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.
Public rhetoric is tricky. It needs to be tempered by a careful degree of self-monitoring. A person needs to anticipate how comments made to others will be heard and understood. Failing at this vital social skill is like driving a car with a gas pedal stuck to the floor. More specifically, Presidents can’t use formal gatherings to deliver asides or rants more common to a social media troll. If not for him, the regrets of his staff must pile up faster than cars on an icy road. And the biggest risk is to be the last person in the room to notice the calamity of a verbal impulse not captured in time. Trump’s persistent tendency to want to chase after his randy reputation in comments about the appearance of women journalists only adds to the increasing association of him with the womanizing Jeffrey Epstein.