America has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and even more our resolve. Our nation is patient and steadfast. We continue to pursue the terrorists in cities and camps and caves across the earth. We are joined by a great coalition of nations to rid the world of terror. And we will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass murder. Now and in the future, Americans will live as free people, not in fear, and never at the mercy of any foreign plot or power. -- George W. Bush, 9/11/2002.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world. -- Natan Sharansky, 4/24/2006
It is, indeed, a war that one might believe only a Wilsonian Democrat was capable of starting. But it was not Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson who ordered the march on Baghdad; it was President Bush, who had previously proclaimed his contempt for “nation-building” in foreign places, only to embark on one of this country’s greatest nation-building crusades. -- Jon Harrison, August 2006
I'm not into celebrating the anniversaries of national tragedies, like all other media seem to be doing today, however it does seem like a good time to see where the last five years have taken us. It is important to understand why there is such a distinction being drawn between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Most Patriots would agree that the correct response to 9/11 is to raze Afghanistan and wipe Taliban from the world's vocabulary. For good measure, a total decimation of Al Qaeda seemed necessary. In short, slapping down our enemies and anyone who looks like them is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. It sends the right message at the right time to the terrorists.
Now, here's the thing. I don't give a damn whether Iraq becomes a democracy. I don't think it is at all necessary for us to define the type of republic Iraq should become. Nobody over there is ever going to like or trust a government established by a foreign country, let alone the US of A. Sure, we have total faith in the way we do things, but hey, it's their country; let them sort it out on their own. The quicker we leave it to their collective judgement, the quicker they will find peace. Now, I know what you are going to say: "The region will deteriorate into civil war and chaos when we leave". Guess what? That will happen whether we leave in 2008, or 2018, or 2118. This is a godless society that may never recognize truth, faith, and fundamental freedom. They certainly won't be more inclined to embrace it just because we are camped out in their back yard.
Do I have a problem with what happened to Saddam? Not at all. He was begging to be taken out. The Iranians and Syrians are doing pretty much the same. Does it have to be us doing the dirty work? Probably so. But, we don't need to be putting up oil wells, roads, and schoolhouses everywhere we go. This Wilsonian view of George's (i.e., make the world safe for democracy) is going to make matters worse for some time. After further review, I have concluded that the healing does not start until we go home.
Yes, we need to continue to eradicate terrorists, and a few taped phone calls don't make me nervous at all about our essential freedoms (It's funny how many of our laws really only protect the guilty). I assure you our freedoms are being more insidiously attacked in other areas than in this one. We did it to ourselves by letting the government get as big as it is. The solution to that is to retire 80% of the government, but then that would put the average congressman's best friends out of work. I digress.
If, as it appears to me, all of our enemies are terrorists, we should do everything we need to do to defeat them. This means "profiling". This means "stealth bombing". This means necessary and messy miltary ops. But there should be no question of what our military should be used for. It is not an orphanage. It is not a bridge building crew. It is not a diplomacy entourage. I'm not asking for a "timetable" I'm simply noting that the parts of this mission that are related to nation building are fundamentally flawed.
2 comments:
There is actually a significant point upon which we are in agreement. I can't begin to delineate it until we get clear on one thing, however: George Bush seized the White House and held it through treachery and force. Nothing he does represents the United States, and no doctrine of his deserves respectful consideration from the civilized world.
But having gotten that out of the way, here's the thing: you're right about the war on Iraq. Nothing good will be done there until the U.S. withdraws its troops and its bases. The Iraqis are not going to let it happen. And really, why should they? If Iraq invaded the U.S. and overpowered our armies and took over our institutions, I hope to hell we would fight back with snipers and car bombs. We'd be a sorry bunch of patriots if we didn't!
Can't agree with you on either point. George won a couple of elections for one simple reason: the opponents were more deeply flawed than he was.
As for patriots, if they were attacking the US troops they'd get a little sympathy. Instead, they are blowing up the innocents. That makes them about as patriotic as John Wayne Gacy.
Post a Comment