Tag Archives: Syria chemical weapons

military news

Talk about actual troops, not just 'boots'

1 Comment

Critics of President Obama have taken to challenging his use of language, such as his declining to use the term “Islamic terrorist” to refer to the enemy with whom we are at war.

Allow me to turn that semantic debate on its head. Why don’t the media, politicians and peanut-gallery observers stop using the term “boots on the ground” to describe what they really desire in prosecuting this war against terrorists.

US boots needed to defeat ISIS, Boehner says

House Speaker John Boehner today used the “boots” terminology to suggest he wants to send young Americans back onto the battlefield in Iraq and to deploy them to Syria.

“Somebody’s boots have to be on the ground,” Boehner said in a live interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “We have some 3,000 boots on the ground today. Let’s not suggest that we don’t.”

The media have fallen into that trap as well, preferring to sanitize what’s really at stake. We aren’t talking about footwear, folks; we’re talking instead about the human feet that will fill it.

It reminds me a bit of how the media — and I’ll include the newspaper where I used to work, the Amarillo Globe-News — use the term “harvest” to describe the killing of wild animal by hunters.

If we’re going to suggest that we send young Americans back into battle, then say it: It is time to redeploy American men and women, return them to the fight, put these young Americans in harm’s way.

Boots on the ground? Give me a break.

 

Uncategorized

You must define ‘outrage,’ Mr. President

President Obama said today he is “outraged” over the violence in Ukraine.

He vows “consequences” will occur if the Ukrainian government refuses to stop killing its people who are mounting what were supposed to be peaceful protests.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/198803-obama-outraged-by-rising-ukraine-death-toll

Let’s understand, of course, that the president was “outraged” over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. He threatened a military strike, he sought permission from Congress — which it had demanded — to act and then, presto!, the Russians stepped in with a deal to rid the Syrian military of the chemicals it used on its citizens.

The Ukraine matter is different, to be sure.

The United States cannot launch a military strike against the former Soviet republic that sits right next to Russia. It can, and must, be firm in enacting economic sanctions — perhaps even imposing a trade embargo if the government doesn’t stop slaughtering its citizens.

Bear in mind that this is a big deal with huge implications around the world. Ukraine possesses a lot of the nuclear material used to build the Soviet arsenal during the Cold War. The Cold War ended a little more than two decades ago, but the material remains.

The Ukrainian government had announced a truce with those who were protesting, only to see the truce shattered overnight, prompting the rhetorical response from the White House.

And per normal these days, the usual suspects here at home are criticizing the White House and the president for perceived fecklessness in handling this crisis.

Let’s understand, the Russians aren’t about to let anyone — even the United States — get too involved singularly in this dispute.

There must be a concerted international effort involving the European Union, and the United States and Russia to bring huge pressure to bear on the Ukrainian government thugs.

Can our government play a role? Sure, but we need to make sure this remains a team game.

President Obama’s outrage must be tempered with reason and even a tad bit of patience.

Uncategorized

A certain irony in this Peace Prize

Congratulations certainly are due the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the winner of the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

OPCW won the award for its work in trying to rid Syria of the huge stockpile of chemicals, some of which it used Aug. 21 on its citizens.

The world should applaud the Nobel committee — although I personally was pulling for Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by Taliban terrorists simply because she was attending school; Malala has taken her cause worldwide in promoting education and persuading the civilized world of the evil being perpetrated by the Taliban against women and girls.

But back to the OPCW.

There’s a certain irony in this organization getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/world/europe/nobel-opcw-dangers/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

The Nobel Prize is named after Alfred Nobel, a Swedish inventor. What do you suppose is his most famous invention? Nitroglycerin, which he combined with other chemicals to make an explosive more powerful than dynamite.

Nobel in effect is one of the fathers of weapons of mass destruction. Now the Peace Prize that carries his name is going to an organization dedicated to the eradication of a particularly heinous brand of WMD.

Of course, Nobel’s personal history matters not one bit and takes nothing at all from the honor that has gone to OPCW.

May the group take the $1.2 million it will receive and put it to good work to finish the job it has started.