Tag Archives: Robert Ludlum

Point of View Columns

On the Eve of Infamy

With a twist of irony that could come straight from a Robert Ludlum novel, the President of the United States will address the nation on the eve of the twelfth anniversary of 9/11, proposing that this country once more engage in military action even though there is no direct threat to the security of the United States. That Senator Barack Obama was elected because of his commitment to non-military solutions makes the irony even more tragic.

The reasons why “limited military action” in Syria has been proposed by the Obama Administration have been echoed literally around the world. But upon reflection and consideration they still sound like rehashed versions of stories that have been cobbled together to send this country down the path to war and bloodshed and death and destruction in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And each time the American people are promised that it will be different this time.

The “difference” this time is that the military action will be “limited” and there will be no American “boots on the ground”. But with American bombers and planes flying over Syria and bombing that country is it impossible to imagine American planes being shot down (or just crashing by accident) and surviving American crews being paraded on Syrian television or simply executed? And then how “limited” will the military action be?

Does it require a leap of imagination to envision American naval vessels being attacked by Syrian missiles – or just a motor boat as in the case of the U.S.S. Cole? And then how “limited” will the military action be?

There are hundreds of American embassies and consulates (remember Benghazi) around the world. There are hundreds of thousands of American corporate offices and facilities around the world. There are millions of Americans living and visiting outside of this country at any given moment. With the proposed attack on Syria they all become more inviting targets than they already are. If any of these targets are attacked then how “limited” will the military action be?

And on the eve of yet another anniversary of another day that will live in infamy in this country, is it hysterical overreaction to imagine that the bombing of Syria could inspire a Muslim jihadist or Syrian nationalist to engage in a counterattack that could mimic or surpass 9/11 in horror and death and destruction? And then how “limited” will the military action be?

For President Obama to advocate a unilateral military action by this country with no direct security threat to this country is sadly stunning and horrifically mind boggling. It is almost as if President Obama is channeling his inner Ronald Reagan or his Dick Cheney alter ego.

Taking failed foreign policy advice from the likes of John McCain and Lindsay Graham and John Boehner is not what President Obama was elected to do. Making this country a more dangerous place in which to live is certainly not what any president is elected to do. And yet the Obama Administration continues to pound the bloodstained drums of war.

The horrors of the chemical attacks in Syria are sickening and saddening. But the horrors committed by humanity do not justify the United States being the self-appointed Policeman of the Planet. This is especially true when evil doers know where this Policeman of the Planet resides.

The United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League have not organized military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These facts alone make it clear that this is not a battle that the United States should take on unilaterally. What ever happened to multilateral action and strategic alliances?

We are now left with the hope that the United States Congress will listen to the overwhelming opposition to this unnecessary act of war and reject President Obama’s proposed attack on Syria. We will then have to hope that President Obama will then heed the will of Congress or else he will risk the twin consequences of entangling this country into another bloody morass and possible impeachment proceedings from Teapublicans who would love nothing more than to cripple the remainder of his presidency.

The only good thing about this entire crisis is that President Obama, by seeking Congressional approval for this misguided bit of strategy, is resetting the precedent whereby future presidents will not be so quick to unilaterally engage this country militarily without the support of Congress. That is thin gruel in light of the towering dangers that the Obama Administration is courting.

Let us hope that it is not too late for President Obama to change his course.

Standard
Point of View Columns

Weekend Edition – April 19, 2013

By refusing to pass even a diluted gun control measure the U.S. Senate effectively restarted the countdown for the next gun massacre. Meanwhile, the bombing at the Boston Marathon highlights the consequences of waging a global war on terror. And finally, congratulations to the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine for publishing letters from alumni who fought in the Civil War and doing it the right way.

Ground Hog Day

This week the U.S. Senate refused to pass even a diluted, watered down, milquetoast version of President Obama’s original, transformative gun control proposals. By virtue of this shameful inaction, the Senate guaranteed that even in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre, and even with the blood of over 2000 gun victims since Sandy Hook still soaking the landscape, there will be more gun massacres and there will be blood.

The countdown to the next massacre has already begun. We know when – it will be soon. We just don’t know where – except that it will be somewhere in America.
Meanwhile the Senate wears its shame like a garish but tattered garment that belongs in the trash heap of history.

Boston Blowback

As you are reading this the facts surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing are still being sorted out. What we already know is that the bombs employed this week are very similar to the bombs that have been used extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You don’t need to be a devotee of Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum to make an educated guess that the people behind these bombings have some connection to the global surges of violence. What we also know is that after a dozen years the American war on terror has probably created as many enemies as it has killed and that collateral damage can have unpredictable results abroad – and at home.

We will await further word on the details of the Boston Marathon bombing but it is not too early to once again think about how the American war on terror can be managed in such a way that blowback does not become inevitable.

Go Dartmouth!

When the May/June issue of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine arrived in my mailbox yesterday I held my breath. The cover story featured letters from Dartmouth alumni/students who fought in the Civil War.

I readied myself for yet another glorified romanticizing of the Confederacy by placing letters from the treasonous Confederate soldiers on a par with letters from Union soldiers.

Thankfully there was not a single letter from a defender of white supremacist slavery and for that the editors of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine are to be congratulated.
The next step would be to remove or amend the plaque at Dartmouth which honors the 73 Dartmouth alumni who died in the Civil War, including 10 who fought for the Confederacy. I cannot imagine a memorial honoring Dartmouth alumni who died in World War II including a reference to alumni who fought for the Nazis.

Hopefully one day there will be an understanding that honoring the treasonous defenders of white supremacy, racism and slavery is pretty much the same thing.

Have a great weekend!

Standard