Greetings all,
It has been quite a while since my last post, and this will be my last. There has been so much going on in America and the world as a whole: Mike Brown case, Eric Garner case, Ukraine/Russia, ISIS/ISIL/IS, Ebola, Missing airplanes in Asia...just to name a few. Every single case has spurred some sort of bipolar debate on how things should be handled and/or what is the "correct" position to take on the issue. Consider the recent issues surrounding policing in America.
A lot of cops automatically support the cop who choked out Eric Garner or shot Mike Brown without even analyzing the circumstances, while a lot of civilians automatically oppose the cops without truly thinking about the issue. Personally, here's what I think... cops shouldn't resort to deadly force so quickly. It is pretty sad when police so quickly resort to the gun, while the U.S. military is not allowed to use deadly force in a combat zone without 100% positive identification of "hostile actions/hostile intent," which are strictly defined. I've personally been in situations overseas where I knew I had really "bad people" in my sights and was not allowed to shoot. But you know what, I accepted a job where I knew my life would be at risk. I agree with the strict rules of engagement to an extent, especially in a war where we are supposed to "win the hearts and minds." So why should cops be able to shoot first just to protect themselves from a possible threat to their own lives? They shouldn't in my opinion. They should have to err on the side of the citizens who help pay their salaries. On the other hand, why have so many black Americans (purposely didn't use African-Americans because they're not African, they are American) taken the side of a thug who was breaking the law and memorialize him? I don't think Eric Garner or Mike Brown deserved to be killed for the unlawful activity; however, I don't think they should be used as the face of a movement. I don't think Dr. King was referring to people like Mike Brown and Eric Garner when he asked for black people to "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Enough on this issue. I think you all get the point. We are so biased in our stances, or brainwashed by the media, that we fail to analyze the entire issue before taking an informed position.
I don't know enough about medicine to speak intelligently about the Ebola situation, so I'll just say that I'm not sure we handled that correctly. So I'll stick with foreign policy. I personally think that it is not America's job to intervene in most foreign conflicts. I'm conflicted about the ISIS situation because I feel like it is our fault, therefore, we have somewhat of an obligation to fix what we caused. However, it may be an impossible task, and I definitely don't think more full scale military occupation of Iraq, or any other country is the answer. With that being said, this particular blog post is not about taking a stance on any particular issue. It is about getting people to wake up and stop getting all their opinions from Fox, CNN, NBC, or any other mainstream media outlet. This ISIS situation has caused so much anti-Muslim sentiment. Countless people I know or am associated with professionally automatically say things like "Islam is the religion of the devil," or "We should just kill all of them because they don't know how to live right." It's crazy. Those same folks claim to be "Christians." We, as in the American people, allowed our government to execute the war the wrong way. We stand by believing the only way to fight the terrorists is with conventional military tactics and occupation coupled with spying on the homeland and increased encroachments on civil liberties. Meanwhile, companies like Boeing and Northrop Grumman get rich and thousands of innocent people get killed by the military industrial complex (including service members, and for no apparent gains to our society).
So what happened to the anti-war liberals? Nowadays, I really only see liberals supporting more social welfare programs, environmental causes, and anti-corporation movements. I don't get why these people only blame big business for some the socioeconomic divide in our country, yet fail to realize that it is the government and its legislation that allows companies like Monsanto to economically oppress the middle class American. We do not have a free market in this country, as the government makes laws that protect huge corporations, and even bails them out when they fail. That is not a free market. Yet seemingly smart people that I know continuously blame big business while loving big government. They'll post things all day about wanting more benefits from the government and to take more from the rich, but not a word about how our military is continuously sent to die in fruitless wars (I'm assuming because their guy is in office right now). It is absolutely absurd to me. Am I totally off base here? People allow Fox and MSNBC to make us Libertarians out to be "wackos," yet it is the status quo that those media outlets support, which has gotten us to where we are today. So this brings me to my final point.
I will not be blogging anymore. Call it quitting if you want, but I call it regrouping and employing a new tactic. Leo Tolstoy said, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." I think maybe this blog has been my attempt at changing other people. But my efforts would be less futile if I spent them on my immediate family. If my wife and I live our lives correctly and raise our sons to be self-reliant and personally accountable men, then we will have made a difference. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disavowing myself from politics and society. I will still vote and will probably share more annoying Libertarian quotes and articles on Facebook. I will still advocate a Fairtax and try to talk politics with those close to me, and possibly volunteer for or donate money to causes I support. However, the time I have spent on these blog posts this year could have been better spent teaching my sons about self-reliance and personal accountability (and soccer).
So to all of my friends and those who may have stumbled across this blog and bothered to read it, I appreciate you taking the time to read my rants. I wish you all, regardless of your political persuasion, a very Happy New Year! I hope that 2015 brings you peace, prosperity, and happiness. My last call to action to you is this: Please try to truly seek out information before you take an emotional stance on any issue. Such emotions can ruin relationships (I know because I have been "unfriended" on Facebook by several for my political views). Don't let emotions guide your decisions. If you're a Libertarian or a Republican, you can actually be friends with a Socialist or a Democrat. Adam, if you're reading this, I miss our debates, bro. I wish people could see how civilized discourse between two opposing ideals can play out and still lead to a great friendship and the consumption of great craft beer. So here's to next year, may it be filled with fruitful pursuits at no one else's expense.
Cheers & Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
***I want feedback please. Seriously, please post your opinions. I respect opposing views and am legitimately interested in reading them.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Don't "drink the Kool-Aid!"
Lately I've heard much about the threat of radical Islam on the mainstream media as well as the emotional responses on Facebook to the ISIS beheadings. Don't get me wrong, radical Islam is a threat to individual security; however, so are any other type of radical extremists. Before you go supporting military intervention and more war, consider the following:
Are you willing to give up your freedom to prevent an attack by a radical Muslim? If so, why not from rapists and serial killers here at home? Why not from white radical groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis? How about gangs here in the United States that require random acts of violence and even murder for initiation? When people talk about a "threat to national security," what do they mean? Is ISIS going to buy an aircraft carrier and conduct precision attacks on military and government targets? Not likely, and I'd even wager, impossible unless our government lets it happen. Otherwise, why are we paying for this huge homeland security and national defense apparatus?
