Coincidence has it that I`ve recently stumbled upon two completely opposite articles on “Obama`s wars”. Now, I don`t like to call these wars “Obama`s”, just because he dragged us into them. They`re OUR wars. We, American citizens, have to suffer the consequences. Let alone our troops and their families, living in fear every single day. But let`s leave this discussion for some other time and move on the articles that caught my attention.
The first one was published by The Washington Post and it presents Obama as the anti-war hero. The wise man who hurts inside every time someone whispers “war” anywhere around him. The heart-melting peace-lover who believes diplomacy is the key to solving any conflict.
Here`s a snippet to see exactly what I`m talking about:
“When I interviewed President Obama in the summer of 2010 for my book “Obama’s Wars,” his deeply rooted aversion to war was evident. As I reported in the book, I handed Obama a copy of a quotation from Rick Atkinson’s World War II history, “The Day of Battle,” and asked him to read it. Obama stood and read:
“And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again . . . that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained.”
“I sympathize with this view,” Obama told me. “See my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.”
I had listened to the speech when he gave it, Dec. 10, 2009, and later read it, but I dug it out again. And there it was:
“The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious” — Churchill had called it that — “and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary and war at some level is an expression of human folly.” (www.washingtonpost.com)
So it`s crazy to start a war, but sometimes it`s necessary. That`s Obama`s doctrine on war, in just 13 words. But the answer that demands an answer here is WHEN is it truly necessary to start (or take part in) a war? Because, by the looks of it, Obama thinks every war on the planet automatically becomes U.S.A.`s responsibility.
Which leads me to the second article I`ve read on Russia Today, with Ron Paul as leading “actor”:
For those of you who don`t know what the Mali issue is all about, let me tell you a little bit about it. This is a French intervention in Mali, as a direct result of the rapid advance of rebel troops into Mali’s military defenses in Mopti (the first town on the government-controlled side, located in the center of this African country).
But “what began as a French offensive has now grown to include seven other countries, including logistical support from the U.S. and Europe. The United States is providing communications and transport help, while Britain is sending C17 aircrafts to help Mali’s allies transport troops to the frontlines.”(usatoday.com)
Remember that the French intervention is an offensive, NOT a defensive move. So why was it absolutely necessary to get our hands dirty with other nations` blood? What about the “human tragedy” that every military conflict brings? Is Afghanistan not enough already? Over 2000 American soldiers have already died there and the Mighty Goal of this war has not even been reached (and never will!). We`re now forced to get our troops out of there without signing any peace agreement with the talibans. Allegedly, we have a new goal now:
“The once ambitious American plans for ending the war are now being replaced bythe far more modest goal of setting the stage for the Afghans to work out a deal among themselves in the years after most Western forces depart.”(www.theatlanticwire.com)
If we follow this logic, the U.S. is becoming the needy kid who`s trying too hard to get the parents back together. EVERYONE`s parents. At all costs. And when there will be nothing to shoot in Afghanistan and no French invasion in Mali, this needy kid will keep on sniffing for parents to make up, even if that`s the last thing they want. And, what`s more tragic, even if that`s the last thing WE want. Because the separation between “us” and “them” is even worse in times of war: “they” get away with the “human folly” and “we” have to deal with the “human tragedy”. Maybe that`s what Obama actually meant, in his regular two-faced manner.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Alec Deacon of My Family Survival Plan.