I’ve been too busy with family matters to write today. Here are a few headlines from the last 12 hours.
ISIS’ and Boko Haram:
I’ve been too busy with family matters to write today. Here are a few headlines from the last 12 hours.
ISIS’ and Boko Haram:
I saw the photo of the beheaded little girl and something in me shifted, rolled over and settled into a new slot, click.
Unlike my spiritual betters, I did not feel the need to go down to my knees and pray. I did pray, in snatches, like breathing, all the rest of the day. I prayed for conversion of the Muslims. I prayed for the people ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, et al are killing. I prayed for Europe, which is suiciding itself with the poison of political correctness. I prayed for the conversion of the United States.
But mostly, I kept going back to the photos: Photos of children, slaughtered. And what I felt was much the same emotion I felt when I shot water moccasins.
I don’t think I’ve ever told you about that one, gun control being the flash point that it is. I had a 22 from the time I was quite little. My Daddy taught me how to shoot right and he taught me gun safety as he was doing it.
There was a slough not far from our house, a brackish dead-end appendix of water that came off the North Canadian river and idled in place, breeding mosquitos and water moccasins. Daddy and I would sometimes get up early, take bacon for bait and go crawdad fishing in that slough. The water was crawling with water moccasins; revolting, stinking (yes, they smell bad) black things.
My part-time job one summer was to shoot and kill the water moccasins; thin them out so they didn’t kill the livestock, pets and people. I got paid a quarter for each dead moccasin.
I didn’t use the little bead on the end of the barrel and the gun sight to aim. That took too long with a moving target. I learned that all I had to do was concentrate on the target and by some magic of my autonomic nervous system, the gun would align itself and the bullet would go through the snake’s head and kill it.
The emotion I felt when I looked at those videos and the photos of slaughtered children was much the same as what I felt when I looked at a water moccasin. That’s because I wasn’t thinking about the dead babies. If I did that, I would be unable to move and my brain would fill with white noise. Breathing would come hard, if I did that. I. Simply. Can’t. Go. There.
I was thinking about those monsters who held the knives, the apostles of satan who are holding the guns pointed at the child in the photo above.
I looked at these photos, and something in me shifted, rolled over and settled into a new slot.
ISIS is a rabid dog. There is no cure for rabid dogs; no reasoning or counseling or whatnot. You don’t stop a rabid dog from being rabid by building it a better dog house or giving it higher grade kibble.
The only thing to do with a rabid dog is kill it. That is the only way the rest of us will be safe.
To carry the analogy further, rabies is highly infectious to humans. Once it gets into us, we are doomed to become rabid ourselves. Sooner or later, whether we want to or not, we are going to have to kill these people. There is no answer for ISIS but the sword.
As we consider this somber thought, we might also consider the less emotional, but critical, questions. ISIS is only a discreet entity in terms of name. It is in reality just another branch of the same well-funded army of satan that is flourishing in Nigeria under the label Boko Haram.
ISIS has managed to wage actual war against governments in Syria and Iraq. Funding, equipping, training, feeding and sustaining an army capable of waging war against two governments simultaneously takes huge amounts of money. It appears that this particular army is aided by traitors in the governments it is attacking, but that is another story. The point here is more basic: Where is that war-waging money coming from?
I’m not talking about baklava sale money. I’m also not talking about individual money. It takes government money to fund war against standing governments on two fronts; three fronts, if you include Hamas.
Wealthy individuals are almost certainly contributing to the support of these human rabid dogs. But the kind of inexorable stream of big-time money that it takes to fund a war against governments on three fronts comes from another government.
Who is it?
It’s not Russia. They’re aiding the Syrians against ISIS.
I don’t think it’s a European country. It’s not Australia or Japan.
Who has that kind of money and a history of terrorist activities all over the world?
I don’t know, but when I was talking about this with my family last night, one of them said, “It may be China.”
That’s just a guess in a living-room conversation, but it certainly fits, doesn’t it?
We’ve got to figure this out. Who are we really up against here?
ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, et al, are the ones holding the guns, wielding the knives. They are the raping, murdering, little-girl stealing, baby-beheading rabid dogs.
But somebody is feeding these dogs. If it’s our Communist trading partner, China, they’re probably using our money to do it.
If ever there was a needful thing, this is it.