My point is this. The world, including America, is an imperfect place. We the people have to accept that imperfection, just as we accept the risks involved with driving a car or going anywhere in public for that matter.
Last week, a friend of mine told me a horrible story about a 67 year old lady who was raped and nearly beaten to death in broad daylight in a mall parking lot in Hot Springs, AR. It really made me sick. Luckily, the woman survived, but she is in bad shape. At least they caught the criminal who committed the crime. My point in bringing this up is that this case is just as disturbing as beheadings by radicals in the Middle East. I have a wife and kids that I worry about a little more now, but I'm not willing to send the military into mall parking lots to prevent possible crimes. However, I am willing to make sure my wife is competent with her gun, pepper spray, and self-defense techniques. I'm willing to talk to my kids about what not to let other people do to them and to teach them their address and phone numbers. This idea that we are not responsible for our own well-being is directly connected to our willingness to send troops to war so easily. "It's the cops' job to keep me safe" leads to "it's the military's job to go around the world to destroy all bad guys." It's the Department of Defense, not offense. And yes, constitutionally speaking, Congress must declare war. The President just can't send troops anywhere there is a perceived threat.
Similar to the rape story, there was a beheading in Oklahoma last week by an alleged radical Muslim. Should we implement martial law, or maybe set up Muslim internment camps like we did for the Japanese during World War 2? Some have suggested this, and even banning Islam from the United States. How about we educate ourselves on how to combat violent crimes just as we do when they would come from a serial killer or rapist? It doesn't matter what someone's religion is if they are trying to harm you. The only way to protect yourself is by escalating the level of force and violence (winning a fight), or getting away from the situation faster than the attacker can pursue. Keep my original point in mind though; we must be willing to accept imperfection, meaning some people will always end up as victims. That's just the way it is. But striving to reach a Utopian society has always resulted with negative unintended consequences (Karl Marx leads to Joseph Stalin, LBJ's "Great Society" leads to more poverty and segregation, Reagan's War on Drugs leads to mass incarceration for minor offenses). All of these failed programs come at a high cost to the taxpayer (or to our creditors).
At this point, you might be saying to yourself; "Yeah, but if our military goes over there and gets rid of them, we won't have to worry about it over here." I can't tell you how many times I have heard that since 9/11/2001. Hell, I even bought into that baloney for a while. So if the last 13 years of war isn't enough to prove that theory wrong, then let's look at some other facts:
1. Islamic terrorism has only started to target the United States since 1983 (Beruit, Lebanon). This attack and all subsequent attacks have been blamed, by the perpetrators, on American foreign policy. If it was truly because "they hate our freedom," then why not start attacking us way sooner and why not just say it is because they are waging a war against non-Muslims? The list of grievances by the terrorists has always been that they don't want U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.
2. ISIS was not able to operate in Iraq or Syria under the control of Saddam or Bashar al Asad. Who helped disrupt these two countries? The United States. Wouldn't you say it is time to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs?
3. I know this next one from personal experience. Mishaps in war are inevitable. Innocent people will die and many of them on accident. However, the hate that is bred in the heart of a grieving family member who lost a loved one to a misguided bomb or who got ran over by a tank, or shot because he or she was mistaken for a "bad guy" only creates more "terrorists." Wouldn't you want revenge if a loved one was killed by a foreign military? Would that make you a terrorist?
4. Enough with the moral arguments. We CAN'T afford it! Not just the cost of waging a war, but all of the unintended costs: a need for an increased VA budget to treat all the veterans with PTSD and lost limbs that come back, getting new vehicles when they start blowing up our MRAPs and Hummers that aren't armored properly, paying damages to families who get their houses blown up accidentally, etc. Enough said.
The only way to "win" a war against an insurgency is to not have to adhere to the Laws of International Armed Conflict, which I don't think we are willing to do. So, if you really want to see ISIS destroyed, start your own volunteer force and go fight them yourself. But don't compel our government to prolong the futile, unsustainable, and failed "Global War on Terrorism." We need to refocus our political attention inward and fix our failing state.
Until next time, stay critical.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Are you willing to give up your freedom to prevent an attack by a radical Muslim? If so, why not from rapists and serial killers here at home? Why not from white radical groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis? How about gangs here in the United States that require random acts of violence and even murder for initiation? When people talk about a "threat to national security," what do they mean? Is ISIS going to buy an aircraft carrier and conduct precision attacks on military and government targets? Not likely, and I'd even wager, impossible unless our government lets it happen. Otherwise, why are we paying for this huge homeland security and national defense apparatus?
My point is this. The world, including America, is an imperfect place. We the people have to accept that imperfection, just as we accept the risks involved with driving a car or going anywhere in public for that matter.
Last week, a friend of mine told me a horrible story about a 67 year old lady who was raped and nearly beaten to death in broad daylight in a mall parking lot in Hot Springs, AR. It really made me sick. Luckily, the woman survived, but she is in bad shape. At least they caught the criminal who committed the crime. My point in bringing this up is that this case is just as disturbing as beheadings by radicals in the Middle East. I have a wife and kids that I worry about a little more now, but I'm not willing to send the military into mall parking lots to prevent possible crimes. However, I am willing to make sure my wife is competent with her gun, pepper spray, and self-defense techniques. I'm willing to talk to my kids about what not to let other people do to them and to teach them their address and phone numbers. This idea that we are not responsible for our own well-being is directly connected to our willingness to send troops to war so easily. "It's the cops' job to keep me safe" leads to "it's the military's job to go around the world to destroy all bad guys." It's the Department of Defense, not offense. And yes, constitutionally speaking, Congress must declare war. The President just can't send troops anywhere there is a perceived threat.
