A Rational Ethical Opposition to the Iraq War
To those Americans whose love of country is not blinded by faith, political allegiance or subservience to its government, I appeal to your reason and conscience against the current ruinous path.
The Iraq War is, and has been since its inception, wrong in conception and execution, strategically, politically, economically and most importantly - morally.
A paramount principle of a civilized society is that the use of physical force may never be initiated against another person, group or government. One who initiates physical force against another or others is, by definition, a criminal. The only justification for the use of physical force is in retaliation.
Retaliation may only be used against and in response to those that have initiated physical force. The moral difference between initiation and retaliation is the difference between murder and self-defense. However, to prevent that retaliation does not degrade from an act of self-defense to mere bloody vengeance, the highest standards of objectivity, humanity and justice must be the final arbiters of its use.
If a criminal act has been committed, first the criminals must be identified and found guilty, then a measured and appropriate retaliatory response may proceed. In the case of an intruder breaking into one's home, the response may be a life-saving split second. But in the case of terrorism, operating independently of any official government, retaliation is not always as clear cut and a response must be carefully measured to avoid taking innocent life.
9-11 will forever live in infamy as a criminal act perpetrated against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter what political point one is trying to make, no matter how damaging this act may be against a government one despises, no matter how much it succeeds in terrorizing an enemy's nation. Terrorism will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.
(The ideology of militant Islam defies any moral precept, it contradicts the teachings of the Koran, which decry the taking of innocent lives. Militant Islam is fueled by the lust for power, enshrouding a doctrine of hate with a veneer of religiosity to attract its followers who confuse might with right. Take note that these characteristics are just as evil when they are embraced by our own American leaders. How many lust for power? espouse hate while claiming to be good Christians? also confuse might with right? and use the same tactic when they claim to uphold Christian virtue, yet ignore the commandment against killing at their convenience?)
Retaliation against those that perpetrated this despicable act of terrorism is not only justifiable - to act in self-defense is a moral imperative of rational self-interest to prevent future criminal acts. To do nothing would only embolden the terrorist, nothing would stop him from acting again with impunity.
The correct response would have been to identify the guilty, track them down, infiltrate their organizations and either bring the terrorists to justice when possible, or eliminate them when not. A superpower must exercise extreme discretion in the use of force and retaliation. All the resources available to bring the enemies to justice swiftly and effectively must be called upon, yet with the great responsibility of not becoming like the enemy and taking the lives of the innocent. All the military intelligence, all the spies in the field, all the satellites and high-tech resources, should be able to surgically remove the threat without collateral damage to others or our reputation as a just nation. Justice means that the guilty, and only the guilty, suffer the consequences of their actions. Retaliation means that the guilty are prevented from committing further acts of murder. Have either of these principles been respected and brought to bear?
Let history bear testament that the correct response was not taken. Instead of acting with discretion, wisdom and intelligence, the Bush administration has initiated aggression against a nation not linked to the September 11 attacks - a secular nation that was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. True - it was a nation led by a ruthless leader - a tyrant that for many years was supported by the US and a short-sighted foreign policy less interested in human rights than political expediency. Still, the evidence shows that the Iraq War and the "War on Terrorism" are unrelated. The terrorist threat was shamelessly used as a pretext for this agenda-driven war. While the true authors of the attack on our homeland have still not been brought to justice, the force and might of the United States has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for insurgency, spawned a civil war and aided the enemy in recruiting those newly fed by hate to their cause. Instead of safeguarding American lives, many were placed in harm's way and lives were needlessly sacrificed. I say needlessly, because they did not die for "freedom" or any measure of justice.
As the world watched in shock, the United States set a terrible precedent of initiating force against a weak defeated country that was not on the attack. At that moment, any moral authority that the United States ever had as a just nation, any respect for American ideals, any posturing of righteous superiority, was destroyed and our nation's honor shamed. In an instant, all the sacrifice of those revolutionary ancestors who resisted the oppression of a tyrannical empire, all the fallen who have nobly fought against those many enemies that have initiated force against America or weaker nations or allies, have been dishonored. Should another country follow the US' poor example and invade another, how can we now say they are wrong, yet the US was right?
What we Americans most despise and have fought so hard against - the aggressor nation, the United States has become.
The military intelligence that justified US action, yet could not persuade the United Nations to act against Iraq, has turned out to be flawed at best, false at worst. To act upon flimsy circumstantial evidence was an exercise of poor judgment that followed from failed moral character. No court in the nation, or the world, could conduct a trial by such poor standards. Yet, the Bush administration acted with typical indignation that their judgment should be questioned. And in another instant, the credibility of our nation vanished. Should the intelligence community ever really find weapons of mass destruction in another place and time, how could they or our nation ever be taken seriously, again?
While to some "shock and awe" was merely a media-directed slogan, to others it meant experiencing first-hand the horrors and tragedy of war. While some were killed instantly for the unlucky state of existing near military targets, others lost loved ones, or were maimed and crippled for the remainder of their lives. Collateral damage excused away lives destroyed by a nation that supposedly values life and decried the taking of innocent lives.
Strategically, I have said, this war was a miscalculation. Surely, the force and power of the most powerful military in the world quickly swept across this crippled and weak nation with blitzkrieg-like ferocity and efficiency. Would one expect any less from the self-proclaimed pre-eminent superpower? Yet, the arrogance of the "shock and awe" confidence has given way to the realism of a prolonged war of insurgency that the supposed experts did not see coming. Wrong again - wrong to assume the Iraqis would welcome the "liberators" with open arms. What deluded thinking could have possibly lead to such far-reaching miscalculations? How could anyone expect the Iraqis to welcome our army as the French did in WWII? Did anyone stop to consider that only a few years before we had been at war with this same country, incinerating and bombing into oblivion thousands of sons of Iraq - unfortunate souls who were conscripted into a tyrant's army? Did we really expect a warm reception?
The same type of deluded and foolish thinking gave rise to calling all the insurgents "terrorists". With the invasion, the enemy ranks swelled. The United States' government literally made enemies - they made enemies with those that before had no intention or opportunity of firing upon an American. I ask those of you that consider yourselves patriots: Should our country be invaded - would you not raise arms against a foreign power trying to force their way of life upon you? The honesty of your answer presents you with the degree of understanding of the meaning of insurgency.
Remember the moral imperative of retaliation - that to concede to the use of initiated force would be against the moral imperative of punishing the aggressor for his transgression. It matters not the supposed good intentions of the invader. It matters not that we are trying to give them "freedom" or democracy or any of our other Western values. When it comes to war, the invaded have the moral upper hand over the invaders, I say, the defender is on the side of right over the aggressor. Know this and understand this, for it goes a long way in explaining why the United States will never gain a decisive victory in this misguided and illegitimate war.
