intervened in a war that was none of their business.  The departure of American forces is going to cause more destabilization, so why did we get involved in the first place? Back in 2017, the American mindset was manipulated with pictures of war zones and deadly attacks. A need for immediate action became almost unanimous.  While it is very unfortunate, people die in conflicts all around the world and there’s almost never a call to intervene. That may be due to the fact that Russia isn’t involved in every other conflict, but they are heavily involved in Syria.

In September of 2015, Russia started a military intervention in the Syrian Civil War,  in which they fully support the government of al-Assad. Then in April of 2017, less than two years since Russia began intervening in the Syrian Civil War, the United States launched its first attack on a Syrian target.  In an ever-growing need to impede Russian imperialism, the United States entered into yet another conflict to oppose the Assad regime.  It would soon become readily apparent this was not a conflict that was going to be quickly resolved by lobbing missiles at an already destabilized area.

Just like the last Middle Eastern country the U.S. got involved in, we launched our first strike under the guise of deterring the use of deadly chemical weapons. That sounds familiar, right?  It’s almost as if the United States didn’t learn its lesson in Iraq when the power vacuum that formed after dismantling the Saddam regime led to the perfect platform for the terrorist group ISIS to gain a legitimate foothold in the Middle East.

One thing is certain we have not seen the end of the violence in Syria, and Iran has shown no signs of backing down. The United States has, once again, participated in the destabilization of an area, leaving before the conflict has been resolved.  By launching this strike Israel has sent a clear message to Tehran that even in the absence of the United States they are not backing down and will continue to oppose all Iranian operations inside of Syria.

As a nation that has been built, funded, and supplied by the United States, Israel is more than capable of handling the situation on their own. The United States needs to learn from their mistakes and turn away from the old imperialist mindset because every single time we invade a middle eastern country it blows up in not only our faces but our allies as well.  We are not the world police, we need to bring our troops home and keep them here.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

The Second Amendment is Still Working

Jack Shields | United States

A few weeks ago, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch tweeted an NBC article discussing the desire of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) to take Americans’ semi-automatic rifles from them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to turn in their guns. Swalwell proudly admitted on Twitter that Loesch wasn’t wrong about his intentions. This caused him to get into arguments with people on Twitter where he casually mentioned that if we defied the government and refused to turn in our guns, they could just nuke us into submission. He was, of course, being sarcastic, but it brings light to the fact that many on the Left consider the idea of the people using their guns to rise up and fight a tyrannical government as simply laughable. The government and more specifically the military it commands are just too powerful in their opinion for us to stand a chance. However, this is simply not true. The facts show that the second amendment remains just as adequate a tool for fighting tyranny today as it did when it was ratified in 1791.

A Fight Against Tyranny

The first way the second amendment functions as a tool to prevent tyranny isn’t even that we can use the guns to fight the government. It’s the fact that us having the guns will deter the government from doing anything that would warrant us having to rebel in the first place.  Recognizing that guns are an effective deterrent is just understanding human nature. If for some odd reason you were required to rob one of two houses that were identical in every aspect and each had a guy with almost identical characteristics in them, with the only difference being you knew the guy in House A was armed while the guy in House B was unarmed; then it’s an easy choice. You’re going to rob House B. The stats show that at an individual level this is true.

The book, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms by James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi, discusses a 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons which found that 34% were “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” 40% decided against committing a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.” And lastly, 69% had personally known other criminals who were “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”  This reality was understood by both the men in government who have wanted to preserve the rights of the people and those who have wanted to impose tyranny on them.

James Madison, when talking about the threat of a federal government which wished to usurp state powers and encroach on individual liberties in The Federalist, No. 46, noted the unique “advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Madison knew that Americans would rise to defeat any federal government which wished to impose tyranny, and because of this, the federal government would be unlikely to attempt such things. It was a deterrent that the subjects of Europe did not have, and it showed as their kings trampled on their rights with little doubt that they could get away with it. Not only did Madison, the Father of the Constitution and one of the biggest leaders for freedom and liberty in the history of the world, understand this, but one of the most tyrannical, evil people in the world, Mao Zedong, understood this fact as well.

