If you’ve been tuning in to TV news lately, there’s been a lot of chatter about what sort of military action the United States should take against the Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. While the public isn’t eager for any new wars, the front page of USA Today was trying to change that narrative.
The paper’s August 29 edition boasted the front-page headline “More Want US to Flex Muscle.” As if that militaristic tone wasn’t obvious enough, right next to it is a graphic labeled “Is Obama Tough Enough?”
The evidence comes from a new Pew poll, so it’s worth noting how that data is transformed into a desire for US “muscle-flexing.” Reporter Susan Page (8/29/14) explains in her lead:
After years of retrenchment in the wake of two costly wars, a new USA Today/Pew Research Center Poll finds that Americans increasingly are open to a larger US role in trying to solve problems around the world.
Wait a second. People who want the US to “solve problems” are asking the US to “flex muscle”? That’s what USA Today sees. Page notes that the “initial shifts in public opinion could make it easier for President Obama to order more muscular options in striking Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.”
The poll asks whether the Americans think the government is doing enough about “solving world problems.” If one sees the “too little” answer as being equivalent to an eagerness to launch military attacks, it’s worth noting that the majority, 63 percent, say the government does “too much” or the “right amount.”
A side note: For anyone with a progressive critique of US foreign policy, what would be the correct answer to this question?
The trouble with these stupid polls is the vagueness of the questions, so that they can justify nearly any interpretation. I suspect that if you asked most progressives, they’ll tell you that Iraq was a terrible mistake from day one, and that maybe boots on the ground could have even been avoided in Afghanistan.
If Al Gore had been elected (oh wait, he was), that’s probably exactly what would have happened. Let’s not forget that General Clark ended genocide and fixed the problems in the Balkans without shedding a single drop of U.S. blood.
Nowadays our weaponry is even more advanced, and I suspect that even the most devoted peacenik would not object if we laid waste to ISIS. For once, I don’t mind my tax dollars going to pay for that high priced air power.
When you encounter a rabid dog on the street, there is only one solution, as much as it might bother you. We should use all that expensive weaponry to decimate ISIS.
I’d like to see a survey question like that! How much do you want to bet that anyone that said the U.S. should do more was thinking the same thing?
How should the US “solve world problems”?
Stop creating them?
Hummm, sounds like someone is living in their own little world. Your entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. The fact is “Gore” didn’t make it into office; no matter how much that may bother some people, including me. The most lilkly fact would be that with, the ramapant fever ignited by the ‘corpse-press’ media over 911, we would have gone into Afghanistan, it would have been nearly impossible not to with the War Chicken-hawks beating the tribal drum. Iraq would be anybodies guess, but lets not forget that even Big Bill played unfair in Iraq – most notably with the Inspectors and the timing.
As for solving the “problem” in the balkans, one has to look at whether there was an actually problem, that we could have solved, rather left alone and it would have solved itself (however bombing the Chinese Embassy was not a good move really). And am not sure the one can end a genocide by committing another. Really, mass carpet bombings of civilians really tends to piss them off, rather then endear them to you.
“”A side note: For anyone with a progressive critique of US foreign policy, what would be the correct answer to this question?””
Well the first question would have to be, the 36 percent that didn’t think we are doing enough More than the last time they asked a silimilar leading question? If so, then I guess they could claim ‘more wanted more’ done, but it’s more like a child, trying to pit Mommy against Daddy by saying ‘but (the other one) said I could’.
What is it that Iraqis and Syrians want as the solution? I think to not ask this question and call your country a democracy is about as intelligent as having Charlie Sheen lead a rehab group.
That said, the president has been using very intelligent propaganda to sell these wars. Besides calling himself a surgeon, he has called the Afghan insurgency and ISIS cancers. Any student of the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide knows calling people a disease gives you an excuse to get away with merciless violence. We don’t even have to imagine what the US would do if a defenseless country said this. We saw in 2011 with the overthrow of Gaddafi.