Though the insurgents may feel themselves doing their patriotic duty in defending their homeland from the invader, there are others who have joined in the fight who may share sentiments more closely aligned with militant Islam, many having crossed the borders from neighboring Syria, Saudi Arabia or some other Arab state. To engage the "great Satan" in holy war is the highest achievement in their twisted ideology. I speculate that the attacks on the US were done to incite exactly the type of response that was forthcoming, that the terrorists predicted the actions of "Bring them on!" diplomacy. I am saying that the United States government was drawn into a fight that the terrorists wanted. Why go to America to kill Americans, they might have reasoned, when they can kill them in the Middle East? Since dying in Jihad is a quick ticket to Heaven, they believe, then their strategy of drawing the United States' military into a fight has proven very successful with over 1,800 American soldiers killed so far and countless of their numbers dying a glorious death. For the enemy, this is a win-win situation - a losing proposition for the US military.
The foolish believe that the war against terrorism is succeeding because we haven't had an attack at home since we attacked Iraq. I am countering that they no longer have to attack us at home to kill Americans, thanks to Bush's foreign policy.
In the game of chess known as geopolitics, it appears that Bush and his administration and the US Congress have acted with the ineptitude of one that can not grasp the game of checkers.
Consider the aftereffects of 9/11: Billions spent on the bureaucracy of home security for fear of another attack, US spending billions more to fight the war, death and injuries to our servicemen and women with more to come, weakening of our standing and respect in the world community, weakening of our economy by reckless deficit spending with no end to the spending in sight. To call the terrorist strike the most successful attack on the United States would be an understatement. Sadly, it is the US response to the attack which magnifies this tragedy into a major catastrophe. Tragic to lose two great buildings and several thousand innocent lives in NY, catastrophic to plunge the US into war and cripple our great country by saddling it with debt.
My point is that the majority of the cost of 9/11 was created by our response to the attack, more than the actual attack itself. Though we did not choose to be attacked, we had the choice of choosing how to react. An over-reaction, an unjustified reaction, a wasteful reaction - was chosen over a carefully thought out and cleverly executed retaliative counter action. Is it possible that the US has underestimated its enemies and played into their hands?
Many in the US still resist pulling out of Iraq - a country that we ravaged, in effect leaving it at the mercy of competing tribal religious factions in a civil war that we provoked. But what are the possibilities of a united democratic Iraq? In a land that has no tradition of democracy, only the heavy hand of dictatorship was capable of keeping the peace, crushing insurrections with no regard to human rights. Was it ever realistic to force democracy on a country - the way the Communists tried to force Communism upon nations? If the Iraqi people feel more of an alignment to their particular religious sect than to an ideal of democracy, how many years must the US remain in this tribally divided country until it finally becomes democratic? five years? twenty? one-hundred? or until it is bankrupt?
The past can not be undone. We must make an honest assessment of the current situation - not a wishful-thinking fanciful interpretation. In a cost-benefit analysis, the cost has been and continues to be excessive, the benefit is mostly questionable and artificially hopeful. Without a doubt, the only ones who have benefitted are the war profiteers - the military contractors who profit from this dirty business of war. The human cost also has been high, besides Americans already mentioned, consider the many thousands of non-combatants that have been killed by both US forces and the following insurrection since the beginning of hostilities.
Know this, my fellow Americans, as the aggressor nation, the United States government is responsible for these deaths. Had the US not attacked how many of these people would be alive today? So, too, the blood of the innocent is also on the hands of every individual that ever supported the war, directly or indirectly, through votes or opinions, or who has ever contributed tax dollars that have gone towards the bullets, bombs, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and all the other instruments and weapons of modern warfare. Each must determine by the dictates of conscience his degree of culpability and take personal responsibility for his actions.
The invasion of Iraq by US forces has destabilized a country that before was an island of secular order in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism. A democracy is supposed to rise from the ashes at gunpoint, amidst an environment of car bombings and coercion. This is not the fertile field of rebellion of our forefathers who were educated by the Enlightenment. This is a country whose culture embodies the values of tribalism, of a people who see themselves as Sunni, Kurdish or Shiite. They will put the interests of their tribe before that of their nation. The civil war that we have unleashed by unsettling the ruling elite has already begun. We can not help any one side of Iraq without hurting another side of Iraq. That is the nature of civil war. The side we help will always be stigmatized by the other side as being our lackeys or puppets, so to some they will always lack authenticity.
Today must be our last day in Iraq. No amount of time will make a wrong into a right. Every day that goes by represents more American lives unnecessarily sacrificed, Iraqi lives destroyed, affirmation for the terrorists, vindication by the insurgents, and millions more dollars wasted.
The time has come for atonement. As a nation, we must insist that reparations be forthcoming for the death and destruction we have wrought, especially to the families here and abroad that have suffered mightily by this nation's actions. We must each take responsibility for our part in this conflict.
There are those who have suggested that our leaders have indirectly or directly profited from the war. I can only say that should a public servant have used his sacred office for personal gain then he must be tried for high treason. Let us form our own war crime tribunal to discover if any one of our own is guilty of violating international convention. I say, let us clean our own house before the international community shames us into doing it.
As a true patriot, one may love his country eternally, but may not its imperfect government that is only as good as its best members and as bad as the worst. The war in Iraq represents moral failure in leadership bereft of principles. To continue on this path will only weaken our country and bring it to ruin.
Instead of respect around the world, we are scorned. Instead of making friends we have made enemies. Instead of punishing and retaliating against the terrorists, they still remain at large to strike again. Instead of being on the side of truth and justice, we have seen deception and have taken the role of our traditional enemy - instead of defender of the free world, we have become the aggressor against the world. Instead of leading by example, we try to impose by force. Instead of maintaining our economic lead and power, we foolishly squander billions on warfare and bureaucracy.
Stand against this war - a war without principles, without justification, without any foresight or an exit strategy, without any clear definition of victory, with no limit to spending, with no regard for the human cost, with no regard to American honor.
Lastly, to reiterate principles: The war on Iraq will forever live in infamy as an unprovoked criminal attack against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter how much one despises a tyrant or his government, or succeeds in overthrowing these, no matter whether one claims to bring democracy or "freedom", no matter whether US interests benefit by securing resources, no matter how much it might "stabilize the region", no matter how many terrorists might as a consequence be killed, no matter what benefit might be gained... A war of aggression will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.
