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
I sent an email to Speaker Boehner (R), Congressman Wentsrup (R), Senator Portman (R) and Senator Brown (D) basically stating what you have written in this post.
Speaker Boehner did not respond. Con. Wentsrup gave a measured response leaning toward inaction. Senator Portman gave an ambiguous response keeping the door open toward action. Senator Brown gave his democrat hypocritical talking points. Here is his response and my response to him.
Thank you for getting in touch with me about the current situation in Syria.
What began as a movement calling for basic democratic reforms has evolved into a struggle against the brutal dictatorship of President Bashar Assad. Since the protests started in March 2011, the situation has devolved into an increasingly bloody conflict leaving thousands killed and wounded.
The United States has joined its allies in condemning the use of force and has undertaken diplomatic efforts to end the rule of President Assad. I support these actions and agree that the Syrian government must respect the rights of its citizens. The United States must remain engaged in this situation and not turn its back on those who seek peace and the rule of law.
One of the gravest threats for all of humanity is weapons of mass destruction. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. By mid 2013, 189 nations had ratified the treaty. While, as of January 2013, an estimated 78% of the world’s declared chemical weapons stockpiles have been destroyed, this doesn’t remove the threats from certain nations, terrorist groups, and nations in violent transition such as what is happening in Syria. It is also important to note that Syria was one of five nations not to have signed the treaty, the others being Angola, North Korea, Egypt, and South Sudan.
I have been a long-time advocate for ensuring that protecting human rights remains one of the cornerstones of our nation’s foreign policy. We must do all we can to support peaceful efforts in pursuit of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Like many Ohioans, I believe that President Obama should make his case to the American people and consult with Congress before taking any military action.
I will continue to monitor the situation closely, and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it.
It seems like you have your mind made up. I would like you to reconsider and follow your well established principles.
In your letter to me you stated, “I have been a long-time advocate for ensuring that protecting human rights remains one of the cornerstones of our nation’s foreign policy.”
This is not exactly true, sir. And you know it. You voted against the Iraq war after Saddam Hussien gassed 5000 Kurds. You did nothing for the people of the Sudan while millions of them were being killed with machetes. You are doing nothing for the Coptic Christians in Eygpt while churches burned to the ground. You doing nothing for the people of North Korea beyond sanctions. There is a long list of suffering people in the world and you have never pushed for war for them. Why? Because you have been consistently against war. That is what the people expect from you. That is why many people vote for you. So one can only conclude that you are only supporting this action for political reasons.
At this point the President needs a win. He has lost all credibility with his handling of all of the recent scandals. Now this Syrian situation is making the President look indecisive and weak. Well quite frankly, Senator, he is. That is no reason to go to war. In fact, Sir, that is a pretty good reason to avoid war until he is out of office.
Be strong and vote for what the people you represent want not what Obama or Pelosi want. Be strong and vote with your heart.
Respectfully
J’sMan