There are examples in history of how people have reduced violence. In Liberia and South Africa there were popular protests. In the case of the US, there are some clues as to what can be helpful. Women’s groups were very active in Kentucky right before their murder rate began to plunge. This was later matched by most of the rest of the country following gun control. Sadly with all these lessons, the US continues to prop up male-dominated dictatorships, many with parallel ideology to ISIS, with billions in weapons. It should be obvious but some people need it said: the first step to ending terrorism is to stop supporting it.
From RT.com
AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye
387313
Trends
ISIS in Iraq
Tags
Al-Qaeda, Iraq, Obama, Robert Bridge, Syria, Terrorism, USA, War
In its desire to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, the US channeled arms and funds to the Syrian rebels, many of whom splintered off and formed the Islamic State, which is now giving the US far more problems than it had bargained for.
One year ago, it seemed certain that Washington would launch a military strike on Syria, bringing to its knees yet another undesirable government in the Middle East. However, at the eleventh hour, an incredible thing happened: President Barack Obama requested approval from Congress before using military force in Syria. While some were tempted to applaud the Democratic leader for doing something as radical as upholding the US Constitution, other factors played a role in the decision.
One of the most convincing reasons for Obama balking on war (aside from Britain politely excusing itself from the expedition) could be summed up by damning comments by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who famously remarked that the US military should not be serving as “Al-Qaeda’s air force.”
“We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al-Qaeda’s air force.”
Suddenly, the American public was forced to fathom the unfathomable: In Syria the US was lending support to the rebels that were getting help from the same terrorist organization that attacked Manhattan and Washington on Sept. 11, killing some 3,000 citizens.
Needless to say, the political stakes involved in advocating on behalf of the Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels suddenly got a lot riskier.
The Texas Senator said that of nine militant groups fighting against Syrian government forces “at least seven had direct connections to Al-Qaeda.” Arming and funding known terrorists in Syria “makes no sense whatsoever,” he said.
Cruz then reminded his colleagues on the basic rules of foreign policy.
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you.”
“”Whether there actually was a problem?!?! Solved itself??? Yes, when the Serbs had managed to murder or rout all the Muslims it would have solved itself. I would expect the wahabis and other Islamists to conveniently forget our aid to people of their ilk, but I didn’t take you as one of them.””
——
https://fair.org/extra-online-articles/death-camps-and-desert-storm-frame-bosnia-coverage/
“ ”Oct 01 1992 Death Camps and Desert Storm Frame Bosnia Coverage
By Dusan Djordjevich
…
Amid the sensationalist coverage, a few sobering facts filtered through. U.S. intelligence officials, who had “redoubled and tripled their efforts to establish what had been happening in detention camps for Croats and Muslims,” found no evidence of systematic killing of prisoners (New York Times, 8/23/92–although Times editorialists continued to write of death camps and “genocide,” 8/28/92). The Guardian’s correspondent (8/12/92) reported that “all camps run by the Serbian Army [as opposed to two run by autonomous militias] were of good standard.”
The Red Cross consistently maintained that all sides ran internment camps under deplorable conditions, and when they were granted partial access to camps run by Croatian forces they found women and children held as “part of a policy of forced transfers of populations.” (AP, 8/14/92; Guardian, 8/15/92) Holocaust historian Simon Wiesenthal warned against a “minimization” of the term “concentration camps,” and reminded the press that “the first refugees were the 40,000 Serbs who fled Croatia after a constitutional amendment defined them as a minority.” (International Herald Tribune, 8/12/92) “ “
——-
So in reality, there was not the problem that we the public we constantly being told there was. Or more to the point, it was no more lopside as any other conflict we decided to engage in, And yet
Jul 01 1994
As Rwanda Bled, Media Sat on Their Hands
By Jane Hunter
“ ” As a genocide it ranks with the century’s biggest–the Armenians, the Jews, the Cambodians. But this spring, as Western officials marked the 50th anniversary of the Nazi Holocaust, no one–least of all the U.S. government–lifted a finger to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. And U.S. media coverage played along with the Clinton administration’s policy of handwringing.” “
—-
When it came to real slaughter and genocide, we stand by and wring our hands.