The Iraq War is, and has been since its inception, wrong in conception and execution, strategically, politically, economically and most importantly - morally.
A paramount principle of a civilized society is that the use of physical force may never be initiated against another person, group or government. One who initiates physical force against another or others is, by definition, a criminal. The only justification for the use of physical force is in retaliation.
Retaliation may only be used against and in response to those that have initiated physical force. The moral difference between initiation and retaliation is the difference between murder and self-defense. However, to prevent that retaliation does not degrade from an act of self-defense to mere bloody vengeance, the highest standards of objectivity, humanity and justice must be the final arbiters of its use.
If a criminal act has been committed, first the criminals must be identified and found guilty, then a measured and appropriate retaliatory response may proceed. In the case of an intruder breaking into one's home, the response may be a life-saving split second. But in the case of terrorism, operating independently of any official government, retaliation is not always as clear cut and a response must be carefully measured to avoid taking innocent life.
9-11 will forever live in infamy as a criminal act perpetrated against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter what political point one is trying to make, no matter how damaging this act may be against a government one despises, no matter how much it succeeds in terrorizing an enemy's nation. Terrorism will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.
(The ideology of militant Islam defies any moral precept, it contradicts the teachings of the Koran, which decry the taking of innocent lives. Militant Islam is fueled by the lust for power, enshrouding a doctrine of hate with a veneer of religiosity to attract its followers who confuse might with right. Take note that these characteristics are just as evil when they are embraced by our own American leaders. How many lust for power? espouse hate while claiming to be good Christians? also confuse might with right? and use the same tactic when they claim to uphold Christian virtue, yet ignore the commandment against killing at their convenience?)
Retaliation against those that perpetrated this despicable act of terrorism is not only justifiable - to act in self-defense is a moral imperative of rational self-interest to prevent future criminal acts. To do nothing would only embolden the terrorist, nothing would stop him from acting again with impunity.
The correct response would have been to identify the guilty, track them down, infiltrate their organizations and either bring the terrorists to justice when possible, or eliminate them when not. A superpower must exercise extreme discretion in the use of force and retaliation. All the resources available to bring the enemies to justice swiftly and effectively must be called upon, yet with the great responsibility of not becoming like the enemy and taking the lives of the innocent. All the military intelligence, all the spies in the field, all the satellites and high-tech resources, should be able to surgically remove the threat without collateral damage to others or our reputation as a just nation. Justice means that the guilty, and only the guilty, suffer the consequences of their actions. Retaliation means that the guilty are prevented from committing further acts of murder. Have either of these principles been respected and brought to bear?
Let history bear testament that the correct response was not taken. Instead of acting with discretion, wisdom and intelligence, the Bush administration has initiated aggression against a nation not linked to the September 11 attacks - a secular nation that was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. True - it was a nation led by a ruthless leader - a tyrant that for many years was supported by the US and a short-sighted foreign policy less interested in human rights than political expediency. Still, the evidence shows that the Iraq War and the "War on Terrorism" are unrelated. The terrorist threat was shamelessly used as a pretext for this agenda-driven war. While the true authors of the attack on our homeland have still not been brought to justice, the force and might of the United States has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for insurgency, spawned a civil war and aided the enemy in recruiting those newly fed by hate to their cause. Instead of safeguarding American lives, many were placed in harm's way and lives were needlessly sacrificed. I say needlessly, because they did not die for "freedom" or any measure of justice.
As the world watched in shock, the United States set a terrible precedent of initiating force against a weak defeated country that was not on the attack. At that moment, any moral authority that the United States ever had as a just nation, any respect for American ideals, any posturing of righteous superiority, was destroyed and our nation's honor shamed. In an instant, all the sacrifice of those revolutionary ancestors who resisted the oppression of a tyrannical empire, all the fallen who have nobly fought against those many enemies that have initiated force against America or weaker nations or allies, have been dishonored. Should another country follow the US' poor example and invade another, how can we now say they are wrong, yet the US was right?
What we Americans most despise and have fought so hard against - the aggressor nation, the United States has become.
The military intelligence that justified US action, yet could not persuade the United Nations to act against Iraq, has turned out to be flawed at best, false at worst. To act upon flimsy circumstantial evidence was an exercise of poor judgment that followed from failed moral character. No court in the nation, or the world, could conduct a trial by such poor standards. Yet, the Bush administration acted with typical indignation that their judgment should be questioned. And in another instant, the credibility of our nation vanished. Should the intelligence community ever really find weapons of mass destruction in another place and time, how could they or our nation ever be taken seriously, again?
While to some "shock and awe" was merely a media-directed slogan, to others it meant experiencing first-hand the horrors and tragedy of war. While some were killed instantly for the unlucky state of existing near military targets, others lost loved ones, or were maimed and crippled for the remainder of their lives. Collateral damage excused away lives destroyed by a nation that supposedly values life and decried the taking of innocent lives.
Strategically, I have said, this war was a miscalculation. Surely, the force and power of the most powerful military in the world quickly swept across this crippled and weak nation with blitzkrieg-like ferocity and efficiency. Would one expect any less from the self-proclaimed pre-eminent superpower? Yet, the arrogance of the "shock and awe" confidence has given way to the realism of a prolonged war of insurgency that the supposed experts did not see coming. Wrong again - wrong to assume the Iraqis would welcome the "liberators" with open arms. What deluded thinking could have possibly lead to such far-reaching miscalculations? How could anyone expect the Iraqis to welcome our army as the French did in WWII? Did anyone stop to consider that only a few years before we had been at war with this same country, incinerating and bombing into oblivion thousands of sons of Iraq - unfortunate souls who were conscripted into a tyrant's army? Did we really expect a warm reception?
The same type of deluded and foolish thinking gave rise to calling all the insurgents "terrorists". With the invasion, the enemy ranks swelled. The United States' government literally made enemies - they made enemies with those that before had no intention or opportunity of firing upon an American. I ask those of you that consider yourselves patriots: Should our country be invaded - would you not raise arms against a foreign power trying to force their way of life upon you? The honesty of your answer presents you with the degree of understanding of the meaning of insurgency.
Remember the moral imperative of retaliation - that to concede to the use of initiated force would be against the moral imperative of punishing the aggressor for his transgression. It matters not the supposed good intentions of the invader. It matters not that we are trying to give them "freedom" or democracy or any of our other Western values. When it comes to war, the invaded have the moral upper hand over the invaders, I say, the defender is on the side of right over the aggressor. Know this and understand this, for it goes a long way in explaining why the United States will never gain a decisive victory in this misguided and illegitimate war.