The bishops of Oriental Churches are calling Muslim religious leaders to issue Fatwas banning attacks against Christians. A few incredibly brave Muslims have taken steps on their own. More than 200 people, many of them Muslims, gathered in July in front of a church in Baghdad, carrying signs that said, “I am Iraqi, I am Christian.”
“A group of citizens … they were Muslims … carrying slogans saying “I am Iraqi, I am Christian,” said Father Maysar Bahnam of Mar Korkis of Catholic Church. “They prayed in solidarity with us, saying that we are people from this land.”
Now, the Oriental Bishops are asking Muslim religious leaders to do the right thing and use their authority to help end what has become a genocide.
I do not know what the response will be. There may not be any response at all. But it is important to issue this call. This is an opportunity for Islam to demonstrate that there is more to it than the face we see on the news every night.
It is not enough for politically-correct Westerners to insist that Islam is a faith of peace and beauty. Muslims themselves — in particular Muslim religious leaders — need to demonstrate this by their actions and teachings.
The bishops of Oriental Churches on Thursday demanded Muslim religious authorities to issue fatwas banning attacks against Christians and “other innocents” in the East, urging also parties financing terrorist organizations “to immediately stop arming” these extremist groups.
“We call on Muslim religious authorities, Sunnis and Shiites, to issue fatwas banning attacks against Christians and other innocents,” Beirut Maronite Bishop Boulos Matar said after a congregation of the bishops of Oriental Churches at Diman, Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s summer seat.
In a related story: Austrian Muslims Hold Protest March Against Christian Persecution in Iraq
Bombing in warfare can serve tactical purposes.
Say, for instance, that you are at war with a country that has actual war-making capabilities. This hasn’t happened to America in a long time, so let my refresh your memories.
Remember Pearl Harbor?
The Japanese people who attacked us were able to build airplanes, aircraft carriers and guns of all types. They had the ability to train their own pilots, navigate their own ships and come half-way around the globe to launch a devastating attack that sank most of the Sixth Fleet. Then, they had the ability to turn around and go back across the ocean to their home port.
That is war making ability.
You know, the ability to wage actual war on a global scale.
If you are at war with a nation with war-making ability, bombing can serve the purpose of leveling their factories where they make these planes and ships. It can cut the supply lines they use to feed these factories and move their troops. In short, dropping bombs on or shooting missiles at an industrial power with war-making ability during an actual war can serve a strategic and tactical purpose.
This raises the question, at least in my mind, of what, exactly, the backers of the president’s proposed “intervention” in Syria expect to accomplish by lobbing tens of millions of dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles at innocent civilians because their government or maybe their government’s opponents … because somebody used sarin gas.
Sarin gas is a gas. It can be carried in a canister. There are comments in various news stories that Syria has “stockpiles” of chemical weapons and that it also is “manufacturing” them. But I find even more sources theorizing that they got these weapons from Saddam Hussein, or even that the United States gave them to Syria a long time ago.
So far as I can tell from this, Syria has no munitions or chemical weapons plants where it is manufacturing this gas that would make legitimate tactical targets. I haven’t found anything except vague, unsubstantiated claims in the popular press that such sites exist.
So, are there military targets that are linked to the sarin gas or not? I keep remembering the way President Kennedy outlined the menace to the American people at the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He spoke to us in a straight-forward 1,2,3 manner. That was a serious threat to our survival as a nation, not some we-can’t-explain-it nonsense. But that president trusted the American people with the truth.
If there is such truth now, we have a right to hear it. Based on the fact that we haven’t heard it, I am assuming that the only reasons for creating this war are the reasons that we’ve been given, none of which claim any threat to America or the American people.
That raises the question: What does our president and the war-promotion machine that’s hammering us think they are going to accomplish by hitting these already miserable people with Tomahawk missiles?
What is the military objective? What tactical purpose does this proposed attack supposedly serve?
The only explanation I’ve read as to what they hope to accomplish came in an unintentionally silly little article from NBC News. According to them, we want to use these missiles for “sending messages” (I kid you not.) to the Syrian government. For instance, the article says (emphases mine),
The U.S. Navy can use those capabilities to send a message to Syria’s leaders about their chemical weapons program, just as it sent messages in the past to leaders of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen and Libya.
