Before we converse today, let’s lay a bit of groundwork…
- While multiple factors contributed to its onset, World War I began after the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, by a Yugoslav nationalist.
- World War II started after Poland was invaded by Germany — under the leadership of Adolf Hitler — and Great Britain and France decided to respond.
In other words, world wars began with singular acts. Yes, other factors were involved and undoubtedly led to the climactic onset, but singular acts provided the spark through which wars of the world were both prompted and justified.
Did the men/women involved foresee the major, military consequences?
Did they know it all?
Smart as they may or may not have been, were they capable of predicting the massive extent of global devastation that resulted from singular acts?
Friends, I am not “anti-war” nor “pro-war.” I’m not exactly certain how any could be either; there’s a time for everything — for every activity under the sun… a time to be born and a time to die… a time to be silent and a time to speak… a time for war and a time for peace. And just as both Pres. Bush said last week and Pres. Obama said yesterday, using military force is one of the most grueling decisions any president or nation has to make. The ramifications are sobering. In instances such as above, the ramifications meant World War 1 and 2.
How does the potential beginning of World War 3 affect your thoughts regarding bombing Syria today?
As I watch our leaders contemplate an attack (and as I continue to cringe at the politics in play and the “running for cover” by far too many in Washington — the deflecting of blame, the voting of “present,” etc.), I wonder how many are considering the ramifications of a singular event.
They say it will be limited. They say it will be done in 90 days. They say there will be “no boots on the ground.” They thus say that any lives lost will be few.
Here’s my zillion dollar question: how can they predict exactly what will happen?
Were those involved in the initial ongoings of World Wars 1 and 2 able to predict all that would happen? Of course not.
One of the aspects I find most troubling about our current American leadership is that they keep telling us exactly what will happen when in my opinion, they are not capable of making such a prediction. It’s not that they aren’t smart men and women. Many of them are incredibly smart. But sometimes I question their wisdom (not their intelligence, but their wisdom) because they don’t possess the capability to predict all that they tell us they do. So much of what our leaders say seems designed to persuade us, as opposed to sharing actual, honest, and entire truth.
The entire truth means the acknowledgement that all things cannot be predicted. They are incapable of being predicted. If the United States chooses to bomb Syria — regardless of the continued rhetorical promises outside of their control — what are they missing? What can they not foresee? What’s incapable of being predicted?
We don’t know… and we don’t know what we don’t know. We don’t know what singular act could prompt a third world war. And that should add a humble, sobering pause to any affirmative vote.
Respectfully,
AR