0

World War III Vibes

photo

Courtesy Zachary Orsborn

Zachary Orsborn

My roommates and I stayed up particularly late on the eve of Sept. 11, 2014. We streamed President Obama's national address about the need to "destroy" ISIS on a phone instead of turning on a flickering, black and white television. Our living room was silent. We didn't look at each other. We just looked down, resting our temples in our hands.

I listened to the president talking about striking militants, and I was covered in chills. We couldn't process what we had just heard.

I was reminded of classic film scenes and my own grandmother's words when children would sneak into the living room to listen, along with their parents, to the news broadcasts of major events like the death of President Kennedy, the spurring of the Vietnam War and McCarthy's communism crisis.

I felt like I was truly witnessing history—a current bleakness in society where countries are teaming up with other countries in defense of other countries. Russia is with the rebels while France and the United Kingdom is with us. I'm getting World War III vibes.

By all means, I am not trying to generate paranoia, but it's hard not to be paranoid in times when terrorists dabble in advanced technology, when we live in a typically safe nation with a president who is agitating a terrorist organization even more.

Since the eve of Sept. 11, America has conducted 227 air strikes in Iraq and 59 air strikes in Syria as of this writing. A defense-spending expert, Gordon Adams, estimated to The Huffington Post that the air strikes are costing America $1.5 billion. The air strikes demolished ISIS safe houses, but an ISIS fighter, Abu Talha, told CNN that, basically, the air strikes aren't really effective.

As terrorist groups, like Jabhat Al-Nusra, join forces, we have to ask: Is all of this justified? According to a CNN poll, 73 percent of voters believe so.

For now, we can continue to stay informed. I am almost dumbfounded at the magnificently small amount of attention Obama's air strikes are getting. Who is dying? What are the innocent Syrian and Iraqi citizens doing while bombs destroy homes and families?

Can we focus on the brothers and sisters we lost in New York on the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, while also paying close attention to the heap of innocent lives potentially ruined by anti-ISIS air strikes?

Zack Beauchamp of Vox.com analyzed the text of Obama's speech, claiming that "the U.S. is attacking ISIS because it one day might be a threat, not because it's capable of executing an attack in the U.S. right now."

Breathe, Obama.

Take time to gather facts, intelligence and security before jumping the gun and risking lives. Obama's rhetoric is eerie and frightening, especially when he says, "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." It's as if Obama has had a change of character—I've always thought of him as a pseudo-pacifist after his fight to withdraw troops from Iraq. I'm just bamboozled, to be quiet honest.

If we could take away one key point from Obama's speech, it would be this: "ISIS is NOT Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents."

In this crucial moment of history with the flair of racial tensions, it is not time to point fingers at people who are seemingly different than you. It is not time to blame anybody based on their skin color, religious affiliation or 
outfit choice.

This should never be a game of "who died the most." I've seen the posts on Tumblr comparing America's killing percentage to the Islamic groups that society has scapegoated, but you can't deny the tragedy of 9/11. You can't downplay the hurt the families felt that day. One of your own family members could have jumped from those two crumbling towers that day to ease their 
inevitable suffering.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing America's violent streak. Being aware of the damage America has caused globally doesn't make you any less patriotic; it makes you an informed citizen, able to see that every nation is flawed—even our own home, America.

Zack Orsborn is the assistant editor of the Starkville Free Press (starkvillefreepress.com) and a senior at Mississippi State University.

Comments

grutzai 9 years, 6 months ago

You've made many great points here, but to compare this to the previous would wars is a bit of a stretch. In each of the previous wars, the alliances had largely been formed before the conflict and each alliance began fighting each other with many nations on either side.

In this case, there is only one enemy. None of the other countries have acknowledged ISIS/ISIL as a sovereign state, so the only real controversy with any alliances being drawn is that the US will have to align itself with traditional/ideological enemies.

0

Sign in to comment