Post Election Musings and Wrong Directions
I spent last evening with a low grade depression. Never before in my life have I felt the after effects of an election as profoundly as I have felt this one.
Why do I think this election was so important? Because I see a direction being taken for our country that I think is dangerous. Because I’m afraid that this administration will take the victory and claim it is a mandate of the people. When, in fact, he got over barely 50% of the vote.
If you or I were in an election with our friends and families voting and we got just over barely 50% of the folks voting, we would feel that we would need to do some consensus building.
I’m afraid that this administration will take its “mandate” and open up the “activist” foreign policy – meaning expanding the war. If you want to learn more about the neo-con’s activist military positions you can listen to interviews of David Frum and Richard Pearle who wrote the book, “An End to Evil,” at these sites:
WBUR On Point interview:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/01/20040109_a_main.asp
KUOW Weekday interview:
http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=4956
You can either look at their stance as bold or dangerous. I tend toward the latter. I think that if you examine the war in Iraq in detail, you will see that there is a true lack of understanding of the culture in the Mid East. This failure to examine the affects and backlash of an occupation of Iraq is evident in the increase of casualties of our troops and the utter lack of safety civilian contractors are experiencing.
The hawkish neo-cons stance is to expand our foreign policy by use of military might rather than through diplomacy or cultivating multi-national efforts. They base their premise on the fact protecting our country gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. They feel that the only way to defeat the terrorist is to take the war to them. I think that Israel has been attempting this stance for 40+ years and look where it’s got them – suicide bombers on buses and in markets on a regular basis.
It’s my opinion that this will further erode America’s political standing in the world and take away any moral high ground we had. (But, in all reality, almost all of that high ground was lost when we prosecuted a pre-emptive war in Iraq.)
We don’t have the military might. I can see that our military is already at a breaking point. If they do an dramatic expansion of our military efforts (invade Iran), then a draft will be mandatory.
Well, that’s my limited take on the foreign policy ramifications of these election results. What do you think? Are you as depressed as me?
posted by Random @ 9:07 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Spoken like a pinko-communist, terrorist loving pig.
You hate america.
You hate the flag.
You hate our troops.
S.S.
Totally unfair comment by S.S.
I do not agree with your point of view, but that doesn't mean that I think you hate America -- any more than I do, and I certainly do not.
I appreciated your post on my blog (rifled), and thought I'd return a comment in kind.
I see your thoughts and wonder what it is about the terrorist threat on America that does not register with you the same way that it does with me.
You listed Saving Private Ryan as a favorite movie, and I concur. So you must know something about WWII, and understand how our involvement in Europe was to prevent attack on our homeland. Operation Torch, the first offensive action in the European theater was directed at invading two soverign, peaceful nations, heretofore friends of the USA, Algiers and Morocco, in order to establish a foothold in northern Africa -- a strategic move to put our forces in the middle of hostile territory. I see Iraq as exactly the same principle, it is a pawn in the middle of the Islamo-extremist wasteland of the middle east. If a democracy can thrive in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a chance of turning the now-ingrained anti-American forces at work there.
I am sorry that we cannot see eye-to-eye on this. But by talking rationally about it, we can at least better understand each other's point of view. Not by calling people "America Hater" and other divisive tripe, you do not deserve that and it is shameful.
Blog on!
Brian:
Thanks for coming to my defense.
Before more of the civil discourse...
"Saving Private Ryan" changed my life. That sounds like a hyperbole, but it did. When I saw that movie, I got a portrait of courage, of sacrifice, and of the substance it takes to come to the aid of the world.
I just finished "Band of Brothers" (All ten episodes) on DVD (and had read the book) and it was just more elaborate portrayal of the same heroic elements of "Saving Private Ryan."
I'm sure you've seen "Band of Brothers," but if you haven't go out and rent it. (or buy it)
Anyway, at the on-set of the war, I was a supporter and for very different reasons that WMD, Saddam's aid to terrorists, and the protection of the U.S. by going on the offense in Iraq. I supported the war because I felt it was time for the Iraqi people to be liberated from the terrorist oppression of Saddam.
Frankly, it comes down to me hating "bullies." I know that sounds like a childish way to put it, but he was a bully of monumental proportions and on a tragic scale.
Now, am I having a crisis of conscious? Maybe. Shouldn’t my convictions stay the same? My principle defense of the war was the liberation of the Iraqi people. As the most powerful and the most prosperous nation on the earth, I think it is a our moral responsibility to defend the defenseless.
[Side Note: I thought Clinton was gutless for pulling out of Somalia. But then again, I think the American involvement was botched when they turned a humanitarian support effort in a military engagement.]
But again, why am I waffling now? I think that the war has been terribly prosecuted and there was a fundamental failure to see down the road far enough to see the ramifications of occupying a country in the Mid East. Now, you may say that these guys are experts in this area and they know so much more than some middle aged dofus in Ohio, but if this is the case, then why are things over there so terrible right now?
Even a middle aged dofus like myself could see that it was going to be a long, hard road and that it wouldn’t be easy.
Now, taking a broader view, I can say that I admire the hawkish semi-plan of the neo-cons advising Bush. They envision a plan in which we use American military muscle in the Mid East (and around the world) to re-shape the world. The problem is that what they have is only a “plan.” Execution is so much more complex and difficult and, frankly, I don’t think we can, or should, attempt to pull it off.
