How you get the Republican Party to become reluctant about bombing a Middle Eastern nation?
Answer:
Have Obama propose it.
Tongue firmly in cheek here, but this may be the first time Republican obstructionism toward Obama is actually aligning with the Kingdom of God.
Middle Eastern hawks are turning into doves.
The problem is the flip side of that coin: How do you get the Democrats to support bombing a Middle-Eastern nation? Middle-Eastern doves are suddenly... not hawks exactly... but hawk apologists.
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly, the whole US political mess is such a swamp any more that it doesn't need drained... it needs to have a bipass built around it in order to get anything done. The most effective missions and works being done these days, IMO, are those that have eschewed the political scene...
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy the flip flop. It's all about political expediency, power and the next election.
ReplyDeleteAmen.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But take a look at Nick Kristof's recent tragedy of an article, using the thinnest of rationales to advocate for the strikes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/kristof-the-right-questions-on-syria.html?_r=0. I don't think this is all just cynicism
ReplyDeleteor political expediency. We look to our peers for guidance. A valid
question to ask, in any risky scenario, is whether we trust someone to
do the right thing. I think you get the crazy flip-flops largely because of the use of these kinds of rules of thumb; even among highly engaged political folks, I don't think any of this is nearly that cynical. I don't think that makes it any less concerning or scary.
Yes; I noticed a few years back that when Bush was President, liberal-leaning outlets all trotted out Hauerwas to suggest that a Christian nation shouldn't support war. I wondered if the theologian realized he was being used--pacifism only in the interests of partisanship.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that no one has public ally considered the rebels may have used these weapons to gain the one thing they cannot buy - air power. Modern warfare is dominated and won by air power. Yet we seem to be hyper focused on the Syrian government being the perpetrators without giving consideration that we are being bated into this conflict by the rebels.
ReplyDeleteIts funny how becoming a hopeful universalist has also caused me to question killing our enemies. I don't know who said this but it sums it up for me. " We know we've created God in our own image when He hates the same people we do."
ReplyDeleteThe quote generally is attributed to Anne Lamott.
ReplyDeleteI am wholly against military intervention in Syria. I am far more of a Democrat than a Republican . . . but I'd hesitate to call myself either. I am definitely not an Obama apologist.
ReplyDeleteWith all that in mind, what strikes me about American political discourse, is how much of it is tribal in nature. Most of my liberal-leaning friends are against "targeted attacks" in Syria, but there are a few who found Obama to be "sincere." As if seeming sincere has some kind of moral value.
I actually don't have a single Republican friend who supports the attack (at least not publicly). What's funny about that is that I'd bet that most of them supported the invasion of Iraq. An invasion where the administration falsified data and lied in front of the UN.
But there is power in numbers and if there are a whole bunch of people screaming for restraint and peaceful intervention, even hypocritically, I guess I should just be happy to hear it.
Pray, pay, obey (when you can) and vote.....don't cynically abdicate your right to vote! And if you want crucified in Texas by the "Christians," run for office on a pacifist platform!
ReplyDeleteUmmm, that theory's been getting a lot of play in conservative circles. Just so you know. qb
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of nuance here in this ostensible irony for those who are serious-minded enough to entertain it. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteOne important thing you left out. Many people were hungry for blood after 9/11. 9/11 is now 12 years in our rear view mirror.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, but it also opens us up to the idea of scapegoating and the comfort it provides. Invading Afghanistan wasn't enough and so a year and a half later we invaded Iraq. And despite shoddy/falsified evidence, and despite the fact there was no connection to 9/11. I guess we should be glad the Bush administration didn't attack North Korea, because that was kind of on the table to: The Axis of Evil!
ReplyDeleteAnd now in a lot of ways, the scapegoat for the Republican Party is Obama himself. And so more than a few times it has been insinuated that Obama is in fact a friend of the terrorists. A friend to the very people who attacked us on 9/11/2001.