Genocode, Finally
At last, the Obama administration is using the G-word to describe ISIS: genocide. secretary of State John Kerry announced: “My purpose here today is to assert in my judgment, Daesh [ISIS] is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims.” That's a start. But what does it mean?
Not much, unfortunately. The official US government declaration does not mean they have to do anything. Which seems strange. Genocide, no matter how you define it, is a pretty serious charge. It's more than 'mass murder' (like killing 150 dudes you can't name). It's a systematic ongoing organized effort by a government to kill a distinct group of human beings.
So, okay, they're doing that. And we don't have to do anything about it. Huh.
One would think that the country with the most powerful military on the planet, the US would be in a position to stop it. Yes, the US is not the world's police, but if you saw a guy walk into a day-care with a chainsaw, you'd like to think you'd do something about it. Especially if you'd been the one to start the chainsaw.
Which is where we get back to reason # 103,568,159 why you don't just invade other countries because daddy loved Jeb better. When the criminal conspiracy known as the "Bush administration" lied to the American people (among many others) to get a war going in Iraq, they not only wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people and burning trillions of dollars from the US Treasury. They also broke America's ability to have a fighting spirit.
Which is not a bad thing - the US has been perpetually at war with someone for pretty much the entire existence of the nation. From the Pirates of the Barbary Coast (remember them? The Marines sure do) to the various Mexican and Caribbean incursions to the Philippines to, well, pretty much everywhere today. The US is likely the most aggressive and warlike nation in history, regardless of how much Americans see themselves as peaceful democrats.
Wars blow hot and cold. Right now, we're in a warmer period because there is no appetite for a hot war. So we're just sending a historic number of special forces troops on a historic number of commando missions in a historically large number of places. We're actively bombing several countries. But we're not sending a large number of ground troops to occupy foreign ground.
Because when we do that, we reach into American's homes and take their kids out to kill and die. Not that special forces are not somebody's kids, but there are far fewer of them (because they're elite) and they are usually highly motivated and career-oriented. They signed up for that stuff on purpose.
So here we are in 2016. Our Iraq moment led to our ISIS moment (a lot like the mom who taught her 4-yeatr-old to use and gun and then got shot by him). By creating a failed Iraqi state, we created ISIS, which is now committing genocide according to us.
I'm not saying the answer is to invade Syria and Iraq (again) to stop ISIS. What I'm saying is that because we fought a needless war we are unable to fight the war we may need to fight. Other than the bloodthirsty Republican presidential candidates (in and out of the race), no body wants to send 100,000 American (or Canadian) kids to take Middle Eastern ground. Nobody.
But what if ISIS is killing by the thousands? I haven't seen any reports of mass killings - as in, in the thousands, not the dozens. Which makes you wonder about the 'genocide' label. Still, the public atrocities really do speak for themselves.
But what if they are ? Like the US in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war, we are weary of a 'bad' war and unable to fight a good one. So when the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia moved it's urban population to the rice fields and started murdering thousands (eventually millions), were we going to send 500,000 soldiers back to Southeast Asia? Like hell we were.
But Cambodia would not have been a failed state if not for the Vietnam war. In that case, there was China to consider (who would not have been fond of US troops on their border). In the case of ISIS, there is the failed Syrian state with a Russian sponsor. And too many factions to count.
Nothing about the crisis is simple, except one thing: genocide. If it's really happening, that's a pretty basic thing to understand. Can the world do more than bomb? Certainly. But after the 13 years of war since the "coalition" invaded Iraq, there is not way we are sending ground troops there.
One would think that since the Rwandan genocide - where the world stood by idly - we may have learned a thing or two. Don't we have a United Nations? Can't we get together as a species and decide that when genocide starts, the rest of us get together to stop it? Do we have to be Yazdi to care that they're murdering Yazdi's?
But now it's out of the question. Nobody's putting together a 'coalition of the willing' to stop a war. I guess we only do that to start one. Shame on us.
Not much, unfortunately. The official US government declaration does not mean they have to do anything. Which seems strange. Genocide, no matter how you define it, is a pretty serious charge. It's more than 'mass murder' (like killing 150 dudes you can't name). It's a systematic ongoing organized effort by a government to kill a distinct group of human beings.
So, okay, they're doing that. And we don't have to do anything about it. Huh.
One would think that the country with the most powerful military on the planet, the US would be in a position to stop it. Yes, the US is not the world's police, but if you saw a guy walk into a day-care with a chainsaw, you'd like to think you'd do something about it. Especially if you'd been the one to start the chainsaw.
Which is where we get back to reason # 103,568,159 why you don't just invade other countries because daddy loved Jeb better. When the criminal conspiracy known as the "Bush administration" lied to the American people (among many others) to get a war going in Iraq, they not only wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people and burning trillions of dollars from the US Treasury. They also broke America's ability to have a fighting spirit.
Which is not a bad thing - the US has been perpetually at war with someone for pretty much the entire existence of the nation. From the Pirates of the Barbary Coast (remember them? The Marines sure do) to the various Mexican and Caribbean incursions to the Philippines to, well, pretty much everywhere today. The US is likely the most aggressive and warlike nation in history, regardless of how much Americans see themselves as peaceful democrats.
Wars blow hot and cold. Right now, we're in a warmer period because there is no appetite for a hot war. So we're just sending a historic number of special forces troops on a historic number of commando missions in a historically large number of places. We're actively bombing several countries. But we're not sending a large number of ground troops to occupy foreign ground.
Because when we do that, we reach into American's homes and take their kids out to kill and die. Not that special forces are not somebody's kids, but there are far fewer of them (because they're elite) and they are usually highly motivated and career-oriented. They signed up for that stuff on purpose.
So here we are in 2016. Our Iraq moment led to our ISIS moment (a lot like the mom who taught her 4-yeatr-old to use and gun and then got shot by him). By creating a failed Iraqi state, we created ISIS, which is now committing genocide according to us.
I'm not saying the answer is to invade Syria and Iraq (again) to stop ISIS. What I'm saying is that because we fought a needless war we are unable to fight the war we may need to fight. Other than the bloodthirsty Republican presidential candidates (in and out of the race), no body wants to send 100,000 American (or Canadian) kids to take Middle Eastern ground. Nobody.
But what if ISIS is killing by the thousands? I haven't seen any reports of mass killings - as in, in the thousands, not the dozens. Which makes you wonder about the 'genocide' label. Still, the public atrocities really do speak for themselves.
But what if they are ? Like the US in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war, we are weary of a 'bad' war and unable to fight a good one. So when the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia moved it's urban population to the rice fields and started murdering thousands (eventually millions), were we going to send 500,000 soldiers back to Southeast Asia? Like hell we were.
But Cambodia would not have been a failed state if not for the Vietnam war. In that case, there was China to consider (who would not have been fond of US troops on their border). In the case of ISIS, there is the failed Syrian state with a Russian sponsor. And too many factions to count.
Nothing about the crisis is simple, except one thing: genocide. If it's really happening, that's a pretty basic thing to understand. Can the world do more than bomb? Certainly. But after the 13 years of war since the "coalition" invaded Iraq, there is not way we are sending ground troops there.
One would think that since the Rwandan genocide - where the world stood by idly - we may have learned a thing or two. Don't we have a United Nations? Can't we get together as a species and decide that when genocide starts, the rest of us get together to stop it? Do we have to be Yazdi to care that they're murdering Yazdi's?
But now it's out of the question. Nobody's putting together a 'coalition of the willing' to stop a war. I guess we only do that to start one. Shame on us.
posted by fiduciary at 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home