Showing posts with label Boston terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boston terrorism. Show all posts

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Connecting the dots from Washington to Damascus takes a degree in circular logic.


With the cowardly bombing of the Boston Marathon still only being measured in hours removed from the attack, on Wednesday, April 17, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel informed Congress of a new deployment of US troops to Jordan. I don't know whats more curious, the timing of this new venture during a week where both the American press and public's attention was focused squarely in and around Boston or the official, on record justification for this move.

According to Jordan Information Minister Mohammad Momani:

"The deployment of the troops is part of US-Jordanian military cooperation to boost the Jordanian armed forces in light of the deteriorating situation in Syria,"

Mr Hagel on the other hand was a bit more in-depth with his comments to Congress on Wednesday in this report by ABC's Luis Martinez:

“We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of direct U.S. military action in Syria,” said Hagel.  He added that “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations.  It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

More importantly he warned that it could have “the unintended  consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war. ” He stressed that “the best outcome for Syria – and the region – is a negotiated, political transition to a post-Assad Syria.”

He later used blunter language in describing how all factors should be weighed in considering a U.S. military option in Syria. “You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you’re into it, there isn’t any backing out, whether it’s a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these — whatever it is. Once you’re in, you can’t unwind it. You can’t just say, well, it’s not going as well as I thought it would go, so we’re going to get out."

Lets put Hagel's own words into action. Its obvious the Department of Defense is "damn sure" of what they are getting into or why go into details of it? Its also obvious the DOD is contemplating military intervention that will not only hinder humanitarian efforts but at the same time, could result in "significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment." The best alternative to negate this? A negotiated political transition with Syria? Does this photo-op on Syrians Independence day on April, 17th (how ironic) look like a regime that wants to hand over or "transition power"?

A picture released by SANA on April 17, 2013, shows members the Syrian Army parading on Syria's Independence Day (SANA/AFP)


So, when these boots hit the ground, what will be the mission? To hold the hand of Jordan to control humanitarian efforts? Isn't this a job that is earmarked for the international community as a whole? I would assume the UN or Red Cross would be more than capable of handling this. But alas, the US is taking this bull by the horns. 

Then there was this analysis by Washington think tank Foreign Policy in Focus's Conn Hallinan

 “since a major job for these troops will be logistical, it does appear as if they are preparing the groundwork like they did for the invasion of Iraq by going into Saudi Arabia and preparing there... It’s a serious escalation and a disturbing one."

We want the Syrian regime to concede control. If not we are setting the stages for some type of invasion. In the meantime we will continue to indirectly back the uprising which consists of a variety of players including militants from al Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front, both of whom are on the US terror list. Does this sound familiar? Didn't Hollywood of all places, recently make a movie about this type of thing starring Tom Hanks called 'Charlie Wilson's War'?  

Apparently this irony has not gone unnoticed by Syrain President Bashar Assad:

 "The West paid heavily for funding al-Qaida in its early stages in Afghanistan. Today it is supporting it in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price later in the heart of Europe and the United States"

And to make matters worse, this is no longer just a mixed bag, a hodgepodge if you will, of revolutionaries. These rebels, according to Assad (in the very same article in the Jerusalem Post) these are: "mainly" "extremist forces".

Last week Nusra Front released this audio statement pledging allegiance to al Qaeda:

"The sons of Nusra Front renew their pledge (of allegiance) to the Sheikh of Jihad Ayman al-Zawahri and declare obedience,"  

Now, there seems to be a coalition forming of Islamic extremists in Syria, with many of these extremists part of the group that was driven out of Al Anbar Province in 2007 by US forces and local tribes because of their alleged "extreme interpretation of Islam". Anbar, located on the borders of both Syria and Jordan provide an eerie backdrop to this story, and by story, I mean another movie that comes to mind; 'Groundhogs day'.   

And whats even more eerie about this connection is we are just five days removed from the affects of terrorism playing out in our very own streets. Yet here we are, putting boots on the ground on the border of a civil war, where we are backing terrorist outfits. THE SAME terrorist outfits we have sworn to defeat in our never ending 'War on Terror'.

I understand the pecking order here. I understand Syria is an easy target, isolated in the middle east outside of Iran. I understand its easier to overthrow a rag tag group of terrorists than it is a nation with armies and chemical weapons (unless your Iraq and you have none of either despite the world saying otherwise). What I dont understand is two fold. 

First, I don't understand, how surprised we are here in the states when terrorists decide to strike here. I mean if you sleep with a porcupine, can you really be surprised about getting pricked? This 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach needs to be better to the general public. Because the consequences of this philosophy puts them in harms way.