Mao once said, “Every communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao knew that in order to take away his subjects ability to resist as he trampled over their liberties; he needed to be the one in control of the guns. And the results of the two nations Mao and Madison built could not be more different. Madison’s country is the freest, most powerful nation in the history of humanity. Mao murdered 45 million of his own people as he built a nightmare today where the people have little to no rights and China is one of the most evil and dangerous countries in the world. It’s not just the Chinese that were oppressed. The Jews in Nazi Germany, the women in Iran, and even the black people in the United States for most of its history were helpless as their rights were stripped from them because they did not have access to the deterrent we as Americans take for granted or mock today.

While it’s clear having guns is a successful deterrent against government tyranny if, God forbid, we ever had to rebel against our own government, would we be able to put up a fight? Are the liberals right when they say the government would slaughter us? Wars both now and throughout history show us that Rep. Swalwell and his fellow progressives are just wrong and that we could actually put up a fight.

Conservatives often remark when debating the issue of guns that George Washington did not talk with the British. He shot them. And at the time the British had by far the most powerful military in the world. The colonies had farmers and boys in disorganized militias and the ill-equipped Continental Army. Yet the United States won using the ordinary firearms they had at home against the greatest military force of the time.  The Civil War also disproves several points made by the Progressives.

The History of Resistance

The first is that Progressives seem to believe that a war now would be the full might of the military striking down a bunch of rebellious civilians, but that’s just not true. In the event of a civil war, it’s reasonable to believe a sizable portion of the military will fight for the rebellion, bringing weapons, tech, and military knowledge and strategy to the rebels. This is seen best by General Robert E. Lee, who was offered the command of the United States Army but chose instead to align himself with the Confederacy. And while the Confederacy lost, it was in no way an easy victory for the Union, as it looked like for a long time the Confederacy may win and, in order to turn the tide of the war, President Lincoln had to play politics at a level no President has yet to equal; General Grant had to use all the resources and men at his disposal, and General Sherman had to light the South on fire with his total war strategy to get them to finally surrender, and it barely worked. But that was before nukes, drones, helicopters, MOABs, chemical weapons, and all the other tools of destruction the government now has at its disposal. But when looking at wars in the modern era, you get the same results.

Since the United States dropped the atomic bomb in 1945, ushering in a new era of warfare in which it reigns supreme, it has been involved in three major wars. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror. The Korean War was essentially a tie, with the United States-backed South Korea and Soviet-backed North Korea dividing their respective nations at the 39th parallel. But it’s important to understand just why it was a tie rather than a victory for the United States. President Truman fired General MacArthur and did not allow him to pursue more aggressive means of winning the war which included bombing the Chinese. The same President Truman that ordered the atomic bombings of Japan.

The United States held back its power, and it did the same in Vietnam. This was done for a plethora of reasons, mainly to keep up our image at home and abroad. And if nuking communist trying to kill your troops isn’t something most leaders would do, it’s unlikely they’d nuke us. Nukes, if used at all, would be the last result. And the results of such an action would be truly detrimental to the government.

The dictator of Syria, Bashar al Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people and was condemned internationally and now has the most powerful country in the world firing missiles and putting troops into his country. If the United States were to nuke us as Rep. Swalwell said, they would immediately lose international support, and the rebels would pick up lots of support from other countries. Not only that, those on the fence in America about siding with the rebels would be more inclined to join them after watching the government commit such a horrific act. And realistically, even if we did end up getting a Mad King type President in charge who wanted to nuke some rebels, there would likely be more than a few Jaime Lannisters willing to strike him down.

The fighting would likely be contained to traditional warfare, and that’s where we look at the results of the War on Terror. The Middle East had already repelled the Soviet Union, the second most powerful country of the 20th century, and is now taking on the United States. And unfortunately, they have done quite well. It’s been 17 years since 9/11, and al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS still exist, and while perhaps it could be argued we’ve limited their power and made progress, no one thought it would take this long or go this poorly. They are attempting to outlast us until we give up, and although not certain it seems like they have a chance to win with their inferior weapons and resources.

