Points of view:
From my previous post, I attempted to frame the discussion, of our need to get out of Iraq, in terms of what are our intentions are from a strategic, tactical, and logistic point of view. Whether you are a hawk or dove, red or blue, whether you have an interest because a loved one is serving, or are an uninvolved concerned citizen, in order to try to determine what we should do next, you need to determine for yourself, what your expectations are.
Should we, the American people, be the baby-sitters of the world, the caring mentor of common sense, or the provocateur of revolution and civil war?
Can we buy-off the world's countries from making decisions that we feel are self-defeating? Can we save the world from disease and pestilence? Can we protect all those that choose a religion that is based on cultural beliefs that are based in tribal and nomadic perseverance in hostile economic and geographical existences?
In 1823 we, the United States, ascribed to what was called the Monroe Doctrine (a policy in which we declared that we would only involve ourselves in the world's affairs if the world's countries injected their arguments on us or our lands). This doctrine has been superseded many times, for what has been perceived as 'in the best interest of our common good'. Examples such as the Mexican-American war, World War I and II (due to our allegiance with Britain and France), in the furtherance of global peace and protection of our allies. But when did we 'start' inserting ourselves in other's battles and civil disputes. From my perspective, the first instance was Korea, the second Viet Nam, and on, and on, and on, since then.
So what did we learn? We learned that we can amass the most significant war machine the world has ever known. We have the most technologically advanced weapons, the best trained soldiers, and more money than god, to throw at any country we want to change the status quo of. But for all of those attributes, how has it all worked out? North and South Korea are still in the midst of a civil war, only separated by a US/UN supervised DMZ with no resolution anticipated in our lifetime. The Viet Nam debacle will live in infamy as our first and only complete defeat.
We have inserted ourselves in numerous other small skirmishes, some of which were successes due to our overwhelming size and power, but in most cases the outcome is only assured by our long term occupation and support of the government we inserted.
The case I make here, is that a 'much more faithful' adherence to the Monroe Doctrine would have been much more beneficial to our Country's security and economic development.
Now that I have digressed to our country's earliest views on how we should conduct ourselves, I will attempt to apply some of those thoughts to the current conflagration.
Adages:
Break/Buy: Our country was defined by, and created in a struggle to not be controlled by an imperial power, that had as it's major goal to utilize the resources of our country without due process, and the acknowledgement of the rights of those that provided the service that developed those resources. The analogy has merit in that we have interjected ourselves into the sovereignty of Iraq. We did this to protect our interests in an economic product, and that act has caused us to buy-in to the protection of the resource, or deal with the consequences, as Britain was forced to do, at the time of our independence.
Vacuum: The reasoning behind James Monroe's Doctrine was an understanding that by extending oneself into other's conflicts, it detracts from our ability to develop the most beneficial state of existence for the people for which our federation was created. And, with the realization that (even in the 1820's) we do not live in a vacuum. If someone was to attack us, then we are duty-bound to protect ourselves. That would be the equal reaction. Conversely, of course, if we attack another sovereign nation, we must assume they will also employ a defense equal to the threat.
Horse to Water: What is our responsibility to re-create other governments in a likeness of our own? It is with the original design of our own ruling document, The Constitution and it's amendments, that we acknowledge that our form of government was not perfect upon it's original publication. Further, in this period of turmoil, while trying to deal with warring forces that no longer take the shape of country vs. country, we find that there is great debate about some of our constitutional protections regarding privacy and security of our homes and personal privacy. As the wars become religious jihads, the method of securing peace against our attackers requires methods and tactics that were not envisioned by our Constitutional authors. At the time of our establishment as a country, tribal war as in Europe, in the middle ages, had long since passed, And, our personal war against the tribal, indigenous Indian natives of our country, was easily dismissed by force and deceit. So the question remains, if we don't have a static form of government, that has a history of being able to bend and meld itself, even to threats from within, from indigenous people or from immigrants and guests, how can we make an assumption that our form of government is more appropriate for another country than what existed before our presence?
