The present war fits with an American pattern of unilateral and asymmetric warfare with severe “collateral damage.”
There is a grim pattern in the recent deaths of almost two hundred young school girls and others from what a growing consensus concludes was an American Tomahawk missile hitting Minab Iran. That the school was near a military target is no justification. It cannot help but lead older Americans to remember similar high
civilian casualties caused by overwhelming American airpower in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. The United States’ routinely shows an inability to avoid the “collateral damage” of civilian deaths in combat. Air power mistakenly feeds a sense of confidence when dropping bombs and firing missiles keeps the chaos on the ground at a distance. It conceals the carnage and misery that follows.
The idea of a rogue state was apparently first used by the United States to describe various murderous dictatorships that shun more peaceful allies and ignore national borders. I think it fits well for this current moment, given the degree to which the Trump Administration has also shunned allies in their decision to act. An unprecedented lack of interest in working with partners except Israel makes this war a rogue act. Even worse, any authentic good reasons for this war were not adequately communicated to the American public. The President failed what is a primary obligation of the office.
To be sure, many nations like Iraq, North Korea, Israel, Venezuela and Iran have been bad actors in the world community. In the case of Iran, there is no question that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime was ruthless and cruel to its own people, and contributed to American deaths in what became interventionist fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Fortunately, only a few nations have the yearning and means to attempt to subdue other countries by force. More civilized governments are not in the business of removing or assassinating leaders of a sovereign state.
There was also no immediate tactical reason for the U.S. to torpedo an Iranian warship visiting a port near Siri Lanka, with the result of 87 sailors killed more than 3,000 miles from their home base. But it fits with the American pattern of engaging in asymmetric warfare. What is obvious is that a dislogistic term invented by American policy-makers to describe uncontrolled interventionism is actually a self-own, describing American war acts as well as other foreign actors they have criticized.
Many conservatives and liberals in the media have described this most recent attack on Iran as a “war of choice.” That description means that there was no imperative to justify starting this war at this time. No wonder less than half of surveyed Americans support this fiasco. Shame rather than pride is probably the better reaction from those who are paying attention. Many might rightfully wonder what could be said to the parent of a daughter who was killed in the school room in Minab.
Even with these advantages, there’s reason for some caution if a person’s work includes addressing an audience. The problem is that an activity that is essentially a kind of performance may trigger what amounts to a double dose of stimulation, given the natural increase of adrenaline that comes when we face others in a public setting. For most of us, a modest adrenaline rush is actually functional in helping us gain an edge in oral fluency. Like caffeine, adrenaline makes us more alert and maybe just a little smarter. But combining what are functionally two stimulants can be counter-productive. They can make a presenter wired tighter than the “C8” string at the top end of a piano. We all know the effects. Instead of the eloquence of a heightened conversation, we get a jumble of ideas that are delivered fast and with too little explanation. Add in a vocal pitch that will probably be higher than our natural range–along with a dry-throat from the diuretic effects of caffeine–and you may not be quite ready for prime time.