Before We Pull Out of Iraq...
Please consider the article by Victor David Hansen, Back to the Future in the Middle East.
He seems very even handed in passing blame on all government leadership for the last 30 years. We are in the Middle East morass because of both Republican cynicism and Democrat appeasement. With thirty years of errors, we need to consider future actions in Iraq that will overcome and correct these past errors. We must look beyond the political ramifications for either party who are eager to maintain or acquire political power.
On a different note, I'm tiring of politics. You may discover that I'll be moving off in an entirely different direction. Stay posted!
posted by Underground Logician @ 8:27 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
30 years isn't far back enough, brother.
Article 1
Article 2
When we see that our policies of intervention are the cause of our problems, the answer is not revising those plans to have more intervention.
The answer is to switch to non-intervention.
I see...non-intervention. Please clarify. By non-intervention, do you mean we remove ourselves completely from the region?
Please explain.
Well if by "ourselves" you mean all the people wearing little army uniforms carrying big giant guns and grenades than yes. All of them. Not just the region, but the World. Close down the bases, bring home the carriers. Protect OUR borders.
Be neutral, like the Swiss. Like before the 20th century in America.
Oh! You mean the military! Thanks for your condescension. I would never would have understood what you meant should you have used big words. Sounds very utopian.
I suppose if we had a global government that had the ability to force the hands of all armies everywhere to go to their respective countries and stay put, your plan could possibly work. Would that mean then, that the United States would have to give up some of its sovereignty to follow the dictates of such a global entity? Or, would we be better off doing away with the U.S. government all together?
Your turn.
Addendum: Also, does your plan include the Islamic Jihadists in their little Jihadist army uniforms and big guns pulling back to their borders too? Also, what if they don't want to follow your plan?
Addendum B: Could you also continue to use small words? I find it very helpful. Thank you.
Oh! You mean the military! Thanks for your condescension. I would never would have understood what you meant should you have used big words.
Oh calm down brother, I meant no condescension. I realize I do come across as a bit sarcastic at times but no harm meant really.
I only differentiated because when you say "ourselves" you could mean many things like trade or foreign relations, both of which I'm not opposed to. I'm simply opposed to military interventions. Sorry if I offended.
I suppose if we had a global government that had the ability to force the hands of all armies everywhere to go to their respective countries and stay put, your plan could possibly work.
No, not global government. In fact part of the plan for non-intervention would be pulling out of the world government organizations like the UN, or NAFTA, the WTO. Again, this is simply a neutral position militarily. We'll defend our borders, not Iraq's or South Korea's or even Israel's.
Also, does your plan include the Islamic Jihadists in their little Jihadist army uniforms and big guns pulling back to their borders too?
No, my plan doesn't include other countries, terrorist groups, or rouge factions. They'll have to make up their own minds and handle their own problems. Though if you study what these jihadists want, you'll see that us pulling out of all these countries would effectively end their fight. In other words if we're not IN Saudi Arabia, Osama Bin Laden can't get the recruits and money he needs to conduct operations.
I see your point and I withdraw my animus.
I will have to consider your points for a bit, for they seem valid from a "just war" perspective. However, there is the other side of justice as well, which, at this point, I'm trying to clarify. As the world's lone superpower, either by expectation of ours or of other countries, we are called upon to defend and assist other countries who are incapable of defending themselves from rogue nations. In other words, we have friends. Do we pull back all assistance to these other countries? My first thought for the present is Israel, and then Darfur. Do we withdraw our support from Israel and let the Arab nations blow it off the map?
I see what you are saying, but I think it is a "self-centered" foreign policy to the extreme.
Your thoughts?
There's certainly no logical argument to suggest that Israel is under any sort of threat of being "blown off the map" by third world Islamic countries.
That aside, and just taking the notion that we are the World's only so-called "super power" at face value, do we have the moral responsibility to protect other nations?
Well, how about do we have the moral authority? If we do, where did this authority derive from? Is it in our Constitution? After all, when we say "we", we are not referring to the collective society of individuals who make up America, but the ruling elite class who are suppose to be limited by our written constitution. Right?
More so, isn't it true that all of these interventions for the sake of "good will" have unintended consequences? Or blow back? Indeed every venture or crusade we've embarked on has come back to haunt us, whether it was our involvement in WWI leading to the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding rise to power of one Adolph Hitler or something smaller like the overthrow of the democratically elected shah in Iran that led to Iranian's hijacking US flights in the 70's.
Or our needless occupation of "holy" sites in Saudi Arabia that led to 15 hijackers (they were Saudi's, not Iraqi's or even Afghanis) to fly planes into our buildings.
What's the culmination of all this intervention? Where does it end? Is the World ever really going to run out of monsters to find and chase through caves and mountains?
What's the point? Really? And most importantly, under what guise can such large government operations be considered "conservative"?
Scott:
I understand your frustrations, some of which I share. However, what you propose seems flawed as well, but deserves discussion.
First, moral authority really truly exists; I'm unsure if the general populace can can truly see it as a reality. Relativism has taught us well; it refuses the existence of any overarching moral authority except the morality of tolerance. This "tolerance" has no backbone to face the threat that Jihadism poses. While relativism is busy tolerating, Jihadism is plotting to destroy. This is, in my opinion, the greatest external threat to Western Civilization.
The West has become bloated and hedonistic, which as I see it, is incapable of handling this Islamic threat. Guns, bombs and war may curb its advance, but the real battle is in people's minds.
I don't place a whole lot of trust in a government's capacity to act under a moral authority, conservative or not--unless its leaders are moral. With corruption so prevalent, morality typically get swept under the rug for the sake of political and economic expediency.
As to your pragmatic reflections, however imperfect the results of some attempt by government, or military of that government to act morally, it is better to attempt a moral response and secure the mayhem caused by the Bush Doctrine than to withdraw as you suggested earlier because of its flaws. There are negative effects from an isolationist foreign policy as well, which often can be catastrophic to those who stand in the way of the power seekers. The rise of Hitler and Europe's and America's non-response should be an excellent example to learn from.
Regarding the endless supply of "monsters," we too, must be relentless in our vigilance. As Vince Lombardi said often and with great passion, "Fatigue makes cowards of us all." I'm hoping we learn from our mistakes, including the weaknesses of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war and nation rebuilding. However, let's not create another mistake similar to the Viet Nam withdrawal with the possibility of a bloodbath. How descicable and detestable a situation that would be, when we look back and say, "Gee, although the Bush Doctrine had flaws, we shouldn't have given up as we did."
The greatest threat to Western Civilization is in fact internal...the west itself. The rot of hedonism, relativism, materialism, and economic, ecological and moral irresponsibility has rotted the foundation of our culture, the individual and the family. There is tremendous need for reform in our personal lives, which, if done rightly, will eventually trickle into the political arena. If this reform doesn't happen, in my opinion, you can kiss the West goodby in two generations.
Your thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home