The only long-term, centralized, forms of government, in the middle east, have been in the form of Sheikdoms or monarchies. Even they are based on a dominant tribal position that was inclusive of, but larger than, a sect of Islam, such that dissenting sects chose to settle in other more accepting locations. This has been the history and culture of a constantly warring, nomadic, and missionary existence of the Islamic people. What has worked, for millennia, are benevolent or tyrannical dictatorships. How can we make the leap of faith of hoping to install our form of government that is both inappropriate and in direct sectarian conflict with the tenants of their religion (even the peaceful Muslims).
What conclusions can I draw from my, perhaps, uneducated or naive assumptions? The main conclusion is that we can apply our typical, heavy-handed methods to achieve results that, both historically and currently, we have no understanding of. What worked in the past has no parallels to the situation we have found ourselves in. The one experiment, on this scale, that we attempted to engineer a new political, cultural, and economic model, was Viet Nam, The only lesson we can take from that, is that if we had just left them alone, they would have figured it out themselves, just as our 'forefathers did'. That we interjected ourselves into a cultural and political abyss that we (read Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield) had no understanding of, is an understatement. Our goals were indecisive, poorly conceived, wholly misguided and megalomaniacal, on the part of our President. The only options we have are to realize that we have no answer in terms of how they should rule themselves. The country, as a whole, was abused, tortured, and terrorized by the threat of genocide. This was a secular fear, without regard to Sunni vs. Shii, or Kurdish, northern or southern allegiances. Just fear. Most of the countries surrounding Iraq have found a way to govern themselves in a manor that incorporates the many factions of Islamic sects, tribalism, and geographical history (not necessarily to our liking, but who cares). We need to let them decide how to govern. Prevent ethnic cleansing, yes. Protect them from outside influences and importation of weapons of war, yes. Train them to redevelop the infrastructure, including security and services necessary to rebuild a cohesive peaceful country, yes.
In the view of our leaders, all of the countries of the Middle East pose a threat to us in the form of acquisition of WMD, fomentation of terror, or a threat to our ally Israel. We need to stop trying to engineer the political, cultural and religious aspects of a part of the world we have no understanding of. Our only real friend is Israel and we should treat them as we do our children. Teach them to get along, don't pick fights, protect yourself if challenged, and don't bite off more than you can chew. If they can ascribe to that, then they deserve our the help we provide of technology and political support, that our renewed diplomatic credibility can lend.
In Part 3, I hope to provide some direct references to support some of my opinions and conclusions.
Dennis Hunt
Showing posts with label anti-war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-war. Show all posts
Friday, August 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Iraq War Exit Strategies (Part 1)
In 'till we win (G.W. Bush), orderly exit (most Democratic and Republican candidates for office), immediate and safe withdrawal (Military Families Speak Out), immediate withdrawal-screw Iraq (too many voices, with no logical plan)... These are the sentiments I most frequently hear amongst my friends and associates. So which strategy is right? None of them or all of them?
Without defining what 'win', 'orderly', 'immediate', or 'safe' mean, how can any of these policies be the best or most appropriate one? Mr. Bush seems to define a win as achieving all military and nation building objectives, at whatever the cost (because we have to stop the terrorists over there, before they come here). Our Senators and Representatives would like to define 'orderly' as whatever politically expedient way they can show support for our troops without tipping over the basket of eggs, that represent our sorrowful diplomatic status with the rest of the middle-east and radical Islam. Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization I belong to, takes a very diplomatic approach to 'immediate and safe' by wanting an immediate conclusion with the reality that we will not, in the near-term abandon Iraq, and that significant withdrawal would jeopardize those that remain. The 'screw Iraq crowd is just to uneducated about reality to spend the time trying to categorize their position.
I am not a great enough mind to develop all of the arguments on each side of these issues. But I will make some observations that color my view of the obvious arguments and how we should approach them. First, we do not live in a vacuum, and therefore for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Second, like the sign on a fine china shop says on the door, 'You break it, You own it' (I only wish Mr. G.H.W. Bush had taken G.W. to one of those shops). Third, but probably not last, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. Enough of the adages, I think the point is served, that our Leadership has undertaken choices which have an impact on our Soldiers and the American people, and will have a long lasting effect on us.