I read an article in Foreign Policy magazine a couple months after 9/11 and it stated that if the U.S. was to go into the Mid East, it would most likely should or have to go it alone (or with limited allies like Britain). It also stated that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to the U.S. After the Golf War, his army was fairly well decimated. U.N. inspectors were combing the country and tracking down anything suspicious.
I agree with this article because it seems obvious. If Saddam was a threat and was attacked by the dominate forces of the U.S. (and allies) what better time to deploy the threat of WMDs? He had nothing to loose. His country was about to be taken from him. He would most likely be killed or at least captured, then killed. If he had them, why didn’t he use them?
As for links to terrorism, the vast majority of the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia. Syria in know to aid and abet terrorists. Iran is building a nuclear threat. Why Iraq – when it wasn’t the threat?
This is why I have shifted my sentiments. I don’t feel safer with Saddam out of power. The Iraq war has been a terrible distraction from what I feel should be the real objective – rooting out terrorists and exterminating the threat. Now, some may argue that starting in Iraq was a good idea, but I don’t think it’s a defensible argument. Hussein was not a threat. Al-Qaeda is the threat and other terrorist organizations.
If you look at self-interest and U.S. interests, I think we are creating an increase amount of animosity in the world against the U.S. Now, you may say, how worse can the threat be by citing 9/11. Well, I think it can get worse. The constant state of semi-war in Israel is evidence that fighting terrorists is an on-going and tragically difficult effort.
The world may be a better place without Saddam, but we are not safer.
Well, gotta wrap it up.
Thanks for coming to my Blog. Perhaps we can exchange some more civil arguments. God bless, America.
Think first, act later,
Random
Random-
I really disagree about our safety level in regard to the Iraq situation. The beauty of that situation, if you can say that, is that the terrorist/jihadists are funneling in there ... like rats walking the power lines, and we're sitting in our backyard in a chez lounge with a .22 picking them off. That's grossly understated and simplistic, but that is in effect what is going on. Yeah there may be more terrorists in Iraq now than when the war began, but that's the key, they're in Iraq. I see this as an incredible side effect, in all likelihood not planned or foreseen by our administration. But no matter what the circumstances that lead to that particular bit of grace, it is sparing us undo grief here at home.
If you can believe the numbers quoted about the number of Al Qaeda that we've "interned" (either to Gitmo or a dirt nap), they are saying 75% of the leadership has been taken care of in three years.
This seems like a math problem that is just too obvious to bring up. 3 years ... 75% ... 25% a year ... hmmm.
Now as a computer performance engineer I live the 80/20 rule, so I believe that the last 20% of these vermin will be the ones that literally melt into the countryside and we'll likely only get them as a consequence of some other action and over the course of many, many years, like tracking down the Lockerby bombers.
To the Saddam issue specifically I'd like to bring up the media-buried 1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by Clinton ... which was written almost to the letter of your concern about Saddam Hussein. Clinton signed it, Bush acted on it. 12 years, countless UN resolutions (and the whole background Oil For Food corruption), and we finally did something instead of just talking about it. It is no surprise that his weapons and nuclear program got shipped out, Radar O'Reilly style, one piece at a time.
Also, Libya disarming is a stellar example of how this administrations policy in the middle east can work and is working. Who's next, Iran? Probably. Korea? In all likelihood. China? Let's hope not, that situation is beyond comprehension, and hopefully Bush's multi-lateral strategy and cooler heads will prevail. The US is doing what it needs to do to ensure our security. We can talk about preparedness and preemptive action all day long, but when it all comes down to it, I will do what I need to do to ensure the safety and security of my family and myself, and if I thought that meant that we had to pick up and move because our city was unsafe (thank God that's not the case), we'd move as soon as we possibly could. If that means that we have an alarm system in our house or me legally carrying a firearm as a defensive weapon, so it shall be. The point is that even though my kids may not understand why daddy has a lump in his shirt, God forbid the day comes that a goblin tries to assault, attack, kidnap or otherwise threaten the life of anyone in my family and I have anything to do about it, justice will be done. I see the President in this exact same position, but on a scale and magnitude that I cannot truly appreciate -- as half his "kids" (55+million of them) would like to see him divorce mommy and leave town. Sorry for the sappy metaphores, but to me this is an issue of offense, defense, and whatever it takes. 9/11 didn't change the world, it forever changed our perspective and I think we're doing the right thing for America and the World.
You make many understandable points brother, but we may just have to agree to disagree when all is said and done.
...oh, and on the 'Ryan and Band Of Brothers fronts, no, I totally agree and we own both. Amazing work by Spielberg and Hanks (et al).
The opening D-Day sequence, even thinking about it, leaves me in a cold sweat. That image of the Germans in the bunkers with the MG42's just mowing down our boys (and the Canadians, French, Britons, et al) as they stumbled out of the landing craft ... uhh. And the scene when the staff car pulls up to Mrs. Ryan's house, I weep just thinking about every mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, wife and child that has lost their loved one in war.
War is a direct byproduct of man's sinful nature ... either men are attacking others out of hatred, intolerance, or just avarice -- or all of the above, or you're forced to war out of self defense. If it were not for the former, our involvement in the latter would not be necessary. It's a tragedy of our condition.
Blog on!
S.S. here. Folks my first post was a personal joke between me and my brother the owner of this blog. I'm his liberal brother who lives in LA and we like to make jabs at each other. I did it because I didn't think anybody else would be stopping in at his blog, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for starting a bruhaha.
By the way, I keep wondering how I'm going to live through four more years of the monkey and his trainers.
take care
S.S.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home