Similar to the rape story, there was a beheading in Oklahoma last week by an alleged radical Muslim. Should we implement martial law, or maybe set up Muslim internment camps like we did for the Japanese during World War 2? Some have suggested this, and even banning Islam from the United States. How about we educate ourselves on how to combat violent crimes just as we do when they would come from a serial killer or rapist? It doesn't matter what someone's religion is if they are trying to harm you. The only way to protect yourself is by escalating the level of force and violence (winning a fight), or getting away from the situation faster than the attacker can pursue. Keep my original point in mind though; we must be willing to accept imperfection, meaning some people will always end up as victims. That's just the way it is. But striving to reach a Utopian society has always resulted with negative unintended consequences (Karl Marx leads to Joseph Stalin, LBJ's "Great Society" leads to more poverty and segregation, Reagan's War on Drugs leads to mass incarceration for minor offenses). All of these failed programs come at a high cost to the taxpayer (or to our creditors).
At this point, you might be saying to yourself; "Yeah, but if our military goes over there and gets rid of them, we won't have to worry about it over here." I can't tell you how many times I have heard that since 9/11/2001. Hell, I even bought into that baloney for a while. So if the last 13 years of war isn't enough to prove that theory wrong, then let's look at some other facts:
1. Islamic terrorism has only started to target the United States since 1983 (Beruit, Lebanon). This attack and all subsequent attacks have been blamed, by the perpetrators, on American foreign policy. If it was truly because "they hate our freedom," then why not start attacking us way sooner and why not just say it is because they are waging a war against non-Muslims? The list of grievances by the terrorists has always been that they don't want U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.
2. ISIS was not able to operate in Iraq or Syria under the control of Saddam or Bashar al Asad. Who helped disrupt these two countries? The United States. Wouldn't you say it is time to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs?
3. I know this next one from personal experience. Mishaps in war are inevitable. Innocent people will die and many of them on accident. However, the hate that is bred in the heart of a grieving family member who lost a loved one to a misguided bomb or who got ran over by a tank, or shot because he or she was mistaken for a "bad guy" only creates more "terrorists." Wouldn't you want revenge if a loved one was killed by a foreign military? Would that make you a terrorist?
4. Enough with the moral arguments. We CAN'T afford it! Not just the cost of waging a war, but all of the unintended costs: a need for an increased VA budget to treat all the veterans with PTSD and lost limbs that come back, getting new vehicles when they start blowing up our MRAPs and Hummers that aren't armored properly, paying damages to families who get their houses blown up accidentally, etc. Enough said.
The only way to "win" a war against an insurgency is to not have to adhere to the Laws of International Armed Conflict, which I don't think we are willing to do. So, if you really want to see ISIS destroyed, start your own volunteer force and go fight them yourself. But don't compel our government to prolong the futile, unsustainable, and failed "Global War on Terrorism." We need to refocus our political attention inward and fix our failing state.
Until next time, stay critical.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Friday, August 22, 2014
Oh me, oh my...
Greetings to my fellow inhabitants of this crazy world,
It has been a while since my last post. I have been a bit overwhelmed with work, school, and summer activities for my two boys. However, this morning I was listening to NPR on the way to work and decided I just needed to make the time for this post (more so for me as an outlet). There are so many things going on right now, both here and abroad, that are disheartening: Russia/Ukraine, Ferguson, Iraq/Syria (ISIL, ISIS, whatever), Palestine/Israel, Ebola outbreak, etc.
For the sake of posing a "Socratic Solution," I will focus on Iraq for this post; however, I would like to comment on two of the other issues:
1. Ferguson - Both parties (cops and citizens) aren't helping the situation. I have a dear friend who is a police officer in Vermont. Granted, the socioeconomic and cultural dynamic is much different up there, but I believe his attitude would be the same if he were a Ferguson police officer. As a matter of fact, I know it would because he served in Iraq and wasn't one of those "everyone is an enemy" guys. So to sum it up, cops need to be more a part of the community. My aforementioned buddy talks to citizens when he's out and about (not just about crime, greetings and smiles go a long way). Cops have to win the hearts and minds too, not just military units fighting an insurgency. On the flip side, citizens shouldn't be adversarial and belligerent just because. Use the law to your advantage. If you get detained or arrested and you truly didn't do anything wrong, then use the system to your advantage. Report the officer who violated your rights or file a law suit. No need to resort to violence.
2. Palestine/Israel conflict - I must point out one thing here, and I'm curious to hear some responses on this. How come the same people I hear talking crap about Jews and various conspiracy theories regarding Jewish bankers and Zionist movements (mainly rednecks in my opinion), are posting "I stand with Israel" on their Facebook pages and saying "We must send whatever help necessary to Israel"? Just saying... But really, it's ridiculous how many morons are out there. Our founding principles were based on human rights, not American rights. Adam Smith and John Locke weren't speaking to the colonists, they were speaking to humanity. People have a right to defend themselves, whether Israeli or Palestinian, or any nationality. But I do not understand how one can look at the history of Israel (the modern state, not the biblical place) and how it was formed and not see how the Palestinians were done wrong. I'd be more sympathetic to Israel if they actually won the land via a war. But the West annexed the place, kicked the locals out, and said here's your new country. Now we seem to think every Palestinian who throws a rock at an Israeli soldier is a terrorist. I know I'd throw rocks at soldiers in my neighborhood if I was forced to go through checkpoints and had land taken away from my family.
So now to the issue that is really tugging at my strings, The Islamic State and the United States' role in the issue.
Let me start by saying that I agree that these guys are horrible and they should be wiped out. The things they are doing are sick and reprehensible. But ask yourself a few questions before you say we (The USA) should go do something about with our military:
1. Why are Iraq and Syria in turmoil in the first place?
2. Are these guys doing worse than other atrocities being committed around the world; or, is the recent beheading of an American journalist any worse than ones many years ago (Nick Berg in 2004 comes to mind)?
3. And lastly, why can't our huge national security apparatus that is capable of taking out Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and conducting precision drone strikes on wedding parties in Yemen capable of taking out ISIS? Why must we have military intervention with conventional airstrikes? Why must we have more boots on the ground (advisors, stabilizing and peacekeeping forces)? And who is going to pay for this, at least monetarily? We already know the service members who are sent and their families are the ones that are going to pay with their blood, sweat and tears while "We the Sheeple" continue to watch football and the Kardashians while not voting or speaking out on these issues.
