Similar to children who will tomorrow at school pick between the final two choices in a game of dodge-ball or to the millions of adults who will pick the lesser of two evils to vote for this November, the ruling class and intellectuals are currently analyzing how "we" should intervene in Syria. Of course, the question isn't whether we should intervene; indeed, it is assumed we must. After all, ISIS poses a great danger, killing at least one American so far. Indeed, the war propaganda is already beginning: You mean to tell me Foley was also water-boarded and tortured? Yes! Let's go to war for something our government does and has done time and time again.
Moreover, the issue of military intervention and its consequences in general aren't even discussed. Blowback? What's that? Oh you mean that movie with Mario Van Peebles? You actually watched that? Nor do the intellectuals discuss the fact that innocent deaths will occur if we intervene. Sadly, we still change topics when the over 140,000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths are discussed (sort of like that whole Nagasaki incident); though, fortunately for the State, that discussion likely occurs only in Libertarian circles.
So, shouldn't the media - if it really is an objective fourth branch of government that is supposed to "check" the State - analyze how the United States contributed to the current ISIS/Syria/Iraq/Terrorism/Foley conflict? I suppose they could, but that wouldn't be in the self-interest of the State (whose goal is to use war as a means of increasing government power). So, let's do our part here at CTIR. Here are a few examples of how the United States contributed to the current conflict in Iraq and Syria:
- Invading and dethroning Saddam Hussein (a Sunni);
- Installing Nouri Maliki (a Shia) as the new leader of Iraq;
- Occupying Iraq for over a decade with ground forces, drones, and air attacks;
- Providing billions (if not trillions) to the corrupt Iraqi ruling class;
- Abandoning three divisions worth of military equipment in Mosul;
- Conducting over 100 air strikes in Iraq after US troop withdrawal;
- Advocating the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (a Shia);
- Delivering weapons and sophisticated military equipment to Sunni rebels in Syria;
- Providing over $200 million in foreign aid to Syrian rebels;
- Training ISIS members in Jordan (to be used to overthrow al-Assad);
That's just the more immediate instances of our intervention overseas. There are likely thousands of additional instances of intervention that have historically added to the regions problems. But no, the topic of the negative consequences of intervention should not be discussed. If so, it's as if you didn't care about people. You mean, you want people to die?
Well, unfortunately, even with intervention people will die. But at least it's not on our hands; in fact, why is it even on our hands? Or, more importantly, why should it be on our hands? Why can one State do so much damage? So much death and destruction; so many negative consequences? Why should it have so much power? I didn't consent to such action; nor did most Americans. In fact, who would consent to the mass murder of civilians in Iraq and Syria? Moreover, not only is such intervention immoral - as an initiation of aggression - but it is definitely not in my best interest. I mean, how does killing others and stealing my money to do so help me in any way? But, I suppose it could be in your best interest.