Almost as important, the Tomahawks can send messages back — in the form of real-time battle damage assessments. As in those earlier conflicts, Tomahawk cruise missiles are America’s point of the spear for the Syria crisis. President Barack Obama and his aides, members of Congress, leaders of other countries and U.N. officials are continuing to debate if and when to attack Syria. Meanwhile, Pentagon leaders have their battle plan ready, and the Tomahawks are expected to deal the first blow.
Now, I’m familiar with the use of the phrase “send him a message” as it is used in trite movies to describe wreaking some form of mayhem on a character by other characters in the screen play. The dialogue usually begins with a command to burn down someone’s house, kill their family, beat them to a pulp or some such and “send him a message.”
I assume that may be what the writer of this article is talking about.
What kind of message are we supposed to be sending by firing thousand-pound bombs at the people of Syria?
Is the plan to devastate the infrastructure so that the government crumbles and the rebels win this civil war? Do we want the rebels to win this war? Who, exactly, are these rebels, and who is backing them? What kind of future war would we create by getting into this?
I wonder if the president and his crew have considered other means of sending messages. I mean, have they tried email? Or how about sending a courier or using carrier pigeons?
Anything makes more sense than “sending a message” with Tomahawk missiles.
Unless these missiles are sarin-seeking, or known stockpiles and manufacturing plants we haven’t been told about exist, we’re not going to get at the chemical weaponry. What we are going to do is kill people, create even more havoc and entangle America and Americans in somebody else’s civil war.
I listened to Secretary of State Kerry’s testimony before Congress as he flatly refused to “take the option” of “boots on the ground” “off the table.”
Aside from the question, Do these people really talk in unending strings of cliches? I wondered how many of the people listening to this understood what he was saying. He wants authorization for Tomahawk missiles now, with whatever the president decides he wants to do to follow.
He’s saying this vote is a blank check.
Also, for those people who seem to keep forgetting this, he wasn’t talking about sending boots to Syria. He was talking about sending American men and women over there to die.
Maybe the reason for all the hackneyed cliches is because nobody, either in Congress or the White House or the press for that matter, wants to say precisely what it is that they are proposing. It just doesn’t have the same Rambo/Corleone-esq macho block-headedness to say the truth.
What if the Secretary of State had said,
- We probably will send ground troops into Syria. We haven’t decided how many or for how long.
- We are certain that we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fire Tomahawk missiles at non-military targets in a largely defenseless nation which doesn’t have any military targets.
- This talk about a “red line” is just for public consumption. We created the “red line” a few weeks ago, and are relying on the propaganda press and the short attention spans of the American people to sell it for us.
- We are not going to discuss the rumors of Russian involvement in this war because if we didn’t ignore it, this attack would be even harder to sell to the American people than it is now.
- In the final analysis, after all this bizarro cliche talk about “sending messages” with Tomahawk missiles and the “option of boots on the ground,” what we’re talking about is killing people. Lots of people. For no tactical reason that we will discuss with the American people.
Firing Tomahawk missiles into another nation is not “sending them a message.” It’s an act of war. And this particular war is not our war.
We do not need to go to war in Syria to defend America.
Let me repeat that: We do not need to go to war in Syria to defend America.
Is there some other reason for committing American troops? Is our military a police force the president can use as he wishes to “send messages” to whomever he wants?
Or, is it for the protection of this nation and its people?
I have said from the beginning that I am open to being persuaded about military action in Syria. But persuading me means convincing me that there is a reason for it that has to do with protecting America and that the negative consequences of military action do not outweigh the threat to our safety.
So far, all I’ve seen is an appeal to kill lots of people by firing missiles at them because somehow or other that’s the “humanitarian” thing to do. I have not heard anything that convinces me that there is a tactical purpose to this action, or that there are even tactical targets for the missiles. I also have not heard anything — and I mean anything — that addresses how America is endangered by the civil war in Syria.
What is the tactical, military purpose of firing missiles at the Syrian people?
How does firing missiles at Syria protect the homeland and the American people?
Why are we being pushed into this war?
According to an October 21 Barnabas Aid report, Islamist rebels waged war on the civilians of the Christian towns of Haffar and Saddad in Syria.
From Barnabas Aid:
They don’t know us.
They are our own government, our elected officials, our press.