So here is what I propose, both for individual American citizens and for the United States government:
Individuals - if you want to fight ISIS, apply for a VISA or just go over there the same way ISIS' foreign fighters do and take up arms against them. Join an organization or start your own outfit (I'm imagining "Machine Gun Preacher" right now). Or just donate money to a charity that is already doing this.
Government - avoid any involvement whatsoever because you have already proven that your reckless actions create so much blowback (unintended consequences, horrible ones I might add), that we and the rest of the world would be better off if you did nothing at all. However, if leaders from the Middle East and Central Asia come to us humbly and ask us for help, the only things we should offer are precision drone strikes on ISIS and airdrops of critical rations (food, water, medical supplies, etc).
It is important to note that ISIS is not a threat to the American way of life. If Israel gets rocketed by Hamas, America is not going to fall apart. If Russia annexes Ukraine, we are not going to have a "Red Dawn" scenario in the United States. Of course, some neocons and their like-minded allies will argue, "Terrorists are evil and we don't want another 9/11 on our hands." Sure, that statement is true, but that doesn't mean we need to go invade other countries to fight terrorism or prevent another 9/11 from happening. In fact, I would argue that our foreign adventures create more terrorists, resulting in a higher chance of another 9/11.
The last thing I want to say to my fellow citizens, is that IT IS OUR DUTY to have a voice on these issues. If you are concerned about the world and the way our "leaders" handle the issues at hand, you should be writing your representatives on a weekly basis and monitoring how they vote on these issues. We literally pay their salaries and the salaries of those who go do our bidding (the military, the cops, etc). Regardless of what many politicians, police and military members say, we do have a right to say something about how things are handled even though we may not have the experience or may not have ever been in their shoes. Our tax deductions (along with borrowed money from China, which becomes your debt) pays their salaries. So speak up, and speak to the right people if you actually care. Facebook posts are helpful, but not enough. Write your political representatives, and if they aren't responsive, then tell everybody about it on social media and vote them out the next time around. As I've said in the past, citizenship comes with a responsibility to act. If you don't, this "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is going to disappear. It is already rapidly deteriorating.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends...please. Sheep get sheered and slaughtered, so let's stop being sheep.
Semper Fidelis,
Chris Bentley
It has been a while since my last post. I have been a bit overwhelmed with work, school, and summer activities for my two boys. However, this morning I was listening to NPR on the way to work and decided I just needed to make the time for this post (more so for me as an outlet). There are so many things going on right now, both here and abroad, that are disheartening: Russia/Ukraine, Ferguson, Iraq/Syria (ISIL, ISIS, whatever), Palestine/Israel, Ebola outbreak, etc.
For the sake of posing a "Socratic Solution," I will focus on Iraq for this post; however, I would like to comment on two of the other issues:
1. Ferguson - Both parties (cops and citizens) aren't helping the situation. I have a dear friend who is a police officer in Vermont. Granted, the socioeconomic and cultural dynamic is much different up there, but I believe his attitude would be the same if he were a Ferguson police officer. As a matter of fact, I know it would because he served in Iraq and wasn't one of those "everyone is an enemy" guys. So to sum it up, cops need to be more a part of the community. My aforementioned buddy talks to citizens when he's out and about (not just about crime, greetings and smiles go a long way). Cops have to win the hearts and minds too, not just military units fighting an insurgency. On the flip side, citizens shouldn't be adversarial and belligerent just because. Use the law to your advantage. If you get detained or arrested and you truly didn't do anything wrong, then use the system to your advantage. Report the officer who violated your rights or file a law suit. No need to resort to violence.
2. Palestine/Israel conflict - I must point out one thing here, and I'm curious to hear some responses on this. How come the same people I hear talking crap about Jews and various conspiracy theories regarding Jewish bankers and Zionist movements (mainly rednecks in my opinion), are posting "I stand with Israel" on their Facebook pages and saying "We must send whatever help necessary to Israel"? Just saying... But really, it's ridiculous how many morons are out there. Our founding principles were based on human rights, not American rights. Adam Smith and John Locke weren't speaking to the colonists, they were speaking to humanity. People have a right to defend themselves, whether Israeli or Palestinian, or any nationality. But I do not understand how one can look at the history of Israel (the modern state, not the biblical place) and how it was formed and not see how the Palestinians were done wrong. I'd be more sympathetic to Israel if they actually won the land via a war. But the West annexed the place, kicked the locals out, and said here's your new country. Now we seem to think every Palestinian who throws a rock at an Israeli soldier is a terrorist. I know I'd throw rocks at soldiers in my neighborhood if I was forced to go through checkpoints and had land taken away from my family.
So now to the issue that is really tugging at my strings, The Islamic State and the United States' role in the issue.
Let me start by saying that I agree that these guys are horrible and they should be wiped out. The things they are doing are sick and reprehensible. But ask yourself a few questions before you say we (The USA) should go do something about with our military:
1. Why are Iraq and Syria in turmoil in the first place?
2. Are these guys doing worse than other atrocities being committed around the world; or, is the recent beheading of an American journalist any worse than ones many years ago (Nick Berg in 2004 comes to mind)?
3. And lastly, why can't our huge national security apparatus that is capable of taking out Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and conducting precision drone strikes on wedding parties in Yemen capable of taking out ISIS? Why must we have military intervention with conventional airstrikes? Why must we have more boots on the ground (advisors, stabilizing and peacekeeping forces)? And who is going to pay for this, at least monetarily? We already know the service members who are sent and their families are the ones that are going to pay with their blood, sweat and tears while "We the Sheeple" continue to watch football and the Kardashians while not voting or speaking out on these issues.
So here is what I propose, both for individual American citizens and for the United States government:
Individuals - if you want to fight ISIS, apply for a VISA or just go over there the same way ISIS' foreign fighters do and take up arms against them. Join an organization or start your own outfit (I'm imagining "Machine Gun Preacher" right now). Or just donate money to a charity that is already doing this.