Though the insurgents may feel themselves doing their patriotic duty in defending their homeland from the invader, there are others who have joined in the fight who may share sentiments more closely aligned with militant Islam, many having crossed the borders from neighboring Syria, Saudi Arabia or some other Arab state. To engage the "great Satan" in holy war is the highest achievement in their twisted ideology. I speculate that the attacks on the US were done to incite exactly the type of response that was forthcoming, that the terrorists predicted the actions of "Bring them on!" diplomacy. I am saying that the United States government was drawn into a fight that the terrorists wanted. Why go to America to kill Americans, they might have reasoned, when they can kill them in the Middle East? Since dying in Jihad is a quick ticket to Heaven, they believe, then their strategy of drawing the United States' military into a fight has proven very successful with over 1,800 American soldiers killed so far and countless of their numbers dying a glorious death. For the enemy, this is a win-win situation - a losing proposition for the US military.
The foolish believe that the war against terrorism is succeeding because we haven't had an attack at home since we attacked Iraq. I am countering that they no longer have to attack us at home to kill Americans, thanks to Bush's foreign policy.
In the game of chess known as geopolitics, it appears that Bush and his administration and the US Congress have acted with the ineptitude of one that can not grasp the game of checkers.
Consider the aftereffects of 9/11: Billions spent on the bureaucracy of home security for fear of another attack, US spending billions more to fight the war, death and injuries to our servicemen and women with more to come, weakening of our standing and respect in the world community, weakening of our economy by reckless deficit spending with no end to the spending in sight. To call the terrorist strike the most successful attack on the United States would be an understatement. Sadly, it is the US response to the attack which magnifies this tragedy into a major catastrophe. Tragic to lose two great buildings and several thousand innocent lives in NY, catastrophic to plunge the US into war and cripple our great country by saddling it with debt.
My point is that the majority of the cost of 9/11 was created by our response to the attack, more than the actual attack itself. Though we did not choose to be attacked, we had the choice of choosing how to react. An over-reaction, an unjustified reaction, a wasteful reaction - was chosen over a carefully thought out and cleverly executed retaliative counter action. Is it possible that the US has underestimated its enemies and played into their hands?
Many in the US still resist pulling out of Iraq - a country that we ravaged, in effect leaving it at the mercy of competing tribal religious factions in a civil war that we provoked. But what are the possibilities of a united democratic Iraq? In a land that has no tradition of democracy, only the heavy hand of dictatorship was capable of keeping the peace, crushing insurrections with no regard to human rights. Was it ever realistic to force democracy on a country - the way the Communists tried to force Communism upon nations? If the Iraqi people feel more of an alignment to their particular religious sect than to an ideal of democracy, how many years must the US remain in this tribally divided country until it finally becomes democratic? five years? twenty? one-hundred? or until it is bankrupt?
The past can not be undone. We must make an honest assessment of the current situation - not a wishful-thinking fanciful interpretation. In a cost-benefit analysis, the cost has been and continues to be excessive, the benefit is mostly questionable and artificially hopeful. Without a doubt, the only ones who have benefitted are the war profiteers - the military contractors who profit from this dirty business of war. The human cost also has been high, besides Americans already mentioned, consider the many thousands of non-combatants that have been killed by both US forces and the following insurrection since the beginning of hostilities.
Know this, my fellow Americans, as the aggressor nation, the United States government is responsible for these deaths. Had the US not attacked how many of these people would be alive today? So, too, the blood of the innocent is also on the hands of every individual that ever supported the war, directly or indirectly, through votes or opinions, or who has ever contributed tax dollars that have gone towards the bullets, bombs, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and all the other instruments and weapons of modern warfare. Each must determine by the dictates of conscience his degree of culpability and take personal responsibility for his actions.
The invasion of Iraq by US forces has destabilized a country that before was an island of secular order in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism. A democracy is supposed to rise from the ashes at gunpoint, amidst an environment of car bombings and coercion. This is not the fertile field of rebellion of our forefathers who were educated by the Enlightenment. This is a country whose culture embodies the values of tribalism, of a people who see themselves as Sunni, Kurdish or Shiite. They will put the interests of their tribe before that of their nation. The civil war that we have unleashed by unsettling the ruling elite has already begun. We can not help any one side of Iraq without hurting another side of Iraq. That is the nature of civil war. The side we help will always be stigmatized by the other side as being our lackeys or puppets, so to some they will always lack authenticity.
Today must be our last day in Iraq. No amount of time will make a wrong into a right. Every day that goes by represents more American lives unnecessarily sacrificed, Iraqi lives destroyed, affirmation for the terrorists, vindication by the insurgents, and millions more dollars wasted.
The time has come for atonement. As a nation, we must insist that reparations be forthcoming for the death and destruction we have wrought, especially to the families here and abroad that have suffered mightily by this nation's actions. We must each take responsibility for our part in this conflict.
There are those who have suggested that our leaders have indirectly or directly profited from the war. I can only say that should a public servant have used his sacred office for personal gain then he must be tried for high treason. Let us form our own war crime tribunal to discover if any one of our own is guilty of violating international convention. I say, let us clean our own house before the international community shames us into doing it.
As a true patriot, one may love his country eternally, but may not its imperfect government that is only as good as its best members and as bad as the worst. The war in Iraq represents moral failure in leadership bereft of principles. To continue on this path will only weaken our country and bring it to ruin.
Instead of respect around the world, we are scorned. Instead of making friends we have made enemies. Instead of punishing and retaliating against the terrorists, they still remain at large to strike again. Instead of being on the side of truth and justice, we have seen deception and have taken the role of our traditional enemy - instead of defender of the free world, we have become the aggressor against the world. Instead of leading by example, we try to impose by force. Instead of maintaining our economic lead and power, we foolishly squander billions on warfare and bureaucracy.
Stand against this war - a war without principles, without justification, without any foresight or an exit strategy, without any clear definition of victory, with no limit to spending, with no regard for the human cost, with no regard to American honor.
Lastly, to reiterate principles: The war on Iraq will forever live in infamy as an unprovoked criminal attack against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter how much one despises a tyrant or his government, or succeeds in overthrowing these, no matter whether one claims to bring democracy or "freedom", no matter whether US interests benefit by securing resources, no matter how much it might "stabilize the region", no matter how many terrorists might as a consequence be killed, no matter what benefit might be gained... A war of aggression will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.
posted by José Roldan at 3:08 PM
7 Comments:
Sir,
The logic for your argument is sound however your facts are flawed.
Iraq did initiate hostilities in 1990 when they invaded another sovereign nation (Kuwait) and then subsequently failed time after time to live up to their responsibilities.
