Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Sober Thoughts with CheneyBush

At his press conference yesterday, CheneyBush wished Americans would "...take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq. My main job is to protect the people, and I firmly believe that if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here." Later, addressing Matthew O'Dowd's disappointment in his performance, CheneyBush said it's probably because O'Dowds's son is at risk in Iraq. "I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States."

Let's think about this soberly, then.

The enemy would follow us here.

Actually, most Iraqi insurgents and fighters will stay in Iraq. They just want the foreign occupiers to leave their country and hope that Iraqi leaders can keep the civil war from worsening. The relatively few foreign fighters will migrate from Iraq to another conflict area or perhaps they will return to their home countries and foment violence there. Either way, they'll be troublesome. Here's an opporutnity to work with allies in the region to deal with these conflicts. The United States can assist and look out for its own interests but it's in everyone's best interest for the local parties to reach agreements that are likely to last. So these enemies are likely to remain a regional issue.

No doubt some will reach higher. Osama Bin Laden surely wants to repeat his 9-11 spectactular as do any number of his allies and imitators. Some are already in America, if only in wanna-be delusions. Some are even native born, With appropriate police and intelligence work this First World nation should be able to identify, disrupt and prosecute illegal actions that threaten the health, safety and welfare of this nation. I even believe America can do this within the legal traditions and protections that have been a hallmark of our democracy for centuries. When I say good police and intelligence work, I mean actually following up on leads like the ones that came to CheneyBush's attention in the months prior to September 2001. Not distorting and cherry picking data to fabricate threats. America can do that. If CheneyBush cannot provide the necessay leadership and competence, then he is not protecting America. He is not doing his job.

National security is at risk.

Who threatens our national security in what way? We know Islamic fundamentalists mean us harm, especially when we are active in their homelands. Prior to Iraq, their attacks were sporadic but deadly: the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the Marine Barracks in Beirut. The 9-11 attack was the spectacular event that showed the ease with which a disciplined group could inflict mass casualties and sow terror. But this enemy is not so strong as to seriously threaten America's security. Even the carnage of 9-11 was a passing event. It did not threaten nuclear annihilation or permanent economic peril. Make no mistake, 9-11 had a major, long term effect on America. This nation learned that two oceans and a massive military do not guarantee protection in a globalized world. 9-11 also caused much of the nation to stop thinking and start fearing. When CheneyBush says consequences, he means "9-11". When he says security, he means "9-11". What America did not learn was how to deal with this new uncertainty.

Other threats to our national security concern me more than terrorism. America's econimic weakness in a highly competitive world, a huge debt for future generations, climate change, sustainability. All these issues seem far more of a threat than the occasional casualties of terrorism. When I see the huge amount of public resources funnelled into armaments and war, I wonder what kind of America we would have if a large chunk went instead to schools, roads, health care and other purposes that will help Americans compete in the 21st century world.

Nuclear proliferation is a national security and world security issue. Use of nuclear devices by terrorists or even recognizable states is a hazard to all. I'm pretty sure Osama would like to detonate a nuclear device in a major city. He sure won't be able to do the plane thing again. Our law enforcement and intelligence organizations will need to be very much on their toes to identify and disrupt any such plans. I believe the solution is through diplomacy that fairly addresses national interests. My preferred solution would be a nuclear free zone that includes the entire planet.

None of this seems to hinge too centrally on Iraq.

Who is The Enemy?

Another problem I have is the concept of "The Enemy". I don't like to think of anyone as my enemy. Yeah, there may be people who will not act in my best interest or even in opposition to me but I like to believe that's from circumstance rather than some implacable hatred between us. I never considered the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong as enemies, even though they might actually have killed me. Had I been Vietnamese, I would have sided with them as opponents of foreign occupation. As an American, I would oppose foreign occupation of this country. So I don't see an enemy in Iraq so much as I see nationalists. I also see greed, scheming, sectrarian bigotry and corruption among all factions, none of which is new or unique to Iraq. What is new is the chaos and violence. But it's not directed a me, only at their opponents, who are often my fellow Americans placed in the line of fire.

When Muhammed Ali was asked why he would not serve in the Vietnam war he said, "I ain't got no quarrel with those Vietcong, no Vietcong ever called me nigger." I don't have any quarrel with Iraqis. I want them to stop killing each other and Americans but I don't see their actions as based on any real enmity or hostility between our two peoples. Iraq has never threatened the United States in any way that justifies the occupation. It does neither nation any good.

Okay, George. I've given sober thought to the consequences of ending American military involvement in Iraq. I think this nation can handle them.

Back to you.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

the part of this that simply makes me crazy is that after being completely, absolutely, and totally wrong (if not lying through their teeth) about every single aspect of the iraq situation, anybody, anywhere, at any time will listen to bush when he says he's certain about what will result from withdrawal. he was certain about the weapons, he was certain about the operation being a cakewalk, he was certain that iraqi oil revenue would pay for the whole thing, he was certain that democracy would spring from the desert once he opened up a little irrigation, he was certain. . .

i'm certain that he's an idiot.

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Why can't all the politicians figure this out? I suppose because they're more concerned with covering their butts and hoping time proves them right or the public will forget.
Neil (Mark's brother)

7:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home