They claim to speak for us and to inform us. But they don’t know us. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
We are not their sheeple to manipulate and lie to and send to die. We do not and will not endlessly respond with Pavlovian obedience to the bells they ring for us.
That truth is slowly dawning on the insulated and isolated minions who run our cable news networks, sit in our seats of power and claim they speak for us with absolute accuracy. We are not their toy soldiers they move about in a game.
How could they be so wrong about us? After all, they’ve been successfully lying to us and manipulating us for decades. They’ve convinced us to fight and die for no reason at all time and again all over the globe. What is different now?
Perhaps the difference is the price. Aside from phonied-up claims that “supporting our troops” means we have to keep them at war and in war in perpetuity, these people don’t know much about the price. They were beamed into their elected offices and sit in front of cameras that were paid for by beams of corporate money that comes from the same, or interlocking boards of the same, corporations that are making money off these wars.
Their world is not the world of paying the price. It is the world of reaping the benefits.
Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, fought on the ground in Afghanistan. But the moguls of our war machine did not send their young princes to the front. They were too busy getting the finest educations and living the best life, preparing to be the decision makers who send others to die in their place.
The “news” arm of this complex harangues us every night about the high cost of social security and how keeping our word to retirees is fiscal suicide for this country. Simultaneously, they batter us with constant calls for ever higher “defense” spending.
We are armed past imagining. We have more aircraft carriers and all that goes with them than we did when we were fighting the Germans and the Japanese combined. We buy weaponry that actual combat soldiers say fails in the dust, heat and impact of real warfare. But we don’t buy enough body armor for our troops. We don’t provide returning soldiers with adequate medical and psychological care.
And we can’t rebuild our roads or put together meaningful public transportation. This same country that built a railroad that went from coast to coast in the 19th century, that created a national highway system, suddenly cannot spare the cash to develop a national public transportation system that would lower our dependence on the foreign oil that drives these wars. It appears that the same companies that build the bombs can no longer build the roads.
We do not make the goods this country consumes. We import them. Our industry is weaponry. Our export is war. We are breaking our own backs as a nation to feed a war machine we do not need to keep us safe. We are endangering the future of this nation to enrich a few by engaging in endless random wars that enrich a few and impoverish the rest of us.
Maybe it goes back that those beams of money that beam our elected officials into office. Maybe it has its roots in who is signing off on the enormous checks those talking heads are pulling down.
While our standard of living declines, they are living large.
While we fight these wars, they incite them.
And that is the reason why now they are so gobsmacked to find that We the People don’t want to make war no more.
They don’t know anything about the price that we’ve been paying for their wars. Because they don’t know anything about us. We are another country to them. They manipulate us. They patronize us. They don’t respect us. In fact, all they know about us is what they learn from reading polls.
It’s time someone tried to explain this to them. They need to understand The Price.
It seems that the US and Russia have brokered a deal to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons by 2014.
Presumably, this is the way to avoid America going to war in Syria.
One question I have: Where is Syria in all this?
The United States and Russia brokered this “deal.” That’s interesting. But it’s even more interesting that the two 800 pound gorillas did all this “brokering” on their own.
I am glad beyond glad that we’ve side-stepped this particular war. However, I feel just as strongly now as I did before about the things I’ve written concerning our self-destructive spiral of over-emphasis on “defense” to the exclusion of building our economy here at home. We have got to take a look at ourselves. Or we will perish.
After days of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia reached agreement Saturday on a framework to secure and destroy Syria‘s chemical weapons by mid-2014 and impose UN penalties if the Assad government fails to comply.
The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, includes what Kerry called “a shared assessment” of the weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures for Syrian President Bashar Assad to follow so that the full inventory can be identified and seized.
The U.S. and Russia agreed to immediately press for a UN Security Council resolution that enshrines the chemical weapons agreement under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which can authorize both the use of force and nonmilitary measures.
President Barack Obama made clear that “if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act.”
Russia, which already has rejected three resolutions on Syria, would be sure to veto a UN move toward military action, and U.S.¬ officials said they did not contemplate seeking such an authorization.
Frank Weathers has the story.
It seems that President Vladimir Putin is breaking new ice for Russian heads of state. He is now an op-ed author for the New York Times. Frank has nothing but praise for President Putin’s prose. I, on the other hand, look at it a bit differently.