Our concerns with the war is little served by the question of 'should we have entered into a war in Iraq'? We already broke it, and now that we own it, what are we going to do with the million shards of hate, distrust, dishonesty, dis ingenuousness, deceit, and corruption that have evolved. The piece we broke was not a pretty piece (after all Saddam Hussien will go down as one of the most brutal dictators in the modern age), But it was the piece that held together the collection of all the vying parts of secular and sectarian forces together.
Perhaps, a greater issue, is the affect our decisions have had on the middle-east, in general, and our ability to deal with radical Islam, specifically. For it was radical Islam that was the rallying point of our President, that led us into this quagmire. 'Fight the terrorists over there, before we have to fight them here'. At least that was the excuse, after WMD was eliminated as a righteous excuse for invading a sovereign country. With Saddam invading and declaring wars on Kuwait and Iran, he at least proved that he was an equal-opportunity despot. His Sunni centered Baath party waged war on Sunni dominant Iran, and he was able to mollify the Shii' majority in a Sunni ruled dictatorship. What other stabilizing affects he had on other secular oriented Islamic kingdoms may be far beyond our Western understanding. What is clear is that every thing we have done to insert ourselves in the middle-east, either to support Israel against Palestine and Jordan, to support an illegal overthrow of the government, by the Shah of Iran, or to gain favor with the Saudi by selling weapons in return for bases, to monitor and control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc., has done nothing but inflame Muslims, regardless of their secular distinction. When we push one way, an Islamic force pushes back another way.
The last issue is 'nation building'. We are so naive to believe that the method we have adopted to rule our country, is so superior that it is absolutely intuitive that every other country in the world would benefit by our form of government. Democracy, in any form similar to ours, has only existed for a mere three hundred years amongst the French, English, and US. Hundreds of cultures, thousands of countries for five Milena have existed for more consecutive years, than our form of democracy. We have been quite successful showing that other forms of government don't work, but we have very little evidence that we know anything about how to 'install' our form of government. That would say to me that what does work is much more dependent on culture, than ideal. And, at best, the most we can hope for is an amalgamation of what is culturally acceptable to those that are governed, and the ideal of how those that are governed should be respected.
In Part 2 of this post I will discuss some specifics of how other's portray our strategy and how they predict that strategy will affect our ability to extricate ourselves from this debacle.
Without defining what 'win', 'orderly', 'immediate', or 'safe' mean, how can any of these policies be the best or most appropriate one? Mr. Bush seems to define a win as achieving all military and nation building objectives, at whatever the cost (because we have to stop the terrorists over there, before they come here). Our Senators and Representatives would like to define 'orderly' as whatever politically expedient way they can show support for our troops without tipping over the basket of eggs, that represent our sorrowful diplomatic status with the rest of the middle-east and radical Islam. Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization I belong to, takes a very diplomatic approach to 'immediate and safe' by wanting an immediate conclusion with the reality that we will not, in the near-term abandon Iraq, and that significant withdrawal would jeopardize those that remain. The 'screw Iraq crowd is just to uneducated about reality to spend the time trying to categorize their position.
I am not a great enough mind to develop all of the arguments on each side of these issues. But I will make some observations that color my view of the obvious arguments and how we should approach them. First, we do not live in a vacuum, and therefore for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Second, like the sign on a fine china shop says on the door, 'You break it, You own it' (I only wish Mr. G.H.W. Bush had taken G.W. to one of those shops). Third, but probably not last, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. Enough of the adages, I think the point is served, that our Leadership has undertaken choices which have an impact on our Soldiers and the American people, and will have a long lasting effect on us.
Our concerns with the war is little served by the question of 'should we have entered into a war in Iraq'? We already broke it, and now that we own it, what are we going to do with the million shards of hate, distrust, dishonesty, dis ingenuousness, deceit, and corruption that have evolved. The piece we broke was not a pretty piece (after all Saddam Hussien will go down as one of the most brutal dictators in the modern age), But it was the piece that held together the collection of all the vying parts of secular and sectarian forces together.