Looking at history or just the world today we can clearly see the marked effect civilians having or using guns has on governments wishing to impose their power on them, and it is clear Rep. Swalwell and his fellow progressives’ philosophy and agenda on this issue should be rejected, and the second amendment should be preserved.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Russia Alleges U.S. Dropped White Phosphorus Bombs on Syrian Village

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

Late Sunday night, Russia accused the United States of dropping bombs containing white phosphorus in a raid in Syria. The Kremlin alleged that two planes flew over a small town in Syria’s Deir Ez-Zor province. At that point, says Russia, they released the white phosphorus bombs, which caused massive fires.

Russian Lieutenant General Vladimir Savchenko said Sunday that Washington carried out a similar raid with the white phosphorus bombs on Saturday. “Following the strikes, large fires were observed in the area”, he told RT. Information regarding deaths and injuries for both alleged attacks is not yet available.

What is White Phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a war chemical with a number of purposes. The smoke is usable for both offense and defense. When lit, it burns very quickly and brightly, serving as a useful smokescreen to hide behind. These blankets of smoke are quite common and are generally legal.

However, it can also be highly deadly. When used offensively, the gas can burn through skin, all the way down to the bone, in a short timeframe. Because of this, the Geneva Conventions placed heavy regulations on the incendiary white phosphorus missions. Essentially, the substance is legal as a smokescreen, but not as an instrument of death. To ensure this, they barred all use of it against civilian targets, as well as against military targets in civilian areas. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons also bars the use of incendiary weapons against civilians.

The Pentagon’s Denial

Despite the harsh allegations, the U.S. is denying that either strike used white phosphorus. In fact, Commander Sean Robertson said Sunday that such an attack would be impossible because he did not have the chemical. “None of the military units in the area are even equipped with white phosphorus munitions of any kind”, the U.S. official declared.

However, Russia is not without controversy of its own in regards to the matter. In March, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British organization, accused the Kremlin of using incendiary bombs against a rebel base near Damascus. Russia has since denied these accusations in full. Neither country, however, has denied entirely the use of military force against largely civilian targets.

A History of Misuse

This is not the first time that the U.S. is coming under fire over chemical weaponry. In 2005, they admitted to using white phosphorus as a weapon in efforts to secure Fallujah in Iraq. “It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants”, said Lieutenant Colonel Barry Veneable, speaking on behalf of the U.S. The country also admitted to using it for incendiary purposes just one year earlier, in the First Battle of Fallujah.

Before admitting this, however, they had denied using the substance. They claimed, on the other hand, that they were only using it as a smokescreen. When the truth came to light, it was a major mishap for the country’s public relations. Questions rose in regards to what else the military was hiding from the people and the world.

Just last year, controversy arose again about the banned incendiary. In June, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. had used the gas twice in Syria as an incendiary. The New York Times, on the other hand, gave a different look. A military official told the paper that the U.S. had used the gas, but only in legal methods.

Mass Casualties in Syria

While Russia and the U.S. continue their patterns of denial, the evidence is growing that Syria is also using banned tactics in their civil war. Residents reported this weekend that President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces had used barrel bombs in Southern Idlib, where rebel forces reside. According to the report, at least two children died as a result of the attacks.

Syria has also faced questions regarding their own use of white phosphorus and other chemical weapons in the past. In total, over 350,000 people have died since the dawn of the war, many of whom were civilians.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Legacy of Lies: America’s Dirty Habit

By Joseph Brown | United States

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

But what happens when you’re fooled a third time?

In the wake of the latest chemical attacks in the suburbs of Damascus that allegedly left dozens of people dead, the world demands justice, while the Trump administration considers military intervention. Immediately following the news of the attack were accusations that the culprits were government forces, led by the Syrian President: Bashar al-Assad.

Such allegations have a familiar ring, as deadly gas attacks were recorded within the country in 2013, 2016, and now again this past weekend. Nobody knows the true number of casualties caused by the devastating conflict in Syria, but one thing is for certain.

Assad is not responsible for the gas attacks on his people.