Government - avoid any involvement whatsoever because you have already proven that your reckless actions create so much blowback (unintended consequences, horrible ones I might add), that we and the rest of the world would be better off if you did nothing at all. However, if leaders from the Middle East and Central Asia come to us humbly and ask us for help, the only things we should offer are precision drone strikes on ISIS and airdrops of critical rations (food, water, medical supplies, etc).
It is important to note that ISIS is not a threat to the American way of life. If Israel gets rocketed by Hamas, America is not going to fall apart. If Russia annexes Ukraine, we are not going to have a "Red Dawn" scenario in the United States. Of course, some neocons and their like-minded allies will argue, "Terrorists are evil and we don't want another 9/11 on our hands." Sure, that statement is true, but that doesn't mean we need to go invade other countries to fight terrorism or prevent another 9/11 from happening. In fact, I would argue that our foreign adventures create more terrorists, resulting in a higher chance of another 9/11.
The last thing I want to say to my fellow citizens, is that IT IS OUR DUTY to have a voice on these issues. If you are concerned about the world and the way our "leaders" handle the issues at hand, you should be writing your representatives on a weekly basis and monitoring how they vote on these issues. We literally pay their salaries and the salaries of those who go do our bidding (the military, the cops, etc). Regardless of what many politicians, police and military members say, we do have a right to say something about how things are handled even though we may not have the experience or may not have ever been in their shoes. Our tax deductions (along with borrowed money from China, which becomes your debt) pays their salaries. So speak up, and speak to the right people if you actually care. Facebook posts are helpful, but not enough. Write your political representatives, and if they aren't responsive, then tell everybody about it on social media and vote them out the next time around. As I've said in the past, citizenship comes with a responsibility to act. If you don't, this "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is going to disappear. It is already rapidly deteriorating.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends...please. Sheep get sheered and slaughtered, so let's stop being sheep.
Semper Fidelis,
Chris Bentley
Saturday, July 26, 2014
A Case for what the Mainstream Media calls "Isolationism"
Greetings,
I hope all of you are enjoying the summer. It has been brutally hot and humid this week here in Houston. I'm missing Vermont right about now.
So conflict rages on in various countries in the Middle East, Ukraine, and probably many other areas of the world that the media has forgotten about for the time being. We still have forces in Afghanistan and a crisis on our border with Mexico. We have gang violence in many cities across America that almost makes some neighborhoods more dangerous than a war zone. And yet, the same old hawks are beating the war drum for interventionist policies. What's crazy is that some of my friends who are self-described Libertarians buy into the hype. We have become so programmed for war as a nation with our culture of military worship that a large majority of people tend to favor America stepping in because they think it is our moral obligation or something. They buy into the whole Condi Rice argument that if "America doesn't lead the world, then someone else will, and probably a nation that is adversarial to our interests and values."
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex over 53 years ago. Unfortunately, his warnings fell upon def ears. Watch an episode of Meet the Press on Sunday morning and see how many ads you see for Boeing or Northrup Grumman. It's crazy. They'll literally be talking about intervention in Iraq, or Israel/Palestine, or anywhere, and then cut to a commercial of how great Boeing or Northrup is for the United States. Really? What can I buy from Boeing? Are they selling their drones at Wal-Mart or Best Buy now? Anyway, I'll take off my tin-foil hat and throw some academic arguments at you for a bit.
All the authors I will cite here are academics holding at least one Doctoral degree, if not more. They are all published and peer reviewed and highly respected authorities on foreign affairs. Please take the time to look them up and see their credentials. These suggestions aren't coming from my emotional bias toward Libertarianism or Ron Paul. Book references listed at the bottom.
"In reality, interveners are never in a good position to understand what objectives are actually achievable or how to achieve them before the mission starts" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 188).
"There is no evidence that even the most powerful countries, such as the United States, have found a way to make nation building under fire successful" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 192).
"The question that urgently demands attention--the question that Americans can no longer afford to dodge--is not whether the United States has become an empire (it has). The question is what sort of empire they intend theirs to be. For policymakers to persist in pretending otherwise--to indulge in myths of American innocence or fantasies about unlocking the secrets of history--is to increase the likelihood that the answers they come up with will be wrong. That way lies not just the demise of the American empire but great danger for what used to be known as the American republic" (Bacevich, p. 244).
"World politics in the twenty-first century will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century--that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world" (Johnson, p. 229).
"A smart power strategy requires that the old distinction between realists and liberals needs to give way to a new synthesis that we might call liberal realism...This does not mean imposing American values by force. Democracy promotion is better accomplished by soft attraction rather than hard coercion, and it takes time and patience...The United States would be wise to try encouraging the gradual evolution of democracy but in a manner that accepts the reality of diversity" (Nye, p. 231).
Globalization is a good thing for true subscribers of libertarian ideals and laissez-faire economics. However, it does create a new dynamic where American foreign policy has a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of citizens and residents here in the United States. This should be reason enough to motivate us to school ourselves up on foreign policy and vote accordingly. We've barely begun to see the forces of blowback from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One last thought to leave you with:
Think about one negative experience from your childhood that has shaped who you are today as an adult. Maybe you got your bike stolen by a minority and now you have a bias against them. Maybe one of your parents was an alcoholic, so now you've vowed to never drink alcohol. Maybe you or someone you know was bullied, and so you are outspoken against bullying or involved in an anti-bullying campaign. You get the idea. Now think about the impact that has made on you and your beliefs today. Lastly, imagine an Iraqi kid whose mother, father, or close relative was killed by an American soldier, whether it was an accident or due to that relatives involvement with the "bad guys." Would he or she be justified in hating America or vowing revenge? Our actions overseas have bred anti-American sentiment. Contrary to what the mainstream media and our former president preach about Muslims hating our freedom, they actually hate our military imperialism.
So the solution is obvious. Thomas Jefferson said it over two centuries ago; "Commerce with all nations. Entangling alliances with none."
Stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
References:
Bacevich, A. (2002). American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S.
Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, C. (2004). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Stewart, R. & Knaus, G. (2012). Can Intervention Work?. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
I hope all of you are enjoying the summer. It has been brutally hot and humid this week here in Houston. I'm missing Vermont right about now.
