by Joe Scarry
I’ve predicted that ISIS is one of two topics that presidential candidates are going to have to address in the 2016 election cycle. (The other isBlackLivesMatter.)
Since I wrote that, I’ve been researching and thinking about the intricacies of the places that, in the 20th century, had names like Iraq and Syria (and Jordan and Lebanon and Israel and Turkey and . . . ).
It’s fascinating to become absorbed in the complexity.
But today it occurred to me that the solution is probably simple. So simple, in fact, that we can’t see it even though it is staring us in the face.
“I’ll bet . . . . ” said I to myself, “I’ll bet you can find a hundred articles on alternative ways to deal with ISIS — ways that don’t involve military attacks or other violence — if you just go and Google it.”
Is it possible that the starting point is to say,
Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you’ve got that right, the rest practically writes itself.
So this will be an ongoing post — we’ve got a lot of election 2016 left to go — dedicated to the proposition that, “The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence.” I’ll fill in the details periodically.
With the help of Google.
July 31, 2015
See “ISIS: Nonviolent Resistance?” by Eli S. McCarthy in the Huffington Post, March 9, 2015.
It will be the 2016 presidential election that will provide the main form of entertainment and distraction to the U.S. populace between now an the end of next year. An enormous amount of political fluff will fill our lives — pushing aside, I suppose, vast amounts of sports fluff and shopping fluff and celebrity fluff and — well, you get the point.
Isn’t “adviser” just another word for “pre-escalation”?
It’s way too easy to launch U.S. missiles. (Maybe if it were a little more costly, challenging, or painful to carry out these attacks, they would at least require someone to give an explanation that makes sense first.)
“Humanitarian intervention” — the great pretext for US intervention in Africa. Glenn Greenwald gave an outstanding talk in Chicago in May, 2012, in which he warned against humanitarian interventions: “The US — no, everybody — always says the reason for military intervention is ‘humanitarian.’ . . . ”
There’s no question that for the next 18 months, we members of the general public will be deluged with media about the 2016 presidential election. Maddeningly, 99 and 44/100% of that media will make no mention of the need to end U.S. wars, occupations, imperialism, and militarism.