It doesn’t take a master strategist to recognize how illogical the claims against the Syrian President are. After 9 years of bitter conflict that attracted the interests of nations from around the world, President Bashar al-Assad had become one of the most despised men in western society. His regime had faced fierce opposition from major world powers, including the United States, and the demand for his immediate disposal was incredibly high.

Ian Wilkie, a U.S. Army veteran and Director of the prominent intelligence company: Archer Analytics, elaborates on the precarious position of Assad: “He is under the gun, as it were, and under the glare of thousands of cameras. His motivation not to use chemical weapons is immense.”

The very thought that Assad, in such a delicate position, would use illegal weapons against unarmed civilians of his own country in a senseless act of violence that would surely trigger international intervention is outrageous.

Yet the claims continue.

Simply examining the chain of events surrounding the attacks reveals a disturbing pattern. In August 2013, the day before the first attack, Bashar al-Assad welcomed weapon inspectors from the United Nations to take inventory of federal forces in an act of transparency. The following morning, headlines all over the world broadcasted the horrific effects of sarin gas, after two rockets containing the deadly compound shook the city of Ghouta.

Are we supposed to believe that Assad would be stupid enough to order an attack on innocent civilians using an outlawed nerve agent in a city less than 10 miles away from where the inspectors were working?

The lies continued last year in April, after the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: Nikki Haley, announced that regime change in Syria was no longer a priority for the U.S. government. Only days after this decision, which was essentially a “get out of jail free card”, we were told that Assad again used the outlawed chemical compound on his people. Such accusations were met with a swift display of American aggression consisting of no less than 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles which targeted a Syrian airbase.

And finally, only days after President Trump announced his plans for withdrawing over 2 thousand troops from Syria and ending direct American resistance to the regime, Assad again thinks its a good time to drop chemical weapons, an act which provoked a costly assault on his assets in the past.

It’s just like the legendary ancient strategist and philosopher, Sun Tzu, wrote in his book The Art of War: “When your enemy is nearly defeated, and final victory is at hand, gas your own people so that nations greater than yours will intervene and destroy you.”

Spoiler alert, he didn’t actually say that.

Nevertheless, the ridiculous accusations continue, in spite of the blatant fallacies evident in the arguments of Assad’s opponents.

The situation at hand bears a striking resemblance to another Middle Eastern country in 2003, when the United States falsified evidence of chemical weapons in the possession of Saddam Hussein to justify an invasion of Iraq, an offensive that had disastrous consequences for the stability of the region, and for American families.

But unlike in Iraq, where great pains were taken to convince the world of imminent danger, it seems as if hardly any attempts were made to create any sort of logical explanation proving Assad guilty.

In fact, after the United States launched its attack on the Shayrat Airbase in 2017, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, went so far as to say that the U.S. has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent against its own people, and it is well documented that the Syrian government willingly surrendered its entire chemical weapon stockpile to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2014.

But as the Managing Director of the Libertarian Institute, Scott Horton, proclaimed: “Americans will believe anything, as long as it’s not true.”


Despite claims by various White House officials stating that they have obtained evidence of Assad’s involvement, no legitimate intelligence was offered to validate such accusations. Mr. Wilkie again offers skeptical speculation on the issue, saying: “The intelligence community was more than willing to show Khrushchev’s missiles, but they have no ability to share evidence with the public about Assad today? This defies credulity and calls the “evidence” provided in the White House memorandum into question.”

These lies have been almost unilaterally accepted by the international community, save for a few of Assad’s close allies, the largest of which being Russia. However, those who oppose an American military intervention as a reaction to the attacks are quick to point out the United State’s less than glamorous history with chemical weapons.

After all, the American’s wrote the book on weapons of mass destruction and chemical warfare. The U.S. remains as the only country in the world who has used nuclear weapons, and has done so twice, both times specifically targeting civilian populations, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. American military forces used fatal chemical defoliants without restraint in Vietnam, supported sarin attacks against Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War, and used controversial incendiary chemical weapons to destroy the city of Fallujah in Iraq.

If the Tonkin Gulf Incident, Invasion of Iraq, and the War on Drugs has taught the American people anything, it is that the U.S. government is not afraid of exploiting the ignorance of its people for strategic maneuvering.