Also notice the “Cambodians” for whom we turned our backs on when the Khamer Rouge began it’s slaughter.
Just because your neighbor next door is a drunkard and beats his wife every night, is not an excuse for you to come in and shot him, rape the wife and send the children to another home, while totally ignoring the fact that your neighbor on the other side is systematically murdering homeless people. In short, you are simply picking and choosing the fights according to your ‘philosophy’ of what is and isn’t right and which weapon you have that you want to use
So it still stands that we did not ‘solve’ any problem that was ours to solve, in the same way that is was not our problem to solve in Iran, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada, Korea, Libya, Kuwait, and so on. You are simply picking and choosing which fights you feel are the good ones.
So don’t try and hand us that Troll spiel about how having ‘great weapons’ means we have to act. This is nothing more or less than the same argument being used to support Drone Strikes, the Surge in Afghanistan, and so on. Better weaponry does not mean we have to use it. This is akin to the small child who gets a gun for Christmas and can’t wait to get out there and start shooting things.
I’m 84. In high school we learned all about theUN . The cost ,the space ,the representatives,the responsibilities, what could happen if we didn’t support it, the ethics,the need,the need,the need ! Wha happened ? Was deTouqville right about the American experiment? Many questioned America’s big stick long ago when every single law enforcement unit of the Executive branch of the Republic couldn’t keep narcotics off our shores. Why not, teacher? Greed, my boy. Oh, I heard that maybe it was because we lost the Legislative branch of representing the people to the need for income from special interests, lobbies, during each 4 year re-election period. But some of us are not disillusioned about the pathetic failure of the UN. These are the ones who tried so hard to understand the need for morality in gov’t but were shot down when post-Civics classes explained the art of adding riders to Bills of unrelated subject matter, the attributes of trading votes,etc.etc. Regarding America and the world today? Something really serious is gonna happen !
The actions of the US are directly responsible for the growth of AlQueda and ISIL or ISIS. The CIA and the US have armed all sides. Also, NATO and the EU are the aggressors when it comes to Russia. The world’s biggest terrorist is the USA. At the end of the Cold War,
it was promised that NATO stay out of the border countries with Russia.
…based on a poll of 1,500 ‘Americans’…
Anyone do math any more?
I recently read an article (wish I saved it so I could link it here) discussing ISIS’s (and before them, al Qaeda’s) true intentions. It said they are trying to provoke the US into war (or at least into striking these countries) with the larger goal of sowing hatred among those populations toward the US, thus weakening us. And it’s working. So, in essence the terrorists ARE winning.
So, the best way to answer that poll question? We need to get the f*@k out yesterday!
That corporate journalists stoop to packing six lies and three sleight of hands into three sentences? Is that the job description?
I’d say the government is doing too much with its military, and not nearly enough with any other tools.
I used to imagine if we had 70,000 dentists and 70,000 street sweeps in Iraq. Who could imagine anyone launching IED attacks at them? “Stop, you infidel, correcting my cousin’s bad teeth and you other infidel, cleaning the street!”
We take a heavy-handed approach at all times. Samantha Powers is just another Pentagon budget-booster who uses justifications more pleasant than her conservative counterparts. The ones getting rich from the wars don’t actually care that much why the war is being fought, even if they prefer the reasons they are familiar with. The Pentagon is always on the lookout for people who can justify bigger and better budgets. Want to make a mint? Start talking “5th Generation War!”
Art Glick,
I am no expert on Bosnia, but Chomsky’s “A New Generation Draws The Line” makes a strong case that the genocide happened because we started bombing.
Stinking miserable terrorist asskissing weenie liberals here can jump on the next Iraqi chopper rescueing absolutely terrified and exhausted Iraqis from ISIS.
ISIS will command you to convert to their Muslim sect, or else… all females required to be raped per an edict, all males to be exterminated.
Some truly interesting details you have written.Assisted me a lot, just what I was looking for :
D.