A Republican Congressman slimes the net with provocative words directed to a teenager. It’s not the first time and other elected officials have done it also. We pretend he doesn’t associate with Democrats and none knew of this behavior. Are we baffled the GOP leadership closed ranks around Mr. Foley until the deception was revealed?
In this election year, Iraq is another litmus test. If you believe all those generals are wrong and terrorism can be contained in Iraq, then you likely support the “stay the course” candidate, especially in a red state. If you’re an incumbent in a blue state who voted for invading, then “you were misled” and don’t support the war. It nullifies your accountability. Then there’s the minority who opposed invasion from the beginning. In the U.S. Senate, the only Republican who opposed the invasion was Senator Lincoln Chafee. So is he heralded as an independent leader or just a GOP enabler?
The reasons given for invading Iraq were to depose the dictator Saddam Hussein because he allegedly supported state sponsored terrorism and had WMD. North Korea has been selling military equipment to our enemies for decades. Their leader is a dictator whose countrymen have starved to death. He appears to have nuclear capability; yet the U.S. is not going it alone and attacking - we’re asking for more sanctions.
Wasn’t this the criteria for invading Iraq? It’s time for fundamental truths. The U.S. military is the muscle for U.S. politics. The number of U.S. combat troops is finite, with a percentage deployed around the world. This differs from total troops, most of whom are in support, not combat, roles. Nations both friend and foe know our troop strength. We would have needed almost all our combat troops to effectively closed down Iraq. This would have lead to a quicker stabilization and withdrawal.
North Korea, a rogue nation, knows our government is mired in Iraq based on lies and incompetent prosecution of the war by those not wearing the uniform. They also know our troop strength and assume we’d not attack with China to their north. They believe our capabilities and foreign support are limited and wish to expose it. So why did they detonate their bomb? They want economic and political concessions.
So, I’m outraged at the absence of indignation over the growing global implications of our presence in Iraq. Politicians are enabled by our families who see the transgressions of Mr. Foley as greater than the Iraq debacle. Strategic thinkers in Iran are assessing the same thing. They’re wondering whether we have the stomach for a draft, because the troop strength needed to sustain an Iran ground occupation would necessitate having one. So who’s accountable for the Democracy we patriotically defend before November 7? The people are the government. We need to be honest with ourselves and expect others to be honest with us or we will suffer the consequences of our selective bias.
2 Comments:
Whether or not the policy in Iraq has failed depends on what you consider to be the true goals. Our leaders can and should be forgiven if the circumstances of a war dictate that strategy be kept secret. The goals in Iraq were many, but most importantly to fight the terrorists there and not here. Has that been accomplished? So far, yes. Tell me which general is going to agree with the ridiculous notion that our full strategy should be announced to our enemies?
As a student of history you know damn well Carl that decisions are made with incomplete and sometimes faulty information. You also know that deception is used for strategic and tactical reasons and that even the American people must be kept in the dark at times and for sometimes long periods of time. Even today new information comes out regularly about things that occured during WWII and that war ended 60 years ago.
These statements do not negate the fact that certain parts of the Iraq strategy failed or that the administration should be more nimble in reacting to changes in field. Learning from ones mistakes is a sign of maturity and growth and I agree that the administration should be challenged on the future of the strategy. But that debate will never happen honestly as long as people like you continue the name calling and for certain decisions to be made without proper analysis.
Of course I forget that this isn't about honest debate, it's about politics and getting elected. You support Chaffee now because you lost. You lost, not because of your positions but because of the Rhode Island political machine. You never stood a chance in a state that is as corrupt as they come. You would be better served by moving to a larger state that does in fact entertain the views of a newcomer. New York and Massachusetts come to mind, maybe even New Hampshire since half the state is now filled with Bay Staters.
Carl, I really wish that this country could have an honest debate about the policy of pre-emptive action. That's the real story of Iraq. Should we as a nation take action to defend ourselves prior to being attacked or must we only act militarily in reaction to an attack. Clearly the history of American power gives examples of it being used inappropriately but there are also many examples of it being used wisely. It's mighty tough to know the difference beforehand, but one thing I can confidently say is that the policy of pre-emptive action becomes far more difficult if we have anything less than a volunteer, professional army. The draft will not be reinstated in the current situation and to suggest such is simply a strategy to play on people's fear instead of debating these policies honestly.
Carl, will you publish these comments? Probably not. I took the time to write them because I think you are an intelligent guy who gets it. I just don't think you are applying it properly. I am not signing it because I want you to think about who would write these words. We are not close, but we know each other and I think you have the background and intelligence to fight a better campaign but that begins with fighting it in the right venue.
The premise for your position lies with a pre-emptive attack in Iraq. In an effort to be highly objective, I can think of circumstances where preemption might be wise. This was not one of them for several reasons. (1) Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the US. (2) There still remains little evidence that Iraq directly supported terrorism. (3) The use of resources to fight an ideology in one country is clearly an antiquated strategy as is being proven in Afghanistan while we waste resources in Iraq. (4) We've increased our vulnerability and weakened our global positions with Iran and North Korea because we simply do not have world support to build coalitions or the military end strength to back another play. This is like the USSR mired in Afghanistan.
I'm not blaming, I'm displaying that our military was used incorrectly. I'm arguing that our national security is not stronger because of invading Iraq. The argument that we have not been attacked again since then is an illusion that offers two options for those making it. (1) If we do get attacked again, then it must mean we're really hurting them and we need to muster stronger resolve. But where do you take the battle? That requires better than going after a third rate dictatorship. (2) It must be working because we have not been attacked, so we ought to keep on doing this. ... and what of Madrid or London or Japan's vulnerability because a nation-state has demonstrated it's ability to launch the distance and has the armament to cause great destruction. Talk about misdirection.
I'm all about our military and I'm not about clueless leaders trying out plutocratic ideology that kills good wo/men with no clear strategy. If you want to believe it's just because the American public has no need to know... that's fine. What would it take to see it's the wrong direction?
About Chafee and Whitehouse: It's always been about character and not charisma, about corruption in Rhode Island. Who's enabling this? Just how bright does the neon sign have to be to see who backs the candidates are those who most benefit if they're elected and I do not mean the voters. That's the game that 50% are no longer even willing to play.
You know me only so well. It's not about party ideology. It's about people who are honest in their convictions even when I may not agree with them. This is why I'm replying to your comment. It's not that I agree, but I sense you believe and I respect that...
Post a Comment
<< Home