Another military intervention in Syria could prove catastrophic for American interests and global stability alike. The rising of tensions between conflicting powers has already taken the lives of thousands in Syria, and threatens to drag the United States into another pointless and expensive war.

Don’t let them fool you again.

“With lies you may go ahead in the world, but you can never go back.” -Russian proverb.

Featured Image Source

 

The Top 5 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria

I found Trump Version 20.17 to be a pleasant surprise. He stuck to many of the promises I had hoped he would keep (like nominating textualist justices, taking a hatchet to the administrative state, and cutting the corporate tax rate) while not doing anything too drastic regarding the promises I hoped he wouldn’t keep (like going over the top on immigration or starting trade wars).

Trump Version 20.18, however, is turning out to be an absolute disaster. This is largely due to his signing of an obscene omnibus spending bill, starting a trade war with China, and beginning to fill the foreign policy wing of the executive branch with neocons.

Just as John Bolton, who is essentially a caricature of a belligerent American war hawk, enters his role as Trump’s national security advisor, reports of a chemical attack in Syria have surfaced. The attack is being blamed on President Bashar al Assad, and Trump has tweeted a warning to the Syrian dictator, Vladimir Putin, and Iran.

It seems as though the US is on the verge of yet another attempt at regime change in the Middle East. The mainstream media and establishment wings of each major party are fanning the flames of war, and I would wager that our presence and involvement in Syria is fit to escalate soon.

I do not think the United States should get any more involved in the Syrian conflict than it already has and, in an ideal world, would like all US forces in Syria to return home immediately.

Here are five of the main reasons I believe we should stay out of the Syrian conflict:

  1. It’s complicated

The Syrian Civil War is complex and impossible to fully understand. There are many factors that make this so. The simplest is that this is not a battle between two opposing factions, but a proxy war with at least four direct participants.

Bashar al Assad, protected by the Syrian Armed Forces, is trying to maintain control over the nation. “The rebels” are his primary opposition, and they would like to see Assad removed from power altogether.

To me, this is already reason enough for the US to stay out. While I believe in the right of a people to secede from a government they find intolerable and would not be so squeamish about the US assisting a population in declaring their independence, I generally do not support revolutions that disenfranchise those who are loyal to an established government, and certainly do not believe the US has any business getting involved in conflicts of this nature, especially when they are contained within a single country.

Other opponents of Assad include ISIS and more undoubtedly terroristic organizations. Since fighting against Assad, as bad as he may be, is effectively fighting alongside ISIS, it seems like the best bet is to let the monsters settle their own scores.

The fourth major faction in the Syrian conflict is the Kurds. This ethnically-bound group occupies portions of both Syria and Iraq and have their sights set on founding a nation of their own. The Kurds are generally too busy fighting ISIS and other enemies to be in armed conflict with Assad.

Several months ago, when it felt like the Syrian Civil War was finally beginning to wind down, certain pro-government social media outlets I had been following were settling into victory. To my surprise, they quickly began espousing hostile rhetoric about the Kurds. To me, this suggested that Assad and his backers had no interest in allowing the Kurds their independence, which further illustrated how complex the situation is.

Keep in mind that what I have attempted to explain thus far is only the direct participation in the war. The proxy-component takes the situation to a new level. Assad is backed by Iran and Russia among other nations, the rebels are backed by most of the west, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, ISIS is backed by terrorist outfits across the Middle East (and indirectly backed by supporters of the rebels), and the Kurds are supported by the US (though the feds did not back their independence referendum), but brutally opposed by Turkey, Iraq, and Assad.

And that’s not all. We must also be aware (or aware that we are not aware) of the linguistic, ethnic, religious, and cultural divides across the diverse population of Syria. There are at least 16 ethnoreligious groups residing in Syria, and no one is capable of possessing the knowledge required to accommodate even a fraction of them. This challenge is Syria’s, not America’s.

  1. The evidence leaves much to be desired

The most recent “gas attack” continues the cliché of incidents that are blamed on Assad without verification. Aid groups on the ground tend to be the primary sources for the UN and the US federal government, and videos documenting the aftermath always accompany the reports.