Saddam Hussein is a criminal and a murderer. He and his regime was responsible for the blatant murder of tens of thousands of "innocent" people. His family and his government was totally corrupt - of this there can be no doubt. His removal was certainly 12 years too late...but in his case, better late than never. If anything, Iraqis are glad to be rid of him, and they thank us for it.
The death of "innocent" people in Iraq is low. Our targeting is precise and well planned. I am not saying there is no collateral damage, however I can personally attest that it is very low. Those people who we engage in combat, are in fact combatants.
Your idea that one must not initiate violence, except in response, is a bit naive. If a soldier or policeman were to wait until his adversary (and have no doubt the people we are fighting were our sworn adversaries well prior to the war) were to shoot him, then our casualty count would be much higher. If that makes sense at the lower level, then it also makes sense at a National level. Saddam and terrorists are a proven threat to our nation. They attacked us before and would attack us again if we failed to act. Rules of engagement established by non-warriors is one reason we have soldiers die unnecessarily. If you aren't a warrior, please don't try to discuss techniques, tactics, and procedures of war. Would you offer surgical advice to a brain surgeon? No. Why not? Because you don't know jack about brain surgery. You might know how to cut your scrambled eggs...but they aren't brains now are they?
Morality?? Who is qualified to tell me what is moral and what isn't? Have you read the Old Testament lately? I think there are quite a few instances where God himself ordered some death and destruction. Jesus even trashed the tables of vendors who were desecrating the temple grounds...now if Jesus could use "violence" without first being attacked, I think the U.S. could eject a tyrannical dictator without being too evil.
At any rate. I am glad there are people out there who are objectivists...people who strive to make sense of what they think is right...however wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important that his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
George Orwell said it best when he said, “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence ON THEIR BEHALF.”
Cheers,
TBone
"The logic for your argument is sound however your facts are flawed.
Iraq did initiate hostilities... live up to their responsibilities."
Iraq initiated hostilities against Kuwait, never against the US. They were successfully expelled from Kuwait. Bush Sr. had no moral imperative to take down the Iraqi government and acted wisely in not continuing the war. Whether they failed to live up to their responsibilities is questionable considering they complied with UN weapons inspections. The UN itself did not agree that war with Iraq was necessary. Remember, the main Bush administration charge of WMDs has turned out to be baseless.
"Saddam Hussein is a criminal and a murderer..."
George W. Bush is also a criminal and a murderer. He and his administration are responsible for the blatant murder of thousands of US soldiers and innocent people. His government is corrupt - rife with cronyism, connections to lucrative defense contracts and even business partners with the Bin Ladens. Latest polls show over 65% of Americans are against the war, so they will be glad to be rid of him.
As to Hussein, the former US ally although he was known to be a criminal - maybe some Iraqis are glad to be rid of him, maybe most. But some are obviously not thanking you, unless armed insurrection is a new form of expressing gratitude.
"The death of "innocent" people in Iraq is low..."
How can you personally attest to all the deaths in an entire country? How could you say the incidences are low without quantifying what low means to you? A thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand? We have seen reports that US soldiers have killed non-combatants, though you personally may not attest to that, you can not say that it never happens.
"Your idea that one must not initiate violence, except in response, is a bit naive..."
"The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right" - Ayn Rand. It is your misunderstanding of this moral premise that is naive. The police have strict guidelines defining the use of deadly force as do civilized nations. Saddam is currently in prison so I don't see how he is a threat. Before, many believe that he posed no threat at all to the US. Again, Saddam never attacked us. The terrorists that attacked during 9/11 were not Iraqis, but Saudis. Get your facts straight.
Your warrior vs. non-warrior is chest-beating nonsense. Bush, by the way, is no warrior either. I certainly may have opinions on matters of national security and what is right without being conscripted as a pawn or cannon fodder or "warrior" as you put it. Had the US pursued Bin Laden using intelligence and covert ops, we would have had the terrorists by now, saving lives and billions of dollars. Who's going to think outside the box and out-think the terrorists? You: blind follower of orders, rationalizer and apologist of US policy, immoralist?...
"Morality?? Who is qualified to tell me what is moral and what isn't?..."
"Atlas Shrugged" should have taught you about rational ethics. So, now you are acting like God? Have you read the 5th Commandment lately?
"At any rate. I am glad there are people out there who are objectivists...people who strive to make sense of what they think is right...however wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster."
That makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you could elaborate on your "being full of crap" theory.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things..."
Many things are worth fighting for, even going to war over, like protection of one's own country should it be invaded. The Iraqi insurgents believe so. Should our own country be invaded or should domestic tyranny become unbearable, I, too, will raise arms. But lest you think that your actions in Iraq are creating a safer America, may you sleep well with your deluded dreams, for you are not fighting ON MY BEHALF.
Point by point.
-"The UN itself did not agree that war with Iraq was necessary. Remember, the main Bush administration charge of WMDs has turned out to be baseless."
I don't believe in the UN. I think it is a means to erode our sovereignty, however I believe there was a house resolution authorizing force against Iraq, specifically:
H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
-I believe you can't say the President is a murderer if he has the consent of Congress. By comparison, Saddam Hussein personally ordered and witnessed hundreds of tortures and executions. His sons were equally, if not more, savage. They would pick women up off the street or at a wedding ceremony and rape them, etc. How can you possibly compare the direct, murderous actions of the Al Tikriti boys to G.W. Bush. To do that is an extreme embellishment.
-Additionally, the whole WMD issue you mention ("Remember, the main Bush administration charge of WMDs has turned out to be baseless.") is a regurgitation of DNC talking points. I thought you weren't a collectivist, but sound like one when you can't come up with original thought. WMD was in Iraq. There is no doubt about that. I won't take the time to cut and paste specifics...but suffice it to say that Saddam used WMD against Iran (I don't want to hear that the US gave it to him either because that isn't relevant to this particular point) and he used it against the Kurds and the Shia in the south. The UN wouldn't have had inspectors in there for almost 10 years if Saddam didn't have WMD...so the "baseless" thing is silly. Perhaps we didn't find his stash because he had sufficient time to hide/move/destroy it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know Saddam was addicted to power and would not have willingly given up a tool of power. He had WMD, however he had plenty of time to hide his program.
-Concerning GWB: "His government is corrupt - rife with cronyism, connections to lucrative defense contracts and even business partners with the Bin Ladens. Latest polls show over 65% of Americans are against the war, so they will be glad to be rid of him."
-Corrupt? What government since Jefferson hasn't been accused of corruption. The government is totally corrupt on both sides of the aisle. No argument there.