Perhaps, a greater issue, is the affect our decisions have had on the middle-east, in general, and our ability to deal with radical Islam, specifically. For it was radical Islam that was the rallying point of our President, that led us into this quagmire. 'Fight the terrorists over there, before we have to fight them here'. At least that was the excuse, after WMD was eliminated as a righteous excuse for invading a sovereign country. With Saddam invading and declaring wars on Kuwait and Iran, he at least proved that he was an equal-opportunity despot. His Sunni centered Baath party waged war on Sunni dominant Iran, and he was able to mollify the Shii' majority in a Sunni ruled dictatorship. What other stabilizing affects he had on other secular oriented Islamic kingdoms may be far beyond our Western understanding. What is clear is that every thing we have done to insert ourselves in the middle-east, either to support Israel against Palestine and Jordan, to support an illegal overthrow of the government, by the Shah of Iran, or to gain favor with the Saudi by selling weapons in return for bases, to monitor and control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc., has done nothing but inflame Muslims, regardless of their secular distinction. When we push one way, an Islamic force pushes back another way.
The last issue is 'nation building'. We are so naive to believe that the method we have adopted to rule our country, is so superior that it is absolutely intuitive that every other country in the world would benefit by our form of government. Democracy, in any form similar to ours, has only existed for a mere three hundred years amongst the French, English, and US. Hundreds of cultures, thousands of countries for five Milena have existed for more consecutive years, than our form of democracy. We have been quite successful showing that other forms of government don't work, but we have very little evidence that we know anything about how to 'install' our form of government. That would say to me that what does work is much more dependent on culture, than ideal. And, at best, the most we can hope for is an amalgamation of what is culturally acceptable to those that are governed, and the ideal of how those that are governed should be respected.
In Part 2 of this post I will discuss some specifics of how other's portray our strategy and how they predict that strategy will affect our ability to extricate ourselves from this debacle.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The voice of reason, who can ask the tough questions?
In the recent past I have become a devoted viewer of Charlie Rose, appearing on PBS television daily, Monday through Friday. He has interviewed, in the recent past, President Bush (3 times that I have seen), and every major political candidate including Barack Obama, Rudy Guiliani (last night for an hour), Hillary Clinton, McClain, Gore etc. Mr. Rose will ask the hard question regardless of who his guest is. I will give just one example of one his interviews featured on YouTube, of Zbigniew Brzezinski (the hawkish National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter)and his credentials as listed in Wikipedia
Please go to Charlie Rose and listen to some of his less edited interviews with some of the candidates I mentioned above. One interview I would definitely listen to is an interview with three Iraqi journalists (aired 05/14/2007) Ali Fadhil, Zeyad Kasim, and Ayub Nuri (two of the three were trained in other fields such as medicine, and gave up their practice to report the war).
Much as I would like to be able to scoop the news media, with information relating to our soldiers, the fact is that very little of what is reported, by mainstream media is either factual nor timely. Sometimes the most difficult job is to find sources of information that never makes the front page or 5 o'clock news. Charlie Rose doesn't just tell you what others want us to hear, he interviews the people that are or have been the movers and shakers of the world.
Oh by the way, a great portion of his interviews are with people in the entertainment industry, the great thinkers and writers, and anyone else that is in a position to make a mark on the world. Please join the voice of reason, and check out Charlie Rose.
Dennis
Please go to Charlie Rose and listen to some of his less edited interviews with some of the candidates I mentioned above. One interview I would definitely listen to is an interview with three Iraqi journalists (aired 05/14/2007) Ali Fadhil, Zeyad Kasim, and Ayub Nuri (two of the three were trained in other fields such as medicine, and gave up their practice to report the war).
Much as I would like to be able to scoop the news media, with information relating to our soldiers, the fact is that very little of what is reported, by mainstream media is either factual nor timely. Sometimes the most difficult job is to find sources of information that never makes the front page or 5 o'clock news. Charlie Rose doesn't just tell you what others want us to hear, he interviews the people that are or have been the movers and shakers of the world.
Oh by the way, a great portion of his interviews are with people in the entertainment industry, the great thinkers and writers, and anyone else that is in a position to make a mark on the world. Please join the voice of reason, and check out Charlie Rose.
Dennis
Friday, July 27, 2007
Military Families Speak Out
I joined this organization, due to my deep desire that my Son, and the sons and daughters, wives and husbands, of the troops, serving in Iraq, do not have to give a single ‘unnecessary’ life. But I am conflicted, as I am sure many patriots are as well. Not to say that those that who believe we should bring all of our troops home tomorrow, are not patriots. We all have different perceptions, but by virtue of the fact that this site is oriented towards Military families, we all have in common the facts that our loved ones volunteered, whether it be for personal or altruistic purposes.