So conflict rages on in various countries in the Middle East, Ukraine, and probably many other areas of the world that the media has forgotten about for the time being. We still have forces in Afghanistan and a crisis on our border with Mexico. We have gang violence in many cities across America that almost makes some neighborhoods more dangerous than a war zone. And yet, the same old hawks are beating the war drum for interventionist policies. What's crazy is that some of my friends who are self-described Libertarians buy into the hype. We have become so programmed for war as a nation with our culture of military worship that a large majority of people tend to favor America stepping in because they think it is our moral obligation or something. They buy into the whole Condi Rice argument that if "America doesn't lead the world, then someone else will, and probably a nation that is adversarial to our interests and values."
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex over 53 years ago. Unfortunately, his warnings fell upon def ears. Watch an episode of Meet the Press on Sunday morning and see how many ads you see for Boeing or Northrup Grumman. It's crazy. They'll literally be talking about intervention in Iraq, or Israel/Palestine, or anywhere, and then cut to a commercial of how great Boeing or Northrup is for the United States. Really? What can I buy from Boeing? Are they selling their drones at Wal-Mart or Best Buy now? Anyway, I'll take off my tin-foil hat and throw some academic arguments at you for a bit.
All the authors I will cite here are academics holding at least one Doctoral degree, if not more. They are all published and peer reviewed and highly respected authorities on foreign affairs. Please take the time to look them up and see their credentials. These suggestions aren't coming from my emotional bias toward Libertarianism or Ron Paul. Book references listed at the bottom.
"In reality, interveners are never in a good position to understand what objectives are actually achievable or how to achieve them before the mission starts" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 188).
"There is no evidence that even the most powerful countries, such as the United States, have found a way to make nation building under fire successful" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 192).
"The question that urgently demands attention--the question that Americans can no longer afford to dodge--is not whether the United States has become an empire (it has). The question is what sort of empire they intend theirs to be. For policymakers to persist in pretending otherwise--to indulge in myths of American innocence or fantasies about unlocking the secrets of history--is to increase the likelihood that the answers they come up with will be wrong. That way lies not just the demise of the American empire but great danger for what used to be known as the American republic" (Bacevich, p. 244).
"World politics in the twenty-first century will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century--that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world" (Johnson, p. 229).
"A smart power strategy requires that the old distinction between realists and liberals needs to give way to a new synthesis that we might call liberal realism...This does not mean imposing American values by force. Democracy promotion is better accomplished by soft attraction rather than hard coercion, and it takes time and patience...The United States would be wise to try encouraging the gradual evolution of democracy but in a manner that accepts the reality of diversity" (Nye, p. 231).
Globalization is a good thing for true subscribers of libertarian ideals and laissez-faire economics. However, it does create a new dynamic where American foreign policy has a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of citizens and residents here in the United States. This should be reason enough to motivate us to school ourselves up on foreign policy and vote accordingly. We've barely begun to see the forces of blowback from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One last thought to leave you with:
Think about one negative experience from your childhood that has shaped who you are today as an adult. Maybe you got your bike stolen by a minority and now you have a bias against them. Maybe one of your parents was an alcoholic, so now you've vowed to never drink alcohol. Maybe you or someone you know was bullied, and so you are outspoken against bullying or involved in an anti-bullying campaign. You get the idea. Now think about the impact that has made on you and your beliefs today. Lastly, imagine an Iraqi kid whose mother, father, or close relative was killed by an American soldier, whether it was an accident or due to that relatives involvement with the "bad guys." Would he or she be justified in hating America or vowing revenge? Our actions overseas have bred anti-American sentiment. Contrary to what the mainstream media and our former president preach about Muslims hating our freedom, they actually hate our military imperialism.
So the solution is obvious. Thomas Jefferson said it over two centuries ago; "Commerce with all nations. Entangling alliances with none."
Stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
References:
Bacevich, A. (2002). American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S.
Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, C. (2004). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Stewart, R. & Knaus, G. (2012). Can Intervention Work?. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Monday, June 30, 2014
My Personal Experience with Obamacare
Hello to those of you who actually read my rants,
The last few days have been a whirlwind for me. Not only am I absolutely enraged by some of the statements in the mainstream media, as well as alternative media regarding Iraq, but I also had my first real experience with accessing health care since getting out of the military.
Let me make this more clear; I had my first real experience with getting my family access to health care since leaving the military. I go to the VA for care even though it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy to navigate and can be pretty frustrating. I must admit, I'm willing to put up with it in order to not have to pay out of pocket. However, now I might as well use a private doctor because the Affordable Care Act has required me to insure myself in order to insure my two sons and wife. I found this out because my family's health insurance plan was expiring because of me getting out of the military (Military health insurance lasts for 180 days after you get out). So long story short, I started trying to find health insurance to buy for my family so that they would still be covered (I haven't been with my company long enough to get their insurance, and from what I hear from coworkers, it isn't anything to rejoice about).
Like most veterans, I am a member of USAA. So I did some shopping around before I asked them about health insurance. They are partnered with a company called Assurant Health that offers medical, dental, and vision insurance. Pretty cool; I can handle all my insurance needs (car, house, life, medical, etc.) through USAA. That's the only upside to this story.
So my military health insurance expired on June 28th. As luck would have it, my wife got really sick on the 29th. You might be thinking, "why didn't you just use the new insurance through USAA?" Well, Obamacare won't let you start a new insurance plan without having a "qualifying circumstance." Furthermore, that plan can only start on the 1st of the month. Additionally, as I eluded to before, I had to get a plan for my entire family (including myself) so that my kids and wife could be covered. I literally spent two hours on the phone with the lady explaining to her that I could go to the VA for all my needs and didn't need a policy for myself. "Sorry," she said. "You can't just buy a policy for your kids and wife without you being on it." What's worse, is that I now pay $1,100 a month for a plan for a family of 4 because of my income. Granted, I could've got one for $750 a month that would have had a higher copay and required referrals from a primary care provider, but we agreed that the extra cost would be worth avoiding the headache of going through the HMO system. But still, $750 is a lot of dough. You would think that rate would get you lower copays and not having to go through a primary care provider to be seen by a specialist for an area of your body you already know needs attention from a specialist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this example. If your foot hurts under the HMO system, you have to go to your primary care provider (A general physician) to get a referral to see a podiatrist. This can take time and be a pretty frustrating process. Furthermore, the referral can only be in network and be with a doctor that is pre-approved by your HMO. So in order to have more control over our health care, we opted to pay more per month.
