Déjà vu or jamais vu in the Middle East

Often described as the opposite of déjà vu, jamais vu involves a sense of eeriness and the observer's impression of seeing the situation for the first time, despite rationally knowing that he or she has been in the situation before.* So is it the 1930’s all over again, or is the British Middle East and Mesopotamia experience more appropriate?

Is starting or getting dragged into a Middle East regional war in our American national interest? Would a regional war there become a world war because of the economic and political concerns of China, India, Japan, Russia, Europe, and many others? That the theocratic and dictator rulers of Iran have already started a covert war which has become a regional overt war is believed by most in the western world, and the region. How does this complicate things?

These are staggering questions of our age and period. The issues are complicated, the reported facts are too often disputed, and even the questions of national interest can vary … and this is just in America. If ever there was a time for our Country to debate a declaration of war, this is such a time. Even if the debate results in a declaration of war, and the debate would say who or what, a declaration does not automatically give away the element of military surprise. The long period of inaction after France and England declared war against Germany in September 1939 was nicknamed the sitzkrieg or phoney war. And any declaration of war then provides the unity of national approval that best enhances diplomacy. This is often called the carrot and the stick approach. And if the vote is not for a declaration, so be it.

The USA is not the only player in town. Debating and voting not to declare war is no guarantee other nations will agree, and even go along. Not declaring war after a debate is no guarantee of peace. We cannot legislate our way out war, as much as we may try. The Neutrality Acts in the late 1930’s provide such an example. After all, the USA felt compelled to declare war over two years later than the French and English did so. And as of that time, the Germans had only attacked us indirectly, at sea. Of course, the Japanese attack on the USA in Hawaii prompted all this action.

This article is not a sales pitch for declaring war on who or what. It is a sales pitch for the National need to have a debate about declaring war sooner rather than later. The acrimonious non-partisan atmosphere in D.C. is why. And the Congress passed a more narrow authorization to attack Iraq back in October 2002, and incredibly are still arguing about all that. This article is also a sales pitch to not let a narrow group of executive and congressional leaders get us into some covert war in the Middle East. This article is a sales pitch to have this debate before the 2008 elections. Covert is what the weak enemies do as their best course of action. Overt is what a big country like the USA does as its best course of action.

Of course few things in life are black or white, rather they are grey. That idea political leaders: elected, appointed, and hired, can drive a train through, and have. Being squishy has worked in the past, so why not in the future. The answer is the well-being of our Nation in the future. Americans are not squishy people when it comes to war, diplomacy, and the commitment of our children. Not without a vote. The present arisen ruling elite should pay attention. Their children do.

It is time for a Congressional debate in D.C. about our National Interests in the Middle East. It is time for an up or down vote on a declaration of war. Non-binding senses are squishy. Letting our national leaders off the hook by all that has gone on before is water over the dam. Most think Americans will still fight for our way of life, that is anything in our National Interest. (After all some minority group of Americans, between 1/6 and 1/4, are always anti-war.) This debate should be framed around our Middle East interests, national and vital national interests. The debate will probably lead to debating the terrorist threats which are world-wide. The outcome is uncertain, but that is what leadership is all about. One hopes our present leaders recognize all this benefit of debate, and are up to it. The 2008 elections may be more monumental than first predicted. However this idea sorts out, it will be national. Talk about a sense of the people. The old fashioned word is the vote.

*from Wikipedia