What’s the difference—Mid East Peril?

AJ’S Corner

Anthony P. Joseph, Jr.

What’s the difference—Mid East Peril?

Over the past several months, constant diplomatic and political activities have embroiled the Middle East with political change in Egypt, unrest in Yemen, the elimination of a dictator in Libya, rising furor in Iran and mounting problems in Syria.     

President Obama has stressed the need to have troops out of harm’s way, yet the rhetoric from the White House is one of possibly increasing military presence in the “new” Middle East hot spots; those hot spots being Syria and Iran. Military contingency plans are being developed. Why is this? 

Apparently the President feels that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “bad” for the United States. These wars are from the prior administration and are destructive for the U.S. The President has said that the U.S. had been in those regions for nearly 10 years; way too long for the war to be effective. But is he correct? (By the way, if you do not know, the U.S. has been in Korea since 1950, with troops on a DMZ. Also, the war was never really settled. Only a truce ended hostilities in Korea; so, technically the U.S. is still at War—long War, don’t you think?) 

In both Iraq and in Afghanistan, workable governments, somewhat friendly to the United States and the rest of the world have emerged. A workable infrastructure has developed where the people no longer harbor fears of governmental reprisals and actually can speak their mind. 

So let the U.S. pull out of the Middle East and now let the U.S. plunge into the Middle East; redundant?...launch other military campaigns into regions. In one case, Syria the question is WHY? and in the other case, Iran, should the U.S. or Israel take out a nuclear Iran. 

The politicos in the U.S. and in Europe, and in the case of Syria, the Arab League, want interference to correct wrongs and make things right ... so what is the U.S. to do?

Another question pertinent to the situation is if/when the United States sends in ground troops, or any type of troop disbursement in the Middle East, “Will this be another Vietnam”? With President Obama’s rhetoric pushing a military move of some sort in the Middle East, I do not hear any one of the intellectuals cause a furor, as was done in the past, about other U.S. wars since Vietnam. and the off the cuff remarks about Vietnam as per Iraq and Afghanistan. 

But truly is there a difference? 

And the last question, why is the U.S. okay with renewed military adventures in the Middle East and had problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?  All sorts of “stuff” were thrown at the last administration; from no weapons of mass destruction—by the way, anthrax was found—to embroiling the U.S. in a no win war—to WHY ARE WE HERE?

Whenever there is a problem in the world, the United States is called upon to solve the problem. The problem is the “problem” which no one in the world wants to deal with, correct?

Should the United States interfere? Should the United States sent military units into the region? Will the United States criticize the “United States” for interfering and becoming embroiled into another Vietnam like situation? If the U.S. is attacked, SENT in the troops.    

Is the military involvement in the Middle East a prelude to a “Vietnam”—is there a difference?

Think about it.

Later,

AJ