Boots On The Ground

The fight against ISIS has already drawn us into another quagmire in the Middle East. About a year ago, the United States commenced airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. Almost everyone, myself included, warned that airstrikes alone would not defeat ISIS or cause any meaningful change in the region. (http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/airstrikes-will-not-change-fate-of-iraq.html).

The inevitable failure of the "airstrikes only" policy divided strategists. One side wanted an expanded war against ISIS, while others preferred to sit back and let them kill each other. For the hawks, promoting airstrikes was just a way to get the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak. Once U.S. airpower had failed to stop ISIS, the hawks knew they could make a stronger argument for a larger war. To that end, they lobbied for airstrikes in every possible forum. When challenged on the Sunday talk shows with the long list of failed interventions in the region, they promised that there would be "no boots on the ground." 

It was a lie from the very beginning. Of course there were eventually going to be "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria. No nation can effectively wage a war otherwise, and the eventual creep towards full-scale invasion began the moment the first bomb was dropped on an ISIS target.

(http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-defeating-isis-may-not-be-in-our.html). 

Now, a year later, Obama is sending another 500 "advisors" to Iraq. As an aside, it is remarkable to me that our leaders cannot resist using the same euphemistic terms to explain failed policies. 500 "advisors" started the Vietnam War, for example. You'd think that someone in the White House knows enough history to suggest a different term. Nevertheless, we now have "boots on the ground." Next stop: Invasion.

Regardless of what they say, this is the inevitable next step, and they know it. Americans would do well to keep in mind the promise of "no boots on the ground" as every hawk now proclaims, "no one is talking about reinvading Iraq." These soft denials are designed to reassure the American people that our leadership won't actually invade the Middle East again. These denials ring hollow, however, given the long history of mission creep in the region.

The fact of the matter is, 500 American soldiers will be nothing but targets. They will not bring peace to the Middle East. They will not suddenly teach the Iraqi army how to fight ISIS. These American troops will not suddenly improve the effectiveness of American airstrikes. They will not improve  Iraqi equipment or better feed the Iraqi army. They will not win any hearts and minds.

What they will do is act as a magnet. Beyond attracting fire from ISIS, they will also draw our nation into another large scale war in Iraq. I suspect that, like the other wars in that region, this one will take another decade, cost even more money than the first two, achieve little, and end in another precipitous withdrawal. Rinse, wash, repeat.

If we wanted to defeat ISIS, we could do it in three weeks. But that's not the issue. The problem is that for each ISIS or Al Qaeda, or al Sadr that we defeat, another one rises to take his place in the pantheon of enemies whose hearts were not won with Coca Cola and chocolate. The only way to defeat this enemy is to occupy the region after major combat operations have ended for as long as it takes to change the culture of violence. We must be so committed to staying that, over time, a sense of hopelessness sets in for our enemies. They begin thinking about training the "next generation" of warriors, as they become too old to fight. Then that generation sees the hopelessness of continuing the fight against the occupation. Instead they take advantage, perhaps, of the infrastructure and stability the west does bring - education, stable commerce, security, western goods. Only then will we finally be rid of ISIS, Al Qaeda and the rest of this Middle Eastern death cult.

At the end of the day, hearts and minds are not "won" in conflict zones. Armies and their warlike ideologies are conquered. Only then can the enemy see the futility of continuing the fight and the benefits of peace. Unfortunately, in the present conflict "no one is talking about" using a force large enough and leaving it behind long enough to truly change the course of history. That being the case, we should just stay out of it and save ourselves the heartbreak of another generation of casualties and another trillion dollars of debt.

Hope Against Hope

There is a sad irony that the Clinton legacy will likely end in a controversy over their status as "elites." For months now, the Clintons have been defending $750,000.00 speaking fees, secret  email servers, and a charitable foundation that appears to be little more than a well-feathered nest. There once was a time, when her husband was running for Governor of Arkansas, that she routinely, and perhaps even skillfully, rubbed elbows with the working class. Now, a blue collar moment for Mrs. Clinton is a Burrito Bowl at Chipotle, by herself, with only Secret Service around. No one even bothered to tell her that the "working poor," as she refers to them, don't eat at Chipotle, or drink their morning coffee at Starbucks. She now conflates "Yuppie" and "blue collar."

It is a shame. It's a shame because her husband, the man from Hope, Arkansas, had true humble beginnings. Bill Clinton came from a very humble home, the son of an alcoholic father who worked as a traveling salesman. Bill Clinton spent his early years working in a small family grocery store in town. He was in the thicket of segregation and racial divide and saw it first hand. But this store sold to Blacks as well as whites, an uncommon sight in the South in those days.

He went on to educate himself, excelling in school. He earned accolades, was involved in student government, and went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. As a politician, Bill Clinton had the common touch. He ate ribs on picnic benches with regular people and drank sweet tea. Even as President, Clinton could be found in the same places ordinary Americans went, and it was authentic. Unlike Hillary's Burrito Bowl, when Bill Clinton rolled up to the McDonald's, you knew it was because he was still that guy from Hope.  

These days, we are surrounded by politicians who either come from great wealth, or have made careers out of living on the public dime as professional politicians. The vast majority of these men and women have no idea what it is to work in a factory, or have to meet payroll, or struggle to provide for tuition or childcare. They've lost touch with basic American values, like doing your job, sacrifice, overcoming adversity, being a good neighbor, and forging a way ahead for the next generation. Instead, they sell us "new American values," like "paying your fair share," common core, soul crushing debt, and slogans like "you didn't build that." 

And therein lies the problem. These professional politicians fancy themselves the "builders of America." They seek to regulate every aspect of every American life because, after all, the law does not apply to them. They are either so rich or so politically powerful that they cannot be touched. They usurp the mantle of "nation builder" from the factory workers, small business owners, and professionals that constitute the foundation of our society. They take what isn't theirs and pretend to give it to those in need. Instead, like the Clinton  Foundation, they keep 90% of it for themselves and only a pittance actually makes it to the needy.

Hillary Clinton lost her first presidential primary to a man who promised "Hope and Change." She lost because she couldn't convince her party that she was authentic. She was not going to be the engine of change. She was no longer the symbol of "hope," that her husband had once been. Fast forward eight years and things are even worse for her. She has now become truly elite and even the man from Hope can no longer effectively vouch for her. 

With each cringe-worthy appearance at a diner, or a picnic, Hillary Clinton moves the family's legacy further away from Hope. It is not a fitting end, but it is the end the Clinton's chose.