-Business partners with the Bin Ladens. I am not sure which Bin Laden you speak of, Osama? Has Osama's dad ever been accused of being a terrorist? We trained Osama himself when we were helping the Muj fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Perhaps the Reagan and GHW Bush are also to blame. Who put out this little bit of information, Michael Moore? I think there is a little more to the picture than the little sound bite you parroted.
-Polls? Which poll? How was the poll phrased? Question: Would you rather see our men in Iraq getting killed, or would you rather them to be home and safe? Hmmm...let's see...home and safe. Looks like people don't want the war. Good poll. Polls are bullshit and you know it. Look at the election poll. GWB is President, get over it.
-"...some are obviously not thanking you, unless armed insurrection is a new form of expressing gratitude." The people who make up the insurgent/terrorist threat in Iraq are former Ba'athists, Fedayeen Saddam, criminals, and foreign fighters. Very few combatants are just regular folks. The people who make up the insurgency are not representative of the people of Iraq. The political, ethnic, and religious complexity of Iraq is such that there will always be some form of unrest there regardless of our presence. Nonetheless, the majority of people (sans Ba'athists and those who were cronies of Saddam) are glad Saddam is gone.
- "Saddam never attacked us. The terrorists that attacked during 9/11 were not Iraqis, but Saudis. Get your facts straight." Saddam and the US were at war because we came to the aid of Kuwait. Since then Saddam tried unsuccessfully to assasinate GHW Bush and has on numerous occasions facilitated terrorist activies. Saddam hosted Zarqawi - even allowed him to use an Iraqi hospital. Saddam supported the Ansar Al Islam terrorist organization in his own country (don't let people fool you into believing that the Kurdish portion of Iraq was inaccessible to Saddam...it was still his country. Additionally, Ansar Al Islam was headed by non-Iraqi Salafist Arabs [Al Qaeda affilitates] and Saddam supplied and facilitated them for use as surrogates.) Point: Saddam was a threat. You can't look at the near term threat only and expect to ever be safe. The big picture threat is complex; to subscribe to a strictly defensive ideology is absurd. Bringing down Saddam accomplished multiple strategic and tactical objectives both in the short and long term, and both politically and militarily. The Middle East is key in the war against terrorists. Perhaps Saddam's tyranny was only an excuse to get a stronghold in the ME. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that is one possibility. Only time will tell if the decision to go into Iraq was sound vis-a-vis the war against Islamic terrorists. Everything else is just partisan conjecture.
- "How can you personally attest to all the deaths in an entire country? How could you say the incidences are low without quantifying what low means to you? A thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand? We have seen reports that US soldiers have killed non-combatants, though you personally may not attest to that, you can not say that it never happens."
Perhaps low thousands...I can't say absolutely. I do know from two separate combat tours to Iraq that we aren't engaging non-combatants. Does it happen? Has it happened? Yes, I am sure it has. Compared to Korea, WWII, etc. the civilian casualty rate is nothing. A thousand innocent lives means a great deal...don't get me wrong...I am not callous, however it is unavoidable. This is WAR. Death happens. Injuries happen. This is reality...life...WAR. War and fighting has been going on since the beginning of man. Do you really think it will ever stop? Do you think that by honestly adhering to some Ayn Randish philosophy somehow the world will be a better place? Ayn Rand was talking out against collectivism against moral relativism...however there are no absolutes. There is always grey. It is always about perspective. So wish in one hand that the world will subscribe to your belief system, and whether or not it will make the world a better place, when you crap in the other hand it is going to fill up quicker. The moral of the story is life and reality doesn't care about your desire for perfection or peace or morality. The natural world doesn't adhere to those rules - there is always a mix of normality and chaos (hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, drought,etc.)- there are few straight lines in nature. The animals don't adhere to absolute rules...why do you think we will? Because we are rational? Yeah right. Step out of the philosophy bubble and enter the real world. Instead of complaining about what is happening, come up with some kind of workable SOLUTION. Not some pie-in-the-sky solution, but a REAL, WORKABLE solution. Make the world a better place, don't dream about it.
- "...Who's going to think outside the box and out-think the terrorists? You: blind follower of orders, rationalizer and apologist of US policy, immoralist?"
I am by no means a blind follower of orders. I am a giver of orders also, and I use my conscience and judgment more than you give me credit. I don't know you so I am not going to make absolute judgments of you...likewise, YOU DON'T KNOW ME and could probably never fill my shoes. I don't apologize for US Policy, I live and make US policy by my actions and deeds. What do you do? Sit in your house and use your computer to make smart pronouncements and judge those things you have no first-hand knowledge of. What do you know about war? Have you been there? What do you know about Saddam? Have you talked to him or his family? I talked to Saddam's half-brother for three days. I know of the things Saddam did first hand because he told me.
I talked to an old Iraqi man who had to hold his 30 year old son's hand to cross the street. The son was beaten so badly on the head with a pipe by Saddam's men that he was retarded. I have seen the death. I have seen the poverty. I have smelled the stink of Saddam's greed in the impoverished neighborhoods of Iraq. Have you had people drop to the ground and kiss your feet and thank you for saving them from Saddam? I have. You want to pull them up and hug them to stop them from doing it.
So unless you can provide me with some kind of bonafides letting me know you have something other than good intentions and quotes from someone else, don't try to pass judgment on me. Especially to call me "immoral"?? I have exercised the moral choice to kill or not to kill. I have spared someones life when I would have been %100 justified in taking it. I have exercised my morality to treat people with dignity and respect when they probably deserved to be treated harshly. Have you made those choices? I doubt it. IF you have, I apologize. But, IF NOT, don't be so quick to think you know anything about me.
Anthony:
It was not my intention to offend, but my sarcastically calling you an immoralist was based on when you cavalierly expressed that even God killed in the Bible - a statement expected as a rationalization by a Stalin or a serial killer, not by a member of the United States' armed forces. How true that you deal with moral issues on a day to day basis by the judicious use of your trigger finger. My exploration of moral issues is limited to writing what I can within the constraints of my work schedule and limited resources. That said, I quote from one who was not afraid to die for his beliefs:
"One just principle from the depths of a cave is more powerful than an army." - José Martí.
Throughout history, it has taken men of ideals and principles to build the foundation upon which our civilization rests. A principle is a fundamental truth, not something to be bent arbitrarily by agenda or whim. While I do not share your power to dispense life and death, do not belittle the contribution of speaking out with a moral conscience, living a principled existence or behaving with integrity.
Though I only aspire to influence people using logic and not bullets, understand my commitment is a way of life, rather than a tour of duty. So, it is not my intention for this forum to be about me, rather it should be about ideas.
