Trump probably sees creating a high-profile martyr in a country we have no business in as priceless, and every time there is a successful retaliation to a perceived injustice, the first notion is, that it's priceless. However, with wars and the history of warfare, blowback, and the like ultimately end up proving costly, and people pay this toll with their lives. So, in that sense, it is priceless, not the act of revenge but the loss of life.
Ask yourself, how much is it worth to lose a loved one? How much would you pay to avoid it, providing you had an infinite amount of funds? You can't put a price on human life, and you can't put a price on revenge either. If you ask me—the original sin is the invasion and occupation. Absent those events, would there have been an embassy to attack in Iraq?
The middle east is a complex organism with many moving parts that evolved from the ground up. A top-down approach of striking at perceived problems with airstrikes, however surgical they may be, will not create a predictable outcome. The only predictable element in this scenario is that it will result in more violence. I think Americans need to be asking some very pointed questions. Why does the U.S. think it needs to be in Iraq anyways? Is it to provide security to the region? If so, who is the client?
My first impression is that if Iraq had asked the United States for security assistance after operation shock and awe, they would've done so only from a place of pure Stockholm syndrome. It's similar to how business owners might get cowed by mafioso-types after they've had their storefronts vandalized in the middle of the night. The business owners know who is responsible, but they also know what happens if they don't let those responsible oversee their security.
Take the U.S./Iraq SOFA agreement as an example—your signature or your brains is expressly implied in the official name of the agreement itself. "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq" The title alone implies that; If you sign this, we agree to only be here "temporarily" until you get your shit together and do stuff our way.
There are so many of these quasi-secret/public and private agreements. I think that most people are unaware of them. For example, the U.S./Iraq SOFA agreement is essentially the Iraqi interim (puppet) government rubber-stamping all U.S. military action in the region from 2009 to 2011.
We don't know if the agreement was secretly extended or reborn like a Phoenix from the ashes under a new name. We must comprehend and parse the language that's used against us daily.
So many people think there is still war in Iraq, but if they use language that suggests we're providing security to the region. Then that means they're operating under an entirely different paradigm. Wasted efforts to end the wars in countries that we're not technically or legally at war with because of signed security agreements are fruitless endeavors.
The truth of the matter is that war is terrorism, and terrorism is strategic warfare. The two are practically indistinguishable. Tell me this: Would you rather die from a car bomb or a predator missile? If you're driving in your car on the freeway, does it matter which way you go splat? Is one technique more terrifying than the other?
Why are we at war with Eurasia? I would posit that most people in the fight don't have a clue, save for those who are doing so purely for revenge, because violence begets even more violence.
The image above is brought to you courtesy of Pixabay.