War is one man's choice

I remember once I attended a Global Conversation which is a regular seminar holds by Economic Faculty in my university which is University of Rome Tor Vergata or Roma 2. Global Conversation usually invite speakers from Academic, Economic, or Political background which is usually high-profile individual. This time, I will discuss the one seminar I participated by asking a question toward the speaker. The speaker was former American ambassador whose name is Luigi R. Einaudi. The topic of the seminar was Pluralism Matters. Well, as usual, everytime I'm in seminar, I always had different way to understand the speaker and instead of focusing on the topic, I always try to look for the vital part of the topic and think about what concerns me the most. So, I decided to took advantage of his position rather than his topic because not everyday you can encounter an American official and the opportunity to discuss American policy. After finishing his talk, the question and answer session started. As usual, I always had a trouble on raising hand because I have anxiety on drawing attention to myself. But that time, I didn't know why I just raised my hand. So, after being picked by the speaker, I asked him;

"I would like to talk about American Foreign Policy, We both know that during Cold War era, America decided to support rebels in a country such as Afghanistan to thwart communism in the country. However, failing to finish its task, the rebels now become Al-Qaeda. Also, the American invasion of Iraq subsequently led to the rise of insurgency which eventually become ISIS. This policy of interfering other countries affairs seems to be the most favourite thing to do by American government whereas those countries that are being interfered ended up in destructive situation. So, what is it that America wants to achieve in its interfering policy and where is legal right of America to invade other country such as Iraq in the early 2000?"

Luigi chose to answer my question in the last sequence. He took a long breath before starting to answer my question. I remember he said that the problem lies in the decision makers of American government. He depicted that by telling American people in the government mostly don't have passport which I assumed that he was telling American people 'have no idea' about other countries in general. Let alone sensitive subject such as politics and religion. Moreover, he told the audience regarding the invasion and war that those decision making mistakes should be considered as crimes done by the leader, not the army or others. For that reason, I believe that a Leader should be accountable for his decision and action. He, moreover, told us that keeping dignity is important when having to make a decision in an important matters as we, the audience, were mostly young students who are highly motivated but lack of conviction. Although he didn't address my question properly, the thought of him choosing to blame the leader was the turning point of me. I absolutely agree with him.

Politics is basically a decision making process. Therefore, war is a one's man choice.

I always knew that a leader should be responsible for every decision he made. In this case, I'll take Invasion of Iraq as my topic. Invasion of Iraq was an invasion in 2003 led by a coalition of US and UK. These two countries were headed by George W. Bush as US president and Tony Blair as UK prime minister. The first reason for US to invade Iraq was to disarm Iraq's weapon of mass destruction and to crack down Saddam Hussein's government. The problem was, there was no evidence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq since United Nations Weapon Inspector cracked down all Iraq's weapons after Iraq-Kuwait war. Moreover, evidence from Chilqot report not only showed that Iraq didn't pose direct threat to UK, it also showed that British intelligence had failed to give certainty whether Iraq had weapon of mass destruction. Chilqot also pointed out that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was totally unnecessary. 

Although everything took place in the past, the consequence of the invasion should be taken more seriously as we know that the invasion produced an extremism-based military organization called ISIS. It has very significant connection with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan which also has connection with US. In this case, we will focus more on the early 21's century event. After the fell of New York twin tower which is known as 9/11, George W. Bush declared war on terror. But the problem is, which enemy he is targeting with on the war? is it only Osama bin Laden or Osama bin Laden's religion? after 9/11, the prejudices against Muslim rose very highly that it became Islamophobia. This hate-based phenomena was widely contributed by politicians decision who used it for their own benefit. *Note: I'm still making my own theory toward 9/11 because I'm skeptical with the story from the government.* 

Moreover, I would like to pointed out that I'm a person who believes in everything happens for a reason. In this case, the reason of 9/11 to happen is likely to trigger something, might as well be refer to the famous theory of being used as pre-emptive strike to be used as a based to invade other countries. However, 'something' here defines a wide and variety thing that led to several theory. 

As I said, from my skeptical point of view, 9/11 was actually used by US government as the preemptive strike to justify its invasion toward Afghanistan and Iraq. But the problem is, what is it that US really want from invading other countries? and why do they only have high interest in these unstable countries?

I don't want to be sound as conspiracy theorist but we live in a realistic world.

No one wants war.

1. Middle East has oil.

2. Arms Selling Profit.

These two reasons might be something that have nothing to do with the war, but, in fact, these reasons what drew a country to invade other countries. The problem is these two reasons usually classified as conspiracy theory which positioned their positions as odd and irrelevant. However, due to classifying them as odd, they aren't taken into consideration properly. This unfortunate phenomena might be occurred because of how they are portrayed by mainstream media. The problem in our society is that they don't want to discuss about something they are afraid to.

Let's be real, no one wants to engage in war except they are going to be profited by it. In this case, Politics in US is highly influence with Lobbying. Therefore, it is also not a secret that Arm Lobbyist group in US has significant role in affecting US policy. Moreover, the decision making of US politicians has its roots with the interest of Lobbyist group. I would say it is like a cycle. Arm lobbyist group donated huge money for politician through donation for politician's campaign while in the opposite, the politicians who benefited by the lobbyist group will take into consideration of Arm lobbyist's interest while making decision.

I also remember that teachers always remind us that studying politics should be accompany with history, but they failed to teach us that the point after studying it is to put it into pratice which is learning from mistake in the past and to not do it again in the future. This is the reason why I don't believe in being good in every subject that is required only for profession or job. What matters most is the reason why to the need to study it. This is the reason why I believe politics and history is seasonal as long as society sustained. I remember a quote but I forget who said it.

"People are discovering new but often old identities and marching under new but often old flags which lead to wars with new but often old enemies"

Take for example Syrian war. It is not merely a civil war no more. It is a proxy war between US against Russia which is in turn between Saudi Arabia against Iran, these countries are interfering the civil war in Syria between the government and the insurgency. By analyzing it, we can conclude that religion, culture, and race are not factors that drawing them to war, but interest of power is the prime reason for it.

This is the reason why when one choosing its occupation as a good politician, one should remember why choosing to be politician in the first place and the most important thing is to keep moral value as its principle.

October 5th, 2017