Are we repeating a failed foreign policy and wasting immense resources (blood and treasure) better spent on challenges of Climate Change, Unemployment, Income Inequality, Clean Food and Environment…?
Bill Maher asks if America is once again being conned into war? And considering how we got into our longest war, Iraq, that is a very good question. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and engagement of all in a meaningful debate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy, especially when war thousands of miles away (committing American blood and treasure), is the subject at hand.
It was but a few months ago that the PewResearch Center for the People & the Press found that growing numbers of Americans think that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally,” and pay more attention to problems here at home. However, that same poll found that a full 66% of Americans, more than two-to-one, think that greater involvement in the global economy is a good thing. since it opens new markets and opportunities for growth with benefits that outweigh the risks involved.
Last night, (early Tuesday morning local time), the U.S. conducted airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and will continue strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, leading a coalition of several middle-eastern countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan) in the effort. Congress, being on vacation, did not take part in this decision (they should), and the administration indicated this was part of the 2002 Iraq war authorization.
In his New Rules rant, Bill Maher discusses how for terror to work there must be overreaction by the ones terrorized and mentions Senator Lindsey Graham, who seems to feel that following ISIS beheading of two American journalists 10,000 miles away, if America does not send troops to fight them we are doomed.Graham went on to say:
“they’re intending to come here…this is a turning point in the war on terror. Our strategy will fail yet again. This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get get killed at home.”
While the ability of ISIS to strike in the U.S. is seriously questioned, one does have to consider Americans, America and American businesses and their respective and intertwined interests abroad. This is global economy with very active U.S. participation in all corners of the world. Since 66% of American’s want the U.S. to continue and grow its involvement in the global economy, one has to wonder what impact selective kidnapping and beheading of US business people might have? And whether the U.S. must expand resources of blood and treasure to protect them?
Clearly one must address the issue of resources. We have substantial issues at home to deal with including but not limited to: Unemployment, the Economy, Poverty, our crumbling Infrastructure, growing Income Inequality, Education, Toxic pollution of Food, Earth, Water and Air, Climate Change (yes its real and need immediate attention), etc. Considering the wealth of treasure and resources we have, is appears we can do many things at the same time, if rational allocation of resources to the appropriate priorities is planned and executed.
In addition to U.S. political, military and business interests, and on a basic humanitarian level, considering the savagery and destructive nature of ISIS world view, actions and expressed desire for regional, if not, “world domination,” (as well as it being addictive to growing number of young men, including Americans), is it not in the U.S. best interest to lead the fight against ISIS and commit appropriate resources to accomplishing the task, while leaving most of the groundwork to local countries in the region?
Photo: Bill Maher /billmaher.com Video: Egberto Willies /Dailymotion Publishers Network
im not sure maher believed half of what he said, sounded more like a contrarian debating-hall exercise/ comedy turn.
even if isil hadnt beheaded people, they are a greedily expansionist group who threaten our (western, im in the uk) ecomonic and indeed our civilisational interests. and they can be stopped now while still small enough to be easily dealt with. before they consume and stabilise more resource-rich territory, before their success draws even more of the economically disaffected to their banner.