We trust that our military generals are entrenched in reality. When they start echoing the sentiments of hippy activists, speaking about combat in terms of ecosystems and climate change, I feel less safe. Take these remarks made about Hamas and Israel:
“…there is one solution easily at hand that could lead to a political climate change…withdraw the military combatants.”
“If Hamas were destroyed and gone, we would probably end up with something much worse. A worse threat that would come into the sort of ecosystem there … something like ISIS.”
These statements were made about the recent violence in Gaza. The first statement was made by Arlo Guthrie, famed peace activist, to followers on Facebook. The latter was by Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, during sworn testimony before Congress.
Combat and national sovereignty are now being spoken of in terms of political climate change and ecosystems. It sounds lofty and utopic coming from hippy activists. It is alarming when the morally relativist echo chamber reaches top military brass.
Guthrie gets a pass for his radical idealism because he is what he is. He is a dreamer. Guthrie is not responsible for decisions that determine the life or death of troops and civilians. Guthrie is free to express his existential theories without consequence.
The U.S. military however has to be entrenched in reality; where assessments and decisions are made based upon casualties and carnage, not ecosystems.
Flynn believes that the Israeli toppling of Hamas will lead to an infiltration of ISIS in Gaza. Somehow a Lieutenant General of the Defense Intelligence Agency is not aware that ISIS leadership has already infiltrated Gaza. Israeli intelligence confirms that ISIS and Hamas are inextricably linked.
To the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Hamas is a legitimate political entity – free from the communicable disease that is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Flynn believes that ISIS is worse than Hamas. To Israel, Hamas is ISIS.
When Flynn describes the Israeli-Hamas conflict in terms of ecosystems, his words expose his worldview revealing a mindset co-opted by the post-nation, morally relativist echo chamber; the same that accuses Israel of war crimes for bombing armories hidden in Gaza hospitals and U.N. schools; the same who absolve Hamas for using children as human shields since “Gaza is pretty small.”
I have always trusted the long-suffering nature of the U.S. military – a military has withstood the rebukes of an unappreciative president, the withholding of medical treatment and the denial of death benefits. When top military brass gives utterance to ecosystems as an assessment of combat situations, it gives legitimacy to a narrative based on agenda-driven politics – an agenda driven by the notion that all sources of conflict, natural disaster and poverty are due to failings of industrialized nations with “nativist” tendencies.
What is being witnessed in Israel is not climate change or a defiled ecosystem. What is being witnessed in Israel is a denial of a nation’s right to defend itself.
Guthrie can talk all he wants about changing the political climate of the Gaza. He can talk freely about withdrawing all military combatants (code for Israeli Defense Forces) to fulfill his vision of a “culture-free” Middle East where “the natural resources of a beautiful coastline and historic cross-roads of civilizations create a unique opportunity for visitors and inhabitants alike to experience the local culture in a way that offers hospitality, education, safety and security for anyone.”
Let hippies be hippies and espouse their moral relativist beliefs. I want my Lieutenant Generals entrenched in reality.