Peter Dierks, at least you're consistent. You've been sounding the same off-key tune for years and now you've hit another bad note. The article you posted is so wrong, so often, that I'm surprised that even you could find it inspiring.
First, note that it's written by a former senior KGB officer. I find it amusing that he's now waving the flag for the 30% of people in this country who still believe that we can use military force to remake the world for democracy.
Second, the article is the most obvious propaganda piece I've read recently.
He takes some undeniable facts and then uses them to support some fallacious conclusions. For instance:
Saying that the enemies of America would like to denigrate the US President in order to negatively impact American prestige in the world is undoubtedly true.
It's also true that many Americans, and particularly Democratic leaning Americans, have denigrated the current president Bush for his actions in the so called "war on terror" and, particularly, for his disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
But is it true that "those running for office [intentionally damage] America's international prestige in their quest for personal victory?" Is that the tradeoff they choose, harming the country in order to further their own political careers?
Or is the opposite true? Do opposition politicians who exercise their freedom to honestly state what should be obvious to any impartial, informed world observer have a positive impact on American prestige in the world? With this country taking what most of the civilized world sees (and probably correctly) as a turn away from the rule of law and the civilized conduct of nations, do you think that we'd have more world prestige if this country's leaders stayed mute and fell into line behind failed and failing policies?
In reality is the damage to American prestige emanating from those speaking out against the Bush policies or is the damage primarily resulting from the ill conceived and failing policies that have made the world question whether American still stands for the values the world admired in American for centuries?
Can you figure that one out?
The article is rife with other examples of poor logic and patent propaganda. This one is classic:
"The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S."
First, in order to make the end of a conflict that was killing millions of Vietnamese look like a terrible tragedy he had to inflate the casualty figures when we left. He did this by throwing in the million plus deaths in Cambodia at the hands of the Kmer Rouge; a country the US had never "helped" and that we didn't give a shit about. In fact, the ONLY country that stepped in to stop the atrocities in Cambodia was...drum roll...the communist nation of Viet Nam.
But more importantly, his statement ignores some undeniable facts.
What about our leaving Vietnam "sadly" harmed us from "protecting the world against communist ...expansion?" The Soviet Block is a distant memory, many Communist nations are our allies, Vietnam is our trading partner, Vietnamese who were refugees from Vietnam are voluntarily returning and we're no longer killing a million Vietnamese ever few years and bringing our soldiers home in body bags.
What a horrible tragedy that is...but only if you're so caught up in "win/loss" that you can't see that "losing" has a deeper meaning.
But the worst, WORST, thing about his article is found near the end.
He admittedly has NO IDEA how we could win in Iraq. He admits this saying; "I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either."
In spite of that remarkable admission he's quite certain that: "if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win."
Forgetting for a moment that it's difficult to see how "terrorism" can "win" since terrorism is an act not a noun, what is he thinking? The answer lies in his statement that:
"Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies."
So there you have it. We're fighting an enemy we can't identify, in a land where the population largely supports the side of those opposing us, with no way to effectively counter their tactics and he wants to keep fighting until they unconditionally surrender.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I'd rather hear the truth about bad policies debated, I'd rather have the world know that not all American leaders are stupid, arrogant and disinterested in the rule of law. I'd rather not be fighting blood sucking, treasury draining wars a half a world away that cannot be won and that benefit our sworn enemies, and I'd rather not hear simplistic flag waving statements from former high ranking KGB officials who turned and came here to make a living writing books.
For the last 6 years you've seemed to swallow that stuff pretty well but you might note that it's getting a little harder to find. Ed
|
