Hi KLP. After reading your last post I can see where we misunderstand each other but not why. g.
You write: I think the bottom line here is: Do you believe that the terrorists when their leaders say they intend to try to destroy our way of life, or don't you?.... If one doesn't believe them, and doesn't want to see what they are doing on a daily basis, then I guess one just goes on as one did on 9-10, not seeing, not reading, not hearing anything much around them.....Sometimes, I feel like you do. Why are we doing this? We could just go home, and pull the blankets over our heads and pretend nothing is happening around us, and that all is well.
But we agree. I believe there are leaders of terrorists who want to destroy our way of life, or at least impact it in ways that will make us change our policies. I believe that we shouldn't continue the policies in place on 9/10 and I don't believe in pulling blankets over heads and pretending.
The fact that I'm convinced that invading and occupying a Muslim country under the banner of preventing terrorism or self defense from wmds is counterproductive, doesn't mean that I'm not cognizant of the mounting dangers of anti-US directed terrorism. It's only the "my way or the highway" people like Limbaugh who paint such black and white pictures of the dissenters to the war in Iraq.
In fact, if you'll read my post carefully you'll find that I never said anything to indicate that I advocated a do nothing approach. What I do advocate is taking EFFECTIVE steps in fighting the war on terror. That means ceasing the INEFFECTIVE actions that have exacerbated the already substantial dangers of terrorism and that means substituting policies that have long term probabilities of success for policies that are emotional, short sighted and based on naive or magical thinking instead of pragmatic realism.
Remember that on 9/12 we were fighting a handful of zealots who were desperately attempting to create a clash of cultures. Those zealots were successful in striking us hard, in part because of the ineptitude of security agencies who had the information but not the brains to stop them. On 9/12, however, we weren't facing a huge level of condemnation from most populations of the world, we weren't dealing with wholesale radicalized Muslim populations and we weren't sinking a huge amount of our brainpower, manpower and resources into the morass in Iraq. We are now and we're told that the support for terrorism throughout the world is growing. Why? We'd better take a long, hard look at our actions and their results. How could we have addressed these problem more wisely?
First we could have given the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan an ultimatum to reject the terrorists hiding behind their sovereignty or face the consequences. We did that.
Second, we could have removed that uncooperative government with as little harm to the innocent population as possible, and I think we did a pretty good job of that.
Third, we could have used the resources of the nations of the world, the good will of the populations of the world and a some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq resources to formulate mutually acceptable international laws dealing with terrorism and the capture, custody and punishment of terrorists. We could have focused on fostering and securing international cooperation and effective procedures to sniff out, neutralize and control organized terrorist networks while drastically improving the ineffective law enforcement bureaucracies that failed us prior to 9/11. We could have spent billions doing good things and promoting good will, not just from the governments of the important nations but also from the people. Instead we invaded and occupied a Muslim country under false pretenses and we've been sending pictures of Americans in uniform and dead bodies of women and children all over the rest of the world. That's an unforgivable error in judgement and we will bear the cost over the next decades.
And we do need the willing cooperation of the nations of the world. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say you're a law enforcement officer in New Orleans and you're suffering from crimes perpetuated by a criminal organization based in LA. How do you address that problem effectively? Do you try to long distance it with minimal contacts and little authority from New Orleans? No,you do everything you can to secure the aid and cooperation of the city of LA. and if you don't get it you're screwed.
But what did we do to secure the invaluable aid of those who could help us from the areas where the dangerous organizations exist? We blew it, we further alienated their people and the institutions that could operate effectively on our behalf and now we're forced to attempt to "solve" the problems from afar. They may give us lip service but things happen like the Cole bomber somehow "escaping" as well as the head of the Taliban, and it seems that our "intelligence is limited." Bin Ladin is still at large, even with tens of millions of dollars reward money on his head but note, however, that the man behind the attempted killings of the Pakistani leader WAS caught.
So the bottom line is that Americans who are just as concerned with protecting America as you are can disagree with policies that add fuel to the fire and lead nowhere. Supporting destructive policies that fly in the face of international law, the incur the distrust and hatred of much of the world and that are ineffective is not anti-American, in fact exercising the right to oppose such policies publicly is the hallmark of America. It's too bad that our leadership in Congress, on either side of the aisles, doesn't have the wisdom or the courage to do so.
Re: In one paragraph, you seem concerned that our leaders aren't sending their children to war. Do they have any children that are of age to go to war? Do you think you should send the Bush daughters to war? Who exactly do you think isn't going that should be going?
Yes, if the Cheney's the Bush's and others think that going off to fight in Iraq is heroic thing that's necessary to protect this country, then why aren't their children or grandchildren volunteering. The military is paying huge signup bonuses to "encourage" volunteers, both men and women. I'm sure there's room for the Bush twins. In WW11 we had lots of sons and daughters of the rich, powerful and famous who served. Joe Kennedy died over Europe and John Kennedy was wounded in the Pacific. Maybe they weren't as high a proportion as the rest of us, but they made up a significant percentage. Is it only "noble" for the powerless to serve? Why don't those families put their children where they put ours, in front of harm's way. Or maybe Iraq's not such a "noble" cause that their families would be willing to spill the lifeblood of their children?
Re: How can we expect they, (Iraqis) as a group, immediately know they want freedom and deserve it? Rather than understanding freedom "is a cause worth dying for", they are used to hiding, and getting out of harm's way if possible. It was the way they survived.
The problem with that argument is threefold. First, there are many fighters among them who seem not to have had their balls cut off by what you term 30 years of "brutal dictatorship." The Iraqis held their own fighting the Iranians in that war and there are a significant number of them who are willing to fight against the odds fighting Americans.
Second, that reasoning applied to the Iraqis is similar to the thinking of those big hearted people who excuse criminals because "their environment made them what they are." The sad truth is that they ARE what they are and unless they want to change that's what they'll remain.
The third and more important issue, however, is that we don't have years to give them backbone. The modern history of occupations reveals that the longer the occupations last the stronger the resistance becomes. You can't push that string and no matter how many times you find reasons for failure, the failure will persist.
And harsher measure will not lesson the resistance. Take a careful look at the terrible price the Russians have made, and are making the Chechnyan's pay and then ask how safe that's made the Russians.
Re: BTW, speaking of "freedom is a cause worth dying for..." do you think it is? I know you have been in the Military, and I certainly do think you would have an opinion about that. I'm not so sure that many of our own citizens fully understand and are willing to act on that understanding.
Yes, MY FREEDOM is certainly worth my fighting for. I could never willingly tolerate the taking of my freedom. That's my point, however, freedom belongs to those willing to sacrifice for it, even to die for it. In the face of religious differences, cultural differences and stiff ideologically based resistance, if foreigners have to fight for the freedom of a majority of people who won't fight for it, then you're wasting your time.
Finally, the differences between post WW11 and Iraq are marked. The similarities between the Russian experience in Afghanistan, the French experience in French Indochina (Vietnam), and our own early experience in Iraq are notable. There are many distinctions on the one hand, and parallels on the other that can be drawn but that would be a long post. g.
If 9/11 woke you up, then maybe the storm that will come if we persist in the Bush doctrine of crude force, unilateralism and intimidation will really wake you up. It's a big world and with today's readily available killing technology, we're just a little part of it. Ed
|