However, I must correct your insinuation that my point of view is partisan or influenced by a Democratic agenda. It is not. I am neither Republican or Democratic, but pro-libertarian and vehemently anti-statist. As to your repeated assertions to the evils of tyranny: Know that my grandmother was jailed by a dictator for her crime of being a teacher, while her brother was tortured and killed for being a mayor - the hatred for tyranny is completely ingrained into every cell of my moral fiber.
You accuse me of being a dreamer, but I consider that you take a realist look at the folly of going after every dictator and evil leader in the world. As much as I despise their existence, and realistically knowing the high costs associated with being "world policeman", love of country dictates we take a path of financial pre-eminence, not bankruptcy. Therefore, my foreign policy is one of isolationism, avoiding "tangling alliances" and interventionism, and going the way of the Roman or British or any other empire and fall. America first!
Also, I consider such vaunted ideals as saving the Iraqis from Saddam part and parcel of a greater hypocrisy sadly a recurring theme in US global politics - the support of ruthless leaders, like Saddam, the Shah, etc. and ignoring or making deals with dictators in our own hemisphere. Consider that one of our neighbors is a Communist totalitarian dictator. I have seen with my own eyes the despair of those that live in that land devoid of hope.
The question must be asked, then, why Iraq? The connection to terrorism is tenuous at best. As Leonard Peikoff suggested in his October 2001 essay, Iran is the greatest source of state-sponsored terrorism in the world. (www.peikoff.com/essays/end.htm)
Do you suggest we take on Iran next? after all Peikoff makes some valid points in light of the fact that they may be building a nuke. How about Syria? and let us knock off the Saudis while we are at it? If your arguments are strong for attacking Iraq, then they are even more justified in destroying Iran. Is that what you want? A war to last a generation or two? Or should we use nuclear weapons as Peikoff suggests, claiming that it is the responsibility of those peoples' government to protect them?
Now, I brought Peikoff into this discussion as he is the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and represents orthodox Objectivist thought. From the little that you have read of my writings, you should see that I am parroting no one. I do not consider myself a Randian, only acknowledge her influence in my thinking. Epistemologically, I share objectivism's roots, yet I can not collectivize humanity the way Peikoff does in his essay. I find it morally reprehensible to condone killing thousands of innocents for the crime of being born under a tyrannical government.
To return to the WMD issue: It is fallacious to dismiss this argument just because the Democrats like referring to this point. The WMD issue was a huge selling point by this administration to Congress, the American people and the world. The credibility of the President has been deeply shaken by not finding any of these weapons, so it's no wonder the other side will not let it rest. With good reason.
I ask you to put aside what appears to be your partisan support of G.W. Bush and parroting his version of global politics to answer one question: If you were Saddam Hussein and you had weapons of mass destruction at your disposal, wouldn't you use them against the armies of your hated enemy that is invading your country? Does it make any sense at all to hide them? Think about it from a strictly military standpoint.
The moment I saw US troops all mobilized in one place ready to invade, I realized two things. One, that if he had those weapons, that was the time to strike, and he did not. And two, that not only did he not have those weapons, but our military knew that he did not. The blitzkrieg style of invasion only works against a weaker opponent.
Now, you are the military man, so I call upon you as an expert: If those weapons still exist, would it not be easy to wipe out en masse a whole battalion of US soldiers at one of those huge Haliburton-run bases? Is your defensive position designed in such a way that gives credence that those weapons are still out there somewhere? Enough said...
The statement "there are no absolutes" is an absolute. You take offense because I claim to not know you, but you reveal, as in that quasi-intellectual statement, much about yourself. You reveal the biassed viewpoint: If you quote someone, then you are clever, if I do, then I am "parroting" without an "original thought". If the actions of Hussein result in the death of an innocent, then he is a murderer, but if the actions of G.W. Bush do the same, then he is exonerated, "because he has the consent of Congress". If you don't like the way the media treats the President and soldiers and write about it in your blog, that's not complaining, but if I write a principled and logically developed argument, that is complaining. If I urge restraint and intelligence in combating the terrorists, I am the pie-in-the-sky dreamer; if you think you will create a peaceful Iraq, find WMD stockpiles, get rid of the terrorist threat by invading Iraq, or think you are defending the American way of life, then you are not totally in a state of wishful thinking!
The final example, the most poignant, the thirty year old beat up by Hussein's ruffians - I share your anger. I can hear the bully's voice now, defending crushing the rebellion that threatened Hussein, "The civilian casualty rate is nothing, a few thousand maybe, but this is WAR. Death happens. Injuries happen. It is unavoidable... Don't blame me... There are no absolutes." Sound familiar?
On a foreign news network, uncensored as the US media is, I saw the young boy with his arms and legs blown off, but managed to survive his horrible injuries - injuries caused by American "smart bombs". Do you share my anger?
Long after the war is over, many will still suffer the consequences of militant politics, of might makes right ethics, of violence over intelligence. Soldier, I sincerely pray that you stay safe and are not a victim of the same philosophy you seem to espouse and embrace.
One last thing, about not being able to fit your shoes - why? Do you have unusually large feet?
Jose,
Ideals and principles are only as secure as the Army who protects them from those who are willing to take them from you. The Founding Fathers of the USA were revolutionaries FIGHTING (action not words) for what they believed in. That is why the US exists...not because they believed in something so often that it magically materialized. NOT ONE THING of substance in our world happened because some great and principled mind penned some lofty ideals alone...it took action...often military action.
I tend to believe we should be more isolationist than we are now. I do not believe we should be world police. I do not believe we should attack Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Saudi. But the question I have for you is: when do we decide it's time to stop terrorists? Look at the numerous terrorist incidents that Islamic terrorists have perpetrated over the last 20+ years...when has there been any kind of engagement to stop it? When do we need to become involved? When they have infiltrated our society and have pushed their lofty ideals and principles on us? Do you suggest we sit back and wait? Covert infiltrations will require some killing too. How many deaths associated with fighting this threat are acceptable to you?
I say again: Saddam had WMD. Saddam had WMD during the first Gulf War but didn't use it. Why? Because he knew if he used WMD the response would be devastating. He wanted a country to come back to. He used it against the Iranians with no problem. He used it against the Kurds with no problem. He knew we had tactical nukes...that's a problem.
WMD was only entrusted to a select few leaders in his country. Only a select crew of his Republican Guards knew where it was stored. Where did it all go? Did he destroy it all? Do you know? We knew he had it. Clinton made the same claims earlier - Saddam had WMD and it was perceived as a threat. Where it went...I don't know.