Lastly, if the Nobel Peace Prize was a prize awarded to promoting peace, would it not be out of the question for the committee who awards said prize to demand its prize back for some type of breach? Or does this make the Nobel, nothing more than a participation award, like a 1980s/90's book it pin, which promoted kids reading. Or, is this just a natural development? Someone receives a peace prize who has never done anything to promote peace in the first place, then all of sudden becomes a war hawk is not that surprising.

Either way, Mr Obama, your legacy might be healthcare "reform" to many but others it will be simply contradiction. Whether i agree with what you ran on or not is not my point, my point is you haven't made good on many of the important issues you yourself highlighted in '08. You've been a whore for big business and you have failed miserably on bringing peace and instead have expanded the previous administrations warring. Back in a debate in 2008 you said: "one important thing is that we not get mission creep". 

Apparently, when you are not running for office, "important things" go out the window. And oh yea, Liberal-peace loving "democrats" (as if there is a difference between parties) you can take off that peace sign bumper sticker, along with your "coexist" magnet and shove 'em up your asses. Hopefully, that will lead to  your heads being forced to come crawling out of it.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

The attack in Boston happened because... of American complacency?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday spoke on the Senate floor regarding the terrorist attack on Patriot day in Boston and had this to say:

“With the passage of time, however, and the vigilant efforts of our military, intelligence and law enforcement professionals, I think it’s safe to say that, for many, the complacency that prevailed prior to September 11th has returned”.

 (John Mottern / AFP / Getty Images / April 16, 2013)

This was the echo of many over the last 48 hours on TV, Twitter and from just people I know. Of course, its quite normal and healthy to do some soul searching after an event that takes innocent lives in a cowardly attack. In these cases, there comes a time where we always find that fine line when we ponder the delicate balance of freedom and security.

Unlike the past, where Americans would become emotionally persuaded for a quick action or reaction in vengeance; our battles with terrorism has taught us patience and that is where the resolve we trumpet comes from. With all due respect, Senator, this is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination “complacency”.

You see Mr McConnell, we have spent borrowed (then spent) billions, in fact, last year forty-six billion to be exact; to keep us safe. And its failed. Was it complacency on the part of a government boondoggle, that is the Department of Homeland Security? Or is this just a case of not being able to be everywhere – all the time?

I’ll side with the latter here. There is no such thing is total safety, at least not in an open society. Does this make me and you complacent? Wasn’t it eleven years ago that we were told to go out and “shop” to return to normal after the most costly terrorist attack on our soil in our nations history? After-all, we didn’t want to let “them” win. Was running a marathon not doing exactly this? Keeping up traditions, raking in millions for the city of Boston in the process? Of course it was.

So when you hear people like this Senator talk about us “having complacency return” or how we are going to just ‘have to live with terrorism’ or get ‘used to it’ or somehow use this as a reminder ‘to be vigilant’ I wonder and ask myself… really?

Have we NOT already been given a constant reminder of senseless innocent killings enough?
Where we complacent after the Binghamton shootings took place on Friday, April 3, 2009 or the Geneva County massacre on March 10, 2009 or more recently on July 20, 2012 in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado?

Where we so complacent that it lead to the massacres in Fort Hood, Blacksburg, Oak Creek, or Newtown just a few months ago?

I know, this isn’t what most of us think of when it comes to terrorism but in reality, isn’t this EXACTLY what terrorism is? The killing of random innocent people to make a point? Whats that point?

Whether its a religious one, a racial one or a crazy one; the motive or point is of ill consequences. The results are what matters and they are always the same. Terror, injury and death to those innocent’s involved and those involved indirectly: family, friends, towns and the country as a whole.

Mission accomplished.

Do we need a beard, an Arab accent, a Qur’an and a brown face to make this pill easier to swallow? Or to blame a right-wing extremist as they are the new up and coming terrorist according to our best and brightest at West Point and on tax-day no less?

Will this justify a multi-billion dollar money pit that is nothing more than an ever expanding police state that’s true motive lies somewhere in protection and police state. Of course it does. Deflect blame putting it back on the American citizen for “loosing sight”. As if our super-spidey sense was not operating because we know that would have prevented this attack.

The reality is we are spending hundreds of billions each year to fight terrorism overseas vs an enemy that in 2010 was said to be 75-100 strong in Afghanistan and a whopping 300 strong in Pakistan. And domestically, a “terrorist” that has made no claimed attacks but just so happens to be against the role of our government in our lives (I guess they would have a vested interest in painting this picture).

Sorry, Senator its not anymore dangerous here today as it was in 2001. Departments will fail to protect everyone all the time but that doesnt make it the public’s fault due to our lack of awareness, with all due respect, Senator. No, it doesn’t make it a fault it makes us  free. I could see how you could have a problem with that.