Photo via The War Zone
***
On January 28th, a drone strike in Jordan hit Tower 22, killing three U.S. service members. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, associated with Iran, took responsibility for this attack. On February 3rd, the United States bombed facilities inhabiting Iranian forces and allies in Syria and Iraq. This response caused approximately 40 deaths, which Syria and Iraq report include civilians. The U.S. was tactical in its retaliatory strike, targeting military control posts with hopes of hindering the military’s capabilities. However, U.S. President Joseph Biden was ambiguous when discussing this measure, simply stating, “They need to be positioned to respond to further attacks as well.” If the U.S. decides to move forward with increased aggression, the question is: To what degree will they do so?
Republican representatives argue that the counterattack was insufficient, claiming that it should have been done sooner, the lack of combativeness from the beginning allowed escalation, and it would be more effective to strike Iran directly (as opposed to engaging with affiliate groups). As Republican Senator Lindsay Graham stated, “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.” On the other hand, Democrats argue that the response was proportional and that there is an overall concern that anything more aggressive could send the message that the U.S. is interested in war or the continuation of violence. In light of this, White House spokesman John Kirby clarified that “the goal is to get these attacks to stop. We’re not looking for a war with Iran.”
The Biden administration must make the ideal decision for the nation. With the presidential elections coming up, all eyes are on the President, making said decision is also critical for building the image he wants to portray for his campaign. Biden must play this smart if he wants to win in 2024. Perhaps the right move is to be more aggressive to win over voters who agree that his initial counterattack was too passive. Or, maybe Biden should take the gamble, be more aggressive, and prove to the rest of the world that he will do anything to uphold the United States’ all-powerful, strong, warrior image.
What if We Stopped Playing Politics Like a Game?
Discussion of ethics has a growing seat in politics, and it is time for government representatives to start engaging in questions and conversations that go beyond the outdated political frameworks and provide us with an intellectually nuanced approach to decision-making. Instead of bantering back and forth about the degree of the retaliatory strikes, we must begin by asking ourselves, What is too far? It is necessary to contemplate this to uncover and recognize the biases that shaped the metric we rely on to find the answer. During World War II, for example, people saw atrocities that, at that time, were unfathomable. Consequently, their—and our—perception of what is “too far” has changed. Society has become more and more desensitized to violence. This can be seen in how the U.S. counterattack was considered more restrained than anticipated, as well as the fact that the U.S.’s targeting of military posts and capabilities, as opposed to seeking to cause the most significant number of casualties, came as a shock to many. And yet, this strike caused dozens of families to lose loved ones, and our current desensitization can perhaps most clearly be seen in how we still call this temperance.
While inquiring outside the bounds of society’s frameworks is uncomfortable and causes people to change, we should not fear this. It is vital to welcome evolving thoughts and opinions from politicians who ask introspective questions. They are human, too. Entertaining more ethical, contemplative, and authentic discourse in politics will also allow for humanizing conversations when talking about violence. When a human life is spoken of as a human life, it is not just a slight loss in a grand conquest for political power.
I just finished Mitch Albom’s Tuesdays with Morrie and the principles that Morrie Schwartz preaches came up a lot in my thoughts while researching and writing about this conflict. I could almost hear Morrie saying as he lifted his eyebrows, “Every society has its own problems. The way to do it, I think, isn’t to run away. You have to work at creating your own culture.” The political game narrative was so ingrained in my understanding that I would never have thought not to buy into this concept. To create our own culture, we must begin thinking fluidly and with nuance.
Only then can we properly answer the question: To what degree?
***
This article was edited by Matthew Quirindongo and Hannorah Ragusa.
