It’s that day again

[aadler]

 
Eleven years on, I have to say that I wish we had accomplished more.

Iraq and Afghanistan are sliding back into Islamic anarchy, as American will dwindles. (Not that of the soldiers, no, not the people doing the fighting; the loss of determination is almost completely limited to politicians and others who stay safely home.) Egypt and Libya are lost to the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria is sure to be the next on the block, and Iran is right around the corner from nuclear weaponry. Weakness, apathy, and arrogant disregard — all from the White House — have set the stage for another round of terrible wars. And, when they begin, we won’t be ready, because we never are. America always yearns for peace, carries it to an unrealistic extreme, and as a result we always have to catch up to events we might have headed off.

In the time since I joined the Army, I’ve done three theater deployments and a support tour at Guantanamo, along with volunteering for every school and training and extra duty for which I could qualify. It wasn’t enough. I wanted to do more, and I tried to do more, because I knew I hadn’t done enough. And now, just as the need is about to increase, I’m approaching the point of involuntary retirement, and will no longer be allowed to contribute.

Things are about to get bad, and I’m convinced it didn’t have to happen. And, though there are many things that could have been done better, I pretty much blame Obama for the state of things now.

Maybe next time we can elect someone who, instead of focusing on the rise of the oceans, will just do his damn JOB.

Comments

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

As much disdain as I have for Venezuela, how can you put them amongst the worst? Have you forgotten Burma, Ceylon, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Mali, South Sudan.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Depends on your criteria for "worst." You didn't ask me for mine (and I assume you don't care), but in foreign policy terms "worst actors" generally means those who are unstable players on the world stage who can shift power dynamics towards authoritarians and cause regional trouble with a good chance of global spillover. Notice I didn't mention China either. Though they manipulate puppet states, bet both sides of every race and generally suck on human rights, they are still a relatively stable nation who actually wants continuity... for now, at least. That may change soon, given the 24 million extra men that resulted from their discontinued birth control policy.

You include Mali and Turkenistan in the "worst actors" group? Fine, but last time I checked they aren't spending billions on a Russian-supplied military buildup like Venezuela, or developing battlefield nukes (you know, the kind of briefcase-sized warhead designed to potentially nuke invading columns of Indian tanks on their own soil) like Pakistan.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is "No", I haven't forgotten that the world has no shortage of terrible places run by tyrannical regimes (and, given human nature, it never will). Some of those regimes are simply more externally dangerous than others.