President Putin wrote an op-ed piece in which he discussed America’s recent foreign policy. He accurately said that we’ve gotten into too many random military encounters lately, and that we are turning too often to force in our international engagements.
He also said that America’s way of dealing with other countries has become a matter of “relying on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.'” I think he may have been talking about things like the obvious bullying that President Obama engaged in to coerce foreign nations to refuse sanctuary to whistle-blower Edward Snowden.
It is interesting indeed that this particular strategy backfired with President Putin, who, alone of all the heads of state in the world, took Mr Snowden in. President Obama was so miffed by this that he canceled a pre-G20 meeting with the Russian President, an action that, honestly folks, sounded personal and grade school to me.
President Putin goes on in his op-ed to remark about something that is quite serious: Nuclear proliferation. He evidently sees this growing push to develop the bomb by impoverished countries who cannot feed their own people as a defensive measure on their part. He is right again when he says, “If you have the bomb, they can’t touch you.”
In other words, nobody talks about randomly lobbing Tomahawk missiles at nations who have the bomb, no matter how egregious we find their behavior in other matters.
This raises an important question: Is America’s international policy, with its bully-boy tactics and constant deployment of force against small nations who can’t fight back, actually pushing smaller nations to follow a policy of developing nuclear weapons?
That is a discussion for another day, but it is certainly one worth having.
Having said all this, there is one thing I want Public Catholic readers to understand about President Putin’s op-ed piece. That one thing is that President Putin is using the op-ed to side-step our president and lobby the American people directly.
I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing.
After all, he’s not paying a bunch of lobbyists to slime their way around the Capitol greasing campaign accounts and non-campaign pacs with their donations in order to convince our elected officials to vote against us. He is going out there in the court of public opinion and making his case in a straight-forward and direct way. We know where he’s coming from and what he’s saying. We do not have to listen to hours of lies from bought and paid for cable news talking heads interviewing bought and paid for think-tankers and bought and paid for politicians while they try to propagandize us.
We don’t have to sort through what President Putin is saying to decide what he really thinks. It’s all there, for the reading.
But we should be aware and never forget that he ain’t us.
He is the President of Russia and the interests he’s promoting are the interests of Russia. That doesn’t make what he’s saying wrong, and that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to him. Quite the contrary. That makes what he’s saying important and worthy of our thoughtful analysis.
Odd as this sounds, I have a higher opinion of his motives than I do our cable news people. He, at least, is working for his country.
What a bitter cup.
It appears this nation will drink it to the dregs.
And then lick the cup.
As far as I’m concerned, the best moment of this whole thing was when I heard that Osama bin Laden was dead. Dead and dumped into the ocean to swim with the fishes.
I have no use for murdering monsters.
9/11 cost this country dearly. We have given up so much freedom to these murdering monsters. We are surveilled and patted down and searched; not to mention the lost lives, arms, legs and emotional wholeness of those we sent to fight this evil for us.
I remember the morning of 9/11. I watched the second plane hit the second tower and I knew; this was not random and it was not an accident. I heard that the Pentagon had been hit. I saw the towers fall. I heard there was another plane that had crashed.
And that was the miracle.
Once we saw through their lies, they couldn’t even handle our unarmed civilians. That planeload of people on Flight 93 fought back with boiling water and a food tray and they took those terrorists out on their way to destroy the Capitol.
That crash into the Pennsylvania countryside was the beginning of our resistance. It was the first time they faced Americans who knew the truth of who they were. It was the indicator of how badly they had miscalculated who we are and what we will do if war is forced upon us.
I was in the mood to do whatever after 9/11. I would have been willing, in the first rush of rage, to melt down the mountains of the Middle East to glass. But our president reacted like a president and not an enraged citizen. His initial response, to go into Afghanistan, was not only appropriate, it was controlled, considering what had happened.
This is America. Step on this soil to do harm and take the consequences.
That is my feeling.
Do not attempt, as Lincoln said, “to take a drink from the Ohio by force.”
We welcome people from all over the world. We help people all over the world.
But do not — ever — think that our kindness and our hospitality betokens an unwillingness to defend this country. That would be a mistake.
Today, on this anniversary of that day when someone dared to come onto American soil and kill 3,000 Americans, we are considering whether or not we should advance what has become an unending bleed of random military actions into yet another country. This time we are talking about military action in Syria.