This is great. I grew up in the lower middle class (sometimes in the upper lower class depending on the time period), and now my first chance to get ahead in life and create a better future for my offspring requires that I pay a higher insurance premium because of the "Affordable Care Act." Awesome!
For those of you haven't really done your research on the Affordable Care Act, just know this; there is no such thing as getting insurance that isn't Obamacare. A relative of mine tried to tell me she got a plan that is only $172 a month and "it isn't Obamacare or anything subsidized." I laughed. The Affordable Care Act governs all insurance policies in the country and if you go out into the "marketplace" on your own as I did, things like your income help determine your premium. Another "tax" on success. Glad I worked my ass off for the past 15 years and did well in college so that I could get a good paying job and have to pay higher insurance premiums. There are new rules that insurance companies, like mine, have to abide by (like when your policy can start, and who has to be on the policy). So just because you have health insurance through your company or with a "private" company that you had before the ACA, that health insurance policy is still governed by the ACA.
My point is this; for me, Obamacare isn't "affordable." And because of the new rules, I had to pay out of pocket for my wife to get seen and get medicine for her illness. But this actually brings me to the next point which I always try to implement into my blog posts, the solution!
So luckily there is a Walgreen's close to our house with a "Minute Clinic." There is a Physician's Assistant (PA) on duty 7 days a week. My wife went there, was diagnosed and given a prescription. Out the door, medicine in hand, total cost $165. Boy was I glad it wasn't more. But it got me thinking. We are pretty healthy people and don't go to the doctor that often; maybe once a year a piece for my wife and I, and two times a year a piece for the kids just for "mandatory" vaccines so they can attend their school. So $1,100 a month times 12 is $13,200. That's a lot of money that I could be putting into their college fund rather than paying for other people's subsidized and much lower insurance premiums. I could give half that amount a month to a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to underprivileged folks and it would make way more of a difference. Now I know the first thing some of you are going to argue is; "what if they get cancer or tuberculosis?" Well, yeah, I think we should have insurance for that, just like we have car insurance in case we get into a wreck, but it shouldn't cost $1,100 a month, or even $750 a month. If we all paid some sort of "medical catastrophe" insurance, and then only paid the doctor directly when we needed to visit, then health care would be much cheaper for everyone.
For those of you who think health care is a human right; please answer these questions:
1) How do you say that someone has a right to health care at the economic expense of somebody else?
2) If you are entitled to health care because it is your human right; is the doctor's human obligation to treat you?
3) If there were no doctors, should the government force people to go to medical school so that you could receive your human right to health care?
I think nobody should physically or legally inhibit you from getting whatever healthcare you want, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to provide it for you. Doctor's, as well as employers, should have the right to deny services just like you should have the right to do what you want with your own body. It is up to you to find a another party who consents to rendering whatever services you are seeking. Don't try to use the Supreme Court and the Legislative system to require people to pay for something for you that is a personal choice to take (birth control-Hobby Lobby).
This whole issue is just another issue ruining our country. Once people start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting the government to take money by force and coercion from other people in order to provide services to them, we might head down a better path. And before you try to call me out for being a hypocrite and using a government program (VA healthcare), please know that I would gladly pay for my own healthcare (which I do now anyways even though I am supposedly "entitled" to VA healthcare) if the government totally got out of the healthcare business and started letting Americans govern their own personal lives.
Last note: Many people who I respect have expressed disdain for today's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling that says businesses don't have to provide birth control due to religious beliefs. This shouldn't even have been spun as a religious issue. No person or business should be required to give anything to an employee except a paycheck for the work they perform. What is wrong with people when they feel so entitled that somebody else owes them something that has nothing to do with their job? People make a choice to have sex and to have kids or not have kids. Unless your job is to have sex with people for a paycheck, then I see no place for birth control to even be involved in the compensation package. And even then, I would say it shouldn't be mandated by the government.
I understand the statement; "Get your beliefs off my body." And I agree. But I say get your beliefs out of my wallet. I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom or with your body and you shouldn't be able to require me to pay for shit you want to put in your body and that you should pay for yourself. Bottom line.
Sorry this blog was more of a rant than a constructive post, but I got really heated today when I learned about how the federal government was making my life way more stressful. I'm making more money than I did in the Marines, but still WAY WAY less than Obama's magic $250K a year number (top of the middle class income earners), yet I still get penalized for climbing the socioeconomic ladder by having to pay higher health care insurance premiums. I hope he doesn't try to pass the "Affordable Car Insurance, or Affordable Renter's Insurance Act." I'll have to start moonlighting just to pay insurance premiums.
Until next time, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
The last few days have been a whirlwind for me. Not only am I absolutely enraged by some of the statements in the mainstream media, as well as alternative media regarding Iraq, but I also had my first real experience with accessing health care since getting out of the military.
Let me make this more clear; I had my first real experience with getting my family access to health care since leaving the military. I go to the VA for care even though it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy to navigate and can be pretty frustrating. I must admit, I'm willing to put up with it in order to not have to pay out of pocket. However, now I might as well use a private doctor because the Affordable Care Act has required me to insure myself in order to insure my two sons and wife. I found this out because my family's health insurance plan was expiring because of me getting out of the military (Military health insurance lasts for 180 days after you get out). So long story short, I started trying to find health insurance to buy for my family so that they would still be covered (I haven't been with my company long enough to get their insurance, and from what I hear from coworkers, it isn't anything to rejoice about).
Like most veterans, I am a member of USAA. So I did some shopping around before I asked them about health insurance. They are partnered with a company called Assurant Health that offers medical, dental, and vision insurance. Pretty cool; I can handle all my insurance needs (car, house, life, medical, etc.) through USAA. That's the only upside to this story.
