Last Sunday, chemical weapons were used against Syrian civilians…again. Who did it depends on who you believe.
Late last night, President Trump ordered precision air strikes against three chemical weapons targets in Syria, with the aid of the United Kingdom and France.
Surprisingly, it seems the majority of the anti-Trump media supported the move, at least initially. What type of dystopian world do we live in? The same outlets that vilify President Trump for supposed Russian collusion and election tampering – because their candidate lost – is in support of his use of military force against another nation?
The evidence does not support Trump-Russian collusion, yet they persist in keeping the narrative alive. Even if the evidence supports Syrian use of chemical weapons, does it justify our use of force? Why is the media so quick to jump on the warmonger bandwagon? Could both decisions be based on potential ratings?
I’m not trying to imply armed conflict is never justified, but it should always be the last resort, and it should be conducted in a manner that serves a specific purpose. If the United States feels a strike against the Syrian leadership is justified, what is the end-game? Will it be like Iraq where we deposed Saddam Hussein, causing more harm in the region than good? Will it be like Libya where we deposed Muammar Gaddafi? Will it be like Vietnam? How about the Korean war, which technically hasn’t ended?
For anyone who is cheering this morning, please remember this: Despite how heinous the use of chemical weapons is, we must never forget that war is personal to those directly involved in the conflict, both to those who lose loved ones and those responsible for their deaths.
It’s easy to read headlines or watch a video and paint an entire nation with broad strokes of prejudice because we’re told they’re evil. Think of the most vilified nation you can. Is it Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, or for those outside our borders, the United States? Why?
What do we really know about the people living in those countries? What do we know about their hopes, dreams, or aspirations? Do they really want war? If they do, is it because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking war is the answer (just like many American) simply because their leaders declare another nation is the enemy? Or, do they want the same things we want? To live in peace!
As it goes, the leaders of one nation disagree with the leaders in another nation, so their children, fathers, and mothers (and those of their allies) are sent to kill the children, fathers, and mothers of the target nation and their allies. It’s madness…for what!?
If the leadership of a country is guilty of atrocities against its own people or the people of another country, the entire world community should be able to agree and take decisive action as one united front against the leadership, not innocent citizens. The original purpose of the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations was to create a united front for world peace.
Now, the UN conducts peace-keeping missions all over the globe, which is nothing more than whitewashed code for armed conflict.
What about the rules of engagement in general? Does anyone else scratch their head when a country like Russia complains they weren’t warned before another country took offensive military action in Syria?
Monday, four days before the US strike, Israel conducted its own air strike on the Tiyas T-4 air base in central Syria, the same air base it targeted in February in retaliation to Iran’s drone that entered Israeli airspace from Syria. After the Israeli strike on Monday, Russia complained that it was not warned in advance to protect its military personnel who may have been stationed at the airbase. Seriously? What are they doing there, innocently helping the Syrians with their landscaping?
Why is a warning expected when it comes to armed conflict? Why does armed conflict even have restrictions? Isn’t the goal of war to win, and if so, by whatever means possible? If not, why is there war?
The United States forewarned Saddam Hussein, and it appears he moved his WMDs to Syria so the world would be fooled into thinking the US (and its allies) used faulty intelligence. The vacuum left behind in the absence of Saddam Hussein, no matter how horrible he was to his own people, eventually led to the rise of ISIS, who proved to be worse by orders of magnitude.
Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi. To some, Gaddafi’s death was a joke.
However, after Muammar Gaddafi was captured and killed (10-20-2011) as a byproduct of US coalition forces intervention, radical Islamic elements (also now aligned with ISIS) arose that are still causing chaos in the region. And, we can’t forget what happened in Benghazi (09-11-2012). I’m sure that had nothing to do with our involvement in the death of Gaddafi.
Have we learned nothing from our meddling in the Middle East?
Take a journey back to the late 1970s and the Iranian Revolution, which led to the replacement of the King (Shah) of Iran by the current regime run by the Ayatollah and Muslim clerics. During the revolution, the US was caught in the middle due to its support of the Shah, resulting in a 444-day hostage crisis when Iranian students took control of the US embassy in Tehran.
Whenever and wherever we intervene it rarely ends well. Even if the United States (and its allies) emerge victorious, the question remains: What did we accomplish? More importantly, what price did we have to pay in human capital?
Look at the aftermath of WWII. The turmoil created in the Middle East is worse now than before Allied Forces intervened and realigned its borders into the nation-states we know today. Just ask the Kurds how they feel, let alone the ongoing turmoil between Israel and the Palestinian people, who really aren’t Palestinians at all since there is no such thing as a Palestinian state. They are simply misplaced Arabs using the label Palestinian as a weapon.
Intervention always leads to more unrest, and so the cycle of endless war goes to enrich the elites who wish to enslave us all under their oppressive control.
What we created by striking Syria is another galvanizing event that will further unite the Shia crescent (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq), along with (Sunni) Turkey and Russia against Israel, its western allies, and Sunni neighbors (Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia).
Eventually, I anticipate China will side with Russia, as will North Korea since they all share national borders and similar ideologies.
Whether the rest of the Sunni nations align themselves with Saudi Arabia and its newfound embrace of Israel, or whether they decide to defect and align themselves with the Shia nations is yet to be seen, but the Bible is clear in Ezekiel (38-39) and Daniel (11-12) regarding the primary players of Armageddon, pitting the northern kingdoms against the southern kingdoms and Israel.
When and how the final battle will ultimately happen is unknown, but the alliances are being formed in front of our eyes. Be aware of how the end unfolds. Time is short, eternity is not…