We could, if we wanted, kill everything, everywhere. This country has that kind of power.
But the question is, should we? Not, should we kill everything, everywhere, which I think we all agree is not a good plan, but should we constantly and without much thought zap this little problem and that little problem and go here, there, and everywhere, firing off missiles and sending in troops for various, decidedly random, reasons?
Touch this homeland, defile America itself with your ancient hatreds and tribal feuds, and you will face us. That much is certain and non debatable.
But we need lines — bright, shiny lines — about when enough is enough to our endless military engagements overseas. We need to understand, for ourselves and not for anyone else, what we are doing and why we are doing it when we use our military force.
Random wars are an inexcusable misuse of the lives and treasure that the American people have invested in their military and entrusted to their elected officials.
If I will not sacrifice one of my children to your random war — and I will not — then I do not have the right to sacrifice other people’s children to it, either. So long as the board of directors of General Dynamics and Raytheon and Halliburton and all their almost numberless cohorts do not have their children wearing those “boots on the ground” we keep talking about, then any war we engage in is unjust at the outset.
Take their kids out of their expensive private schools, take away the keys to their cars that cost more than my house and send them to Syria alongside the inner city kids and working-class kids who fight these wars. Insist that the newscasters who are pushing so hard for war, war, any war with anybody anytime, send their children to fight.
That might change the rhetoric a bit. If the people who are benefitting from these wars actually started paying part of the cost of them, it might adjust their thinking.
9/11 still makes me angry. Sadly, that anger is mixed now with a sense of betrayal by my own government.
I pray that this changes.
I don’t think there are any lambs in this particular gathering, but it appears as if the lions may decide to, if not lie down together, at least make war another day.
Presidents Putin of Russia, Rouhani of Iran and Assad of Syria have been talking about a proposal to remove chemical weapons from Syria to Russia for several days now. I first read about this before the weekend, but didn’t write about it because the sources were publications inside Russia that I didn’t know anything about.
Haaretz, an Israeli news outlet, has also been running stories about it. The proposal became quasi official yesterday and today the New York Times wrote that President Obama has “tentatively embraced” the idea.
I expect that the war-promoting members of the press (which is a substantial portion of the press) will react to this with an analysis that President Obama has been “weak” and went to Congress “looking for a way out,” etc. I want to say, in anticipation of that, that if this compromise works, a good portion of the reason why is that this president made the decision to involve the American people, through their representatives, in this debate.
I’ve been critical of this attempt to take this country into another unnecessary war from the outset. I expect that I am going to be equally critical of the inevitable future attempts to do the same thing. Our press has become a powerful lobby for armed intervention all over the globe. There is one cable news network in particular that never stops agitating for war. The place where they want this country to use armed force changes, but the demand that we do it is almost constant.
I am not a pacifist. I believe in self-defense.
I am most definitely a patriot. From the soles of my feet to the hair of my head, I am an American.
I believe without equivocation that if we do not take an honest and critical look at this situation, we are dooming ourselves. I’ll write more about this, but we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy to finance a war machine that is out of touch with reality. Then, we are being sold on wars and “military actions” one right after the other to use it and justify it.
War has become our major industry.
This cannot go on if we are to survive. We need an economy that is based on manufacturing the goods and services of the people of this country, not an economy that is based on manufacturing weapons.
As I said in the title of this post, Don’t stop Praying.
We are not out of the woods on this yet.
And the peacemakers in this situation are hardly peaceable people.
But it looks as if there is a real possibility that we will be able to avoid firing Tomahawk missiles at the people of Syria. There may even be a possibility that we can let them work out their own civil war without shedding American blood.
We need to continue praying for peace, and for our Christian brothers and sisters who are so very vulnerable in this war. I’ve read that President Assad has treated the Christian minority in Syria with tolerance and that the rebels have targeted Christian villages for attacks and attempts at forced conversions to Islam. Again, this information has come largely from the Russian press and the Russians have a stake in this war, so I’ve been slow to write about it.
But, the Christians in Syria who have contacted me have said much the same thing.
I am grateful to the Holy Father for his powerful leadership in this matter. I am also grateful to President Obama for making the decision to allow Congress to vote on it.
I hope that is a precedent-setting move that future presidents will take seriously.
Don’t stop praying. It appears to be working.
Sign up for free newsletters and special offers