I am not in love with GWB. Nor do I seek to defend him blindly. I think he is fiscally irresponsible. I voted for Reagan, and believe it or not, Perot.
As far as your quotes versus my quotes; and your suggestion that I am a hypocrite...I haven't gone against my principles. I believe in the use of force. I believe military action is necessary in some circustances beyond self defense. I don't believe might makes right...but I know the stronger opponent usually wins. I don't agree that Iraq was necessarily the best place to engage our enemy, but it works. I am trying to be a realist, not a moral relativist. I understand that sometimes you can't have everything the way you would like it. Sometimes a compromise is the only way to get the end goal. Sometimes the final product isn't planned - it's serendipitous.
I stated that "war is war". People do die in war. Those kind of statements are simply statements of fact. Perhaps there are some absolutes - the sun will rise (wait it might not rise if it burns out a million years from now...is that then an absolute?) If we engage in war, for whatever reason, we should expect that people will die. I know this first hand and I don't like it...it's just the way it is. I said I care and am not callous about it...but what can I do about it? Ignoring problems and believing they aren't real won't get us anywhere. Just ask the German Jews who refused to believe what was happening right before their eyes. My career is in the military. If I didn't believe it the mission, I would say so but do it nonetheless because it is my obligation and duty. I do believe in destroying the terrorists and their infrastructure...plain and simple - they must go.
Anyway, I don't have all the answers. I hate tyranny, but I would prefer to turn a blind eye and to tell the whole world to handle their own problems. Stasis. However, when they decided to blow my friends up in Beirut, U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, WTC, etc. I think they set the agenda...not us.
I have a size 11 shoes. You might be able to put it on your feet, but I wonder if you would be able or willing to walk to the same places they have been?
I don't mean you offense. I apologize for my tone previously.
TBone
As our dialogue proceeds, a commonality of ideals surfaces, bound by the same cultural roots, a brotherhood of Americanism. What unifies us as Americans is exactly what you seek to downplay or minimize - the importance of ideals. While it is true that actions, or sometimes non-action in the case of civil disobedience, is necessary to implement ideals, actions without ideals is gangsterism or thuggery.
Isolationism is the best foreign policy to safeguard America's role as premier world trader and its status as a wealthy nation. Interventionism is a never-ending costly folly.
However, in reference to your comment, similar to the old communist scare tactic, that we should fear that the enemy might infiltrate our society and push their ideals on us, is nonsensical. For what joins us as Americans, makes that a distinct impossibility. Do you honestly believe that our friends and neighbors will suddenly pick up the Islamic gauntlet and become militant terrorists?
As I explained, I am not, in principle, against killing per se, if it is an act of self defense, if it is retaliation. Infiltrating terrorist organizations that are plotting to attack the US and wiping them out first is certainly justified. An all out war that kills innocent lives is not.
The Iranian government has proven time and time again to be aggressively anti-American. It does not sit well with me to see their officials cry out, "Death to America!". Each day brings us closer to their developing nuclear capability. I can only hope that our intelligence community does not drop the ball on this real threat.
...As opposed to false WMD threats, that despite your beliefs, have not been proven. As to the supposed deterrent of tactical nukes - you would not be able to use them against the terrorists that are hidden among the population. Your bases are sitting ducks against a WMD terrorist attack. Why haven't the terrorists used them if they had them? Wouldn't you if you were a tactician on their side?
On the necessity of military action and that stronger opponents usually win: History is filled with many examples of a smaller force defeating a larger one. Any of the world's 1 billion Muslims will know the Battle of the Trench, where Mohammed's 3,000 Muslims defended the city of Medina against the army of Mecca of 10,000 soldiers. As a military man you know that the US, the French, the British, and the Soviet Union were all defeated by insurgents in asymmetrical warfare.
On another historical note: The power of ideals - from a humble American writing against the current war - Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" to his influencing Martin Luther King and Gandhi, who brought about Indian and Pakistani independence from the British Empire through non-violence. Rosa Parks just passed away - her action was simply refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man, sparking the civil rights movement. Never underestimate the power of ideals and the resolve of your opponents who possess them.
My intention is not to label you a hypocrite, but merely to point out the contradictions of your conclusions, as I expect others to do of my own.
You are right about not willing to go where your shoes have gone. No one doubts your bravery, but I prefer my battles closer to home.
Jose,
I liked your reply and agree with most of what you said.
I agree, action without ideals/principles = thuggery. I believe it is a little too black and white, and the equation has a few more variables...but agree nonetheless in principle.
Defending America from threats is an important ideal. How to do that is strictly subjective. We can disagree on the tactics, but the principle is sound. I am also an isolationist in principle. I believe in maintaining American sovereignty at all costs. Collective governments and collective common markets are frightening. Perhaps the communist conspiracy theories were useful in indoctrinating Americans against collectivism (despite their embellishment).
Islam says "house of allah" and "house of war" are the only two places on earth. Places where muslims are is the house of allah; where they arent... Whether Americans will assimilate Islam or not isn't the point. Of course most Americans will reject the muslim's initial requirement to convert to Islam...then when they do the muslims are required to kill them. Look what the Turks did in Yugoslavia...that legacy remains in Bosnia and Kosovo. You talk of Muslim battles in your example...they remember those better than we do...they take it seriously. If they infiltrate America with even a small force, they will cause us problems. Those threats are the ones I talk about.
I understand insurgency and guerilla/unconventional warfare fairly well. I understand how the OSS and the French resistance caused problems for the Germans, who were a more powerful force. When I talk of the US being a power, it isn't merely tanks and guns I speak of...it is the overall attitude of America's warriors that I mean. They are committed and driven by more than politics. I would also submit to you that most soldiers are apolitical when it comes to doing the mission. By the way, Clauswitz says 3-1 ratio in the defense is about right...so your muslim defense thing isn't surprising. Americans won't stand for that crap in our country for long...just ask Roger's Rangers.
WMD...the terrorists don't have access to Saddam's stockpile. They were trying and continue to try to develop their own brand of WMD. Do some research on Ansar Al Islam and their Khurmal/Sargat facilities (http://www.meforum.org/article/579)...you'd be surprised at all the info you can get. I wish I could openly discuss with you the intelligence that surrounds the WMD issue, but I would get thrown in jail quickly if the OPSEC nazis read it and tracked me down. Suffice it to say that WMD is not a figment of some politicians imagination, and the issue is much more complex than the TV talking-heads realize.
I truly enjoy this discussion with you. You challenge my thought processes and I thank you.
TBone
Post a Comment
<< Home