On Friday, the Washington Post dutifully reported that our slow-witted secretary of state, John Kerry, who ironically thinks he is the smartest guy in any room, is calling “for the Syrian and Russian governments to face a war-crimes investigation over attacks on civilians in Syria.” They did not add the editorial comments – that was me.
While meeting with French Foreign Minister Blacque Jacque Shellacque, Kerry said that Russia and Syria had a “targeted strategy to terrorize civilians and kill anybody who is in the way of their military objectives.” The French foreign minister’s name isn’t really the aforementioned, but seeing as how I don’t really care what it is, I simply inserted a name for which those who know and love Bugs Bunny cartoons would be familiar.
The Ruskies responded, implying that the U.S. was demonstrating a holier-than-thou attitude, “trying to lecture us and talk to us in an unacceptably conceited and arrogant tone,” and asserting that the Kerry statements were “propaganda.”
For those unfamiliar, Kerry’s charges come from the result of Russian and Syrian bombing of civilian hospitals and others non-military facilities in Eastern Aleppo (that’s in the northeast corner of Syria, for all you Gary Johnson fans).
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman referred to “very serious legal consequences” behind the term “war crimes” and said that Kerry had used it “with a view to escalating the situation.” We know this to be false as Kerry is all talk – no action. After all, Kerry believes he is the world’s greatest negotiator. Look at how well he handled Iran.
Putting aside the legal and United Nations mumbo-jumbo, anyone with eyes and brain can see that these civilian areas were purposely targeted.
Putin will say and do anything to reconstitute the might and authority of the Soviet Union, and allying with long-time friends Syria and Iran are evidently part of this design. I believe he fancies himself as the next Supreme Soviet, although more suave and sophisticated. Still, no one truly knows why he is doing what he is doing. Supposed experts have a number of theories, but in the end it is all speculation.
But are the purposeful bombings of civilians war crimes? That’s a tough call.
I will never defend anything Putin does. He is evil to his core and, other than China, is the world’s greatest threat. However, he does appear to understand what it takes to win a war – something we abandoned many decades ago.
The old saying that “War is Hell” isn’t just an old saying. Some of the most virulent anti-war advocates are those who have been involved in actual combat. They understand that it is horrific and deeply disturbing, but at times absolutely necessary – and only as a last resort.
Putin appears to understand that wars will never be won with pinpoint strikes on military targets alone. I say appears to, because we really don’t know what his true motivations are.
To win a war, one must break the back of the enemy, so to speak. Infrastructure must be destroyed, and the will of the enemy to fight must be taken from them. Only then can you declare victory. The enemy can be given no quarter, allowing them to merely regroup and resume the battle.
If you are unable to resign yourself to this hideous fact, you will never prevail. The end result will be either that you lose the war, or at best end up in a stalemate. This has been the fate of America since after World War II.
America has injected itself in the Middle East for over a decade and in Syria for about five years now – to what end? What are we doing there? What is the end game? Answer – there isn’t one. We have no strategic interest in Syria or Libya or Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The region is a black hole that will continue to swallow up anything in its path, and we keep placing things right in front of it – men, money and machines.
The way I see it – we have three choices. One, we walk away and allow them to do whatever they do, and a winner will eventually emerge. Two, we resign ourselves to stay in the region forever, or three, we do what Putin appears to be doing, destroying the enemy’s will to fight, forcing an unconditional surrender.
Putin may very well be guilty of war crimes as we define them today, but he may also not wish to remain bogged down in a stalemate for decades. Right or wrong, it’s just the way it is.