The problem with all of this is that hard evidence is never presented to the public. Perhaps the government has evidence that it refuses to release, but as far as anyone can tell, hard evidence does not exist.

Just two months ago, Defense Secretary James Mattis publicly stated that the US is still looking for proof that Assad is the culprit in previous gas attack allegations. Per ZeroHedge:

“I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”

While it is silly to use President Trump’s Twitter handle as a source of factual information, the president seems to have admitted that he has no evidence the latest gas attack is Assad’s doing either:

If the area in question is “inaccessible to the outside world,” and it needs to be opened up for “verification,” it is obviously not confirmed that Assad launched the chemical attack.

As I outlined in my latest blog post, applying Occam’s razor to the situation makes it hard to imagine that Assad is the culprit. Why would Assad, on the verge of victory and fully aware that the bulk of the Western world is seething for a reason to remove him from power, commit a strategically and economically idiotic war crime that makes it impossible for the US to exit? Why would he do this on the heels of Trump saying that the US would be exiting Syria very soon? Could any remotely rational human being be so evil that he puts everything he has spent most of the past decade fighting for on the line just to murder a few civilians?

It is true that logic may not be the best means of understanding Middle Eastern conflicts. But I still find the possibility that Assad was framed by his enemies to be far more persuasive than Assad effectively committing suicide.

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

  1. Regime change does not work

Let’s give two huge benefits of the doubt and assume that 1) we know who the good guys are in Syria and 2) we can verify that Assad is intentionally engaging in something akin to genocide.

Even under these circumstances, contemporary history teaches us that toppling dictators and installing democracies is a futile effort. Iraq and Libya remain failed states years and year after their autocrats fell. There are probably many reasons for this, but I will extrapolate on two.

First, I believe, as Andrew Breitbart famously stated, politics is downstream from culture. Unlike many radical leftists, I generally do not believe in social constructionism in which oppressive systems are put in place and dictate the way society turns out. Instead, I believe people get the governments they deserve. In other words, Saddam Hussein was a result of Iraqi history, values, and living conditions, not the other way around. If I am right, removing the system will not lead to sustained improvements in the way a people do politics. They will resort to their old ways quickly, and the effort will be all for naught. The people must change before the way they are governed can.

Secondly, Jeffersonian Democracy is not for everyone. While I am only in favor of government if its purpose is to protect natural, individual human rights, other people may have other preferences. You cannot force a form of government on people who do not understand it and do not want it.

  1. Trump is president

Here’s a brief list of accusations that have been hurled at Trump over the past few years:

  • Idiot
  • Liar
  • Conman
  • Racist
  • White Supremacist
  • Nazi
  • Fascist
  • Homophobe
  • Xenophobe
  • Misogynist
  • Rapist
  • Thief
  • Russian agent
  • Corrupt
  • Lunatic
  • Mentally ill
  • Reckless
  • Immature
  • Ignorant
  • Illiterate
  • Vengeful
  • Narcissistic

I’m not going to say which ones I think are accurate and which ones I think are off base. But if a handful of these are true, anyone that would follow Trump into war is a complete and utter dotard. Since there is a common hawkishness among many of Trump’s most fervent critics, they must not believe what they say about Trump or are miles past sensibility in their stubborn desire for war.

  1. We are $21 trillion in debt

Last but not least, war has costs. The most horrific tragedies of war are the lives lost, both military and civilian. Injuries are suffered, homes and livelihoods are destroyed, and relationships are torn to shreds in all armed conflicts.

With that being said, I understand that war is sometimes the best option, and that the costs of not going to war can vastly outweigh the costs of participating.

But based on the complexity of the situation in Syria, the unproven nature of the claims that would justify intervention, America’s recent history of failure in armed conflict, and the lack of competence in the White House, this is not one of those times.

Since intervention remains unwarranted, exhausting more US resources as a trillion-dollar surplus looms would be beyond the pale. As Pre-President Trump tweeted way back in 2013:

Let’s hope the new Trump channels the old Trump before we get ourselves in another mess.

***

If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at www.howtocureyourliberalism.com. Also check out my podcast on iTunes  and like my Facebook page.

Featured Image Source