Our country is founded on the basis of fair and equal treatment of all of our citizens. And when our country has inserted itself in other countries’ political and socio-economic battles, we have done so in a fair and honorable manor (at least we would like to think so). With that said, our own megalomaniac leader contributed to the overthrow of another megalomaniac leader. The only difference is that we like to think that our leader is benevolent, where we know that Saddam Hussein was anything but. The fact remains, though, that we did what we did, and cannot in fairness, walk away, with honor.
With the change in power of our legislature, to a democratic majority in both the house and senate, and the great likelihood that a democrat will occupy the White House after the next election, it is still unlikely that we will have an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops in the immediate future. With MFSO's mission statement in mind (A safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops), the key to orderly withdrawal is the definition of orderly; and the definition of safe is dependent on what we do to react to the terrorists that have inserted themselves, in the absence of secular rule that was deposed by our invasion of Iraq.
In previous posts I have tried to profile some of the issues that we face in order achieve an honorable end to the conflict we have inserted ourselves in. I have also shown battles, successes and failures, and talked about the options for long term strategic success for both our troops and the Iraqi people.
I want my son home, safely and uninjured. But, he enlisted, and re-enlisted, not for my expectations, or lack of. He has his own objectives. I only want the purpose to be just, honorable, and egalitarian. I support the goals of the MFSO organization, please support mine and allow opinions to flow freely as to how we achieve those goals.
The organization 'Military Families Speak Out', I feel, is a good forum. The problem is that the forum is quickly becoming a forum for those that feel that there is no resolution to the conflict other than an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops. This I feel, dishonors our country and the brave troops that have given their lives, and the troops that are still putting their lives on the line.
It is not our presences in Iraq that we have to have an immediate end to. It our presence without any goals and objectives or strategic planning that we have to end. That will only happen when the Bush Oligarchy is deposed and sounder minds are installed in the White House.
Get you opinions heard, join Military Families Speak Out (MFSO, and let them know how you feel.
Dennis
Our country is founded on the basis of fair and equal treatment of all of our citizens. And when our country has inserted itself in other countries’ political and socio-economic battles, we have done so in a fair and honorable manor (at least we would like to think so). With that said, our own megalomaniac leader contributed to the overthrow of another megalomaniac leader. The only difference is that we like to think that our leader is benevolent, where we know that Saddam Hussein was anything but. The fact remains, though, that we did what we did, and cannot in fairness, walk away, with honor.
With the change in power of our legislature, to a democratic majority in both the house and senate, and the great likelihood that a democrat will occupy the White House after the next election, it is still unlikely that we will have an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops in the immediate future. With MFSO's mission statement in mind (A safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops), the key to orderly withdrawal is the definition of orderly; and the definition of safe is dependent on what we do to react to the terrorists that have inserted themselves, in the absence of secular rule that was deposed by our invasion of Iraq.
In previous posts I have tried to profile some of the issues that we face in order achieve an honorable end to the conflict we have inserted ourselves in. I have also shown battles, successes and failures, and talked about the options for long term strategic success for both our troops and the Iraqi people.
I want my son home, safely and uninjured. But, he enlisted, and re-enlisted, not for my expectations, or lack of. He has his own objectives. I only want the purpose to be just, honorable, and egalitarian. I support the goals of the MFSO organization, please support mine and allow opinions to flow freely as to how we achieve those goals.
The organization 'Military Families Speak Out', I feel, is a good forum. The problem is that the forum is quickly becoming a forum for those that feel that there is no resolution to the conflict other than an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops. This I feel, dishonors our country and the brave troops that have given their lives, and the troops that are still putting their lives on the line.
It is not our presences in Iraq that we have to have an immediate end to. It our presence without any goals and objectives or strategic planning that we have to end. That will only happen when the Bush Oligarchy is deposed and sounder minds are installed in the White House.
Get you opinions heard, join Military Families Speak Out (MFSO, and let them know how you feel.
Dennis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)