So my military health insurance expired on June 28th. As luck would have it, my wife got really sick on the 29th. You might be thinking, "why didn't you just use the new insurance through USAA?" Well, Obamacare won't let you start a new insurance plan without having a "qualifying circumstance." Furthermore, that plan can only start on the 1st of the month. Additionally, as I eluded to before, I had to get a plan for my entire family (including myself) so that my kids and wife could be covered. I literally spent two hours on the phone with the lady explaining to her that I could go to the VA for all my needs and didn't need a policy for myself. "Sorry," she said. "You can't just buy a policy for your kids and wife without you being on it." What's worse, is that I now pay $1,100 a month for a plan for a family of 4 because of my income. Granted, I could've got one for $750 a month that would have had a higher copay and required referrals from a primary care provider, but we agreed that the extra cost would be worth avoiding the headache of going through the HMO system. But still, $750 is a lot of dough. You would think that rate would get you lower copays and not having to go through a primary care provider to be seen by a specialist for an area of your body you already know needs attention from a specialist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this example. If your foot hurts under the HMO system, you have to go to your primary care provider (A general physician) to get a referral to see a podiatrist. This can take time and be a pretty frustrating process. Furthermore, the referral can only be in network and be with a doctor that is pre-approved by your HMO. So in order to have more control over our health care, we opted to pay more per month.
This is great. I grew up in the lower middle class (sometimes in the upper lower class depending on the time period), and now my first chance to get ahead in life and create a better future for my offspring requires that I pay a higher insurance premium because of the "Affordable Care Act." Awesome!
For those of you haven't really done your research on the Affordable Care Act, just know this; there is no such thing as getting insurance that isn't Obamacare. A relative of mine tried to tell me she got a plan that is only $172 a month and "it isn't Obamacare or anything subsidized." I laughed. The Affordable Care Act governs all insurance policies in the country and if you go out into the "marketplace" on your own as I did, things like your income help determine your premium. Another "tax" on success. Glad I worked my ass off for the past 15 years and did well in college so that I could get a good paying job and have to pay higher insurance premiums. There are new rules that insurance companies, like mine, have to abide by (like when your policy can start, and who has to be on the policy). So just because you have health insurance through your company or with a "private" company that you had before the ACA, that health insurance policy is still governed by the ACA.
My point is this; for me, Obamacare isn't "affordable." And because of the new rules, I had to pay out of pocket for my wife to get seen and get medicine for her illness. But this actually brings me to the next point which I always try to implement into my blog posts, the solution!
So luckily there is a Walgreen's close to our house with a "Minute Clinic." There is a Physician's Assistant (PA) on duty 7 days a week. My wife went there, was diagnosed and given a prescription. Out the door, medicine in hand, total cost $165. Boy was I glad it wasn't more. But it got me thinking. We are pretty healthy people and don't go to the doctor that often; maybe once a year a piece for my wife and I, and two times a year a piece for the kids just for "mandatory" vaccines so they can attend their school. So $1,100 a month times 12 is $13,200. That's a lot of money that I could be putting into their college fund rather than paying for other people's subsidized and much lower insurance premiums. I could give half that amount a month to a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to underprivileged folks and it would make way more of a difference. Now I know the first thing some of you are going to argue is; "what if they get cancer or tuberculosis?" Well, yeah, I think we should have insurance for that, just like we have car insurance in case we get into a wreck, but it shouldn't cost $1,100 a month, or even $750 a month. If we all paid some sort of "medical catastrophe" insurance, and then only paid the doctor directly when we needed to visit, then health care would be much cheaper for everyone.
For those of you who think health care is a human right; please answer these questions:
1) How do you say that someone has a right to health care at the economic expense of somebody else?
2) If you are entitled to health care because it is your human right; is the doctor's human obligation to treat you?
3) If there were no doctors, should the government force people to go to medical school so that you could receive your human right to health care?
I think nobody should physically or legally inhibit you from getting whatever healthcare you want, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to provide it for you. Doctor's, as well as employers, should have the right to deny services just like you should have the right to do what you want with your own body. It is up to you to find a another party who consents to rendering whatever services you are seeking. Don't try to use the Supreme Court and the Legislative system to require people to pay for something for you that is a personal choice to take (birth control-Hobby Lobby).
This whole issue is just another issue ruining our country. Once people start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting the government to take money by force and coercion from other people in order to provide services to them, we might head down a better path. And before you try to call me out for being a hypocrite and using a government program (VA healthcare), please know that I would gladly pay for my own healthcare (which I do now anyways even though I am supposedly "entitled" to VA healthcare) if the government totally got out of the healthcare business and started letting Americans govern their own personal lives.
Last note: Many people who I respect have expressed disdain for today's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling that says businesses don't have to provide birth control due to religious beliefs. This shouldn't even have been spun as a religious issue. No person or business should be required to give anything to an employee except a paycheck for the work they perform. What is wrong with people when they feel so entitled that somebody else owes them something that has nothing to do with their job? People make a choice to have sex and to have kids or not have kids. Unless your job is to have sex with people for a paycheck, then I see no place for birth control to even be involved in the compensation package. And even then, I would say it shouldn't be mandated by the government.
I understand the statement; "Get your beliefs off my body." And I agree. But I say get your beliefs out of my wallet. I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom or with your body and you shouldn't be able to require me to pay for shit you want to put in your body and that you should pay for yourself. Bottom line.
Sorry this blog was more of a rant than a constructive post, but I got really heated today when I learned about how the federal government was making my life way more stressful. I'm making more money than I did in the Marines, but still WAY WAY less than Obama's magic $250K a year number (top of the middle class income earners), yet I still get penalized for climbing the socioeconomic ladder by having to pay higher health care insurance premiums. I hope he doesn't try to pass the "Affordable Car Insurance, or Affordable Renter's Insurance Act." I'll have to start moonlighting just to pay insurance premiums.
Until next time, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Iraq, ISIS, and the Solution
Greetings,
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Monday, June 9, 2014
The Real Issue w/ Bowe Bergdahl
Well, well, well...
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)