Of Terrorists and Elections
To clarify, before I launch into my diatribe, I will identify myself as neither a Republic nor a Democrat, but as a neo-libertarian. I cannot say I am a big fan of Bush, other than that he does take terrorism seriously. And it is right that he does take it seriously, as any World War should be taken seriously, especially when we, the American people, are the target. We are at war; make no mistake, with several loosely affiliated, cross boundary, fanatical, religious cults that are still fighting a war from over one thousand years ago. Their consensus religion is simple. “If you are not one of use, then you are the enemy, and therefore no rules apply to how we eradicate you. Our goal is to purify the world of your existence and your degradations. It is we (the Jihadist), or it is you (The corrupt ones). The time for talking is done, now is the time for fighting, and this it is a fight to the death.” Winner takes all!
Soon we will decide who the next president of the United States of America will be. We have two choices. We can re-elect the man who supposedly got us into war with Iraq on false pretenses, although we have found weapons of mass destruction, in the 3 out of the 4 types. In addition, we have also found and disposed of large amounts of highly refined uranium, along with chemical; biological, and conventional weapons. The real question at this point is, does what we have found constitute evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In other words, “Did this current President knowingly lie about why we attacked Iraq?
Here is my take on why we attacked Iraq. It really had nothing to do with WMD or freeing the Iraqi people, or any other answer that has been given. In my opinion the US population was more or less deceived about the reason(s) we went to war with Iraq. When an American president takes office, he swears to protect the American people (he is after all our commander in chief). This oath supercedes any other oath(s), in his oath of office. It is his first and primary duty to see that “We the People,” survive. Does this mean that it is OK for the President to lie to the American People? Many times throughout history, and specifically our country, leaders have been less than honest. There are two allowable reasons for a leader to lie; if it would somehow tip our hand to the enemy and cause more of our soldiers lives to be lost, or for us to lose an advantage that would enable us to win the war. These are acceptable deceptions. In the instance of the Iraqi war a lie was necessary. It was necessary so that the American population, and thus Congress, would support a war against Iraq: a lie was necessary, because this war was a necessity if we were going to save lives, and continue to exist.
Throughout history, retrospectively, there are many places that one could point too and say, “You know, if they had only done such and such, then all of this could have been prevented.” It is somewhat like the butterfly effect, as applied to history. Generally, only in retrospect are the connections between actions and their ultimate effects easily seen. However, this is not always the case, sometimes apparently unrelated subject to action events can be seen in advance. The Iraqi war is such an instance; in fact the reason for the war in Iraq, ultimately had nothing to do with Iraq.
Terrorism strikes where there is a perceived weakness. Terrorist will continue, regardless of the conditions in the world. Where they will ply their trade depends on where they perceive they will get the most bang for their buck. Terrorist wish to demoralize the populations they attack not energize them. Terrorists also, do not wish to attack where they will be met with strength and pursued. This is counterproductive to their aim, instead of instilling terror and making the population more compliant to their demands, it makes them appear weak, and encourages others to defy them. In other words, terrorists are bullies, with very little real power. And just as with a neighborhood bully, if they are stood up to and backed down, the bully will leave for easier places.
Saddam Hussein was a bully, and a perfect one of which to make an object lesson. Taking down Saddam Hussein sent a message to the other bullies in the global neighborhood, and rallied those who do not wish to be bullied. President Bush understood this. He also understood that this war would not benefit him politically, and in fact carried great political risks. Yet he knew that it was far better to fight an easy war against a weak opponent, than later to take on a much more costly and risky war against opponents, who had made alliances, consolidated their power, and possessed nuclear weapons; and this in a world where there was less will to resists and engage such powers.
In World War II, the United States waited too long to attack and quash the threat, instead allowing it to burgeon into what would be the axis powers, that eventually cost half a million US lives and the use of nuclear weapons. By attacking Iraq now, the United States has sent a message to the other bullies on the global block, and they have backed down and become more compliant to ‘diplomacy.’
Would the American electorate understand such intricacies? Probably not. In a perfect world the US president should always tell the truth to the people he serves. However, we are far from a perfect world, and in fact we are living in a more dangerous world than at anytime in the past. If John Kerry should be elected president by the American people, there will be dancing in the streets in the far corners of the world, and the time of the United States as a bulwark of freedom and hope will be waning.
Soon we will decide who the next president of the United States of America will be. We have two choices. We can re-elect the man who supposedly got us into war with Iraq on false pretenses, although we have found weapons of mass destruction, in the 3 out of the 4 types. In addition, we have also found and disposed of large amounts of highly refined uranium, along with chemical; biological, and conventional weapons. The real question at this point is, does what we have found constitute evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In other words, “Did this current President knowingly lie about why we attacked Iraq?
Here is my take on why we attacked Iraq. It really had nothing to do with WMD or freeing the Iraqi people, or any other answer that has been given. In my opinion the US population was more or less deceived about the reason(s) we went to war with Iraq. When an American president takes office, he swears to protect the American people (he is after all our commander in chief). This oath supercedes any other oath(s), in his oath of office. It is his first and primary duty to see that “We the People,” survive. Does this mean that it is OK for the President to lie to the American People? Many times throughout history, and specifically our country, leaders have been less than honest. There are two allowable reasons for a leader to lie; if it would somehow tip our hand to the enemy and cause more of our soldiers lives to be lost, or for us to lose an advantage that would enable us to win the war. These are acceptable deceptions. In the instance of the Iraqi war a lie was necessary. It was necessary so that the American population, and thus Congress, would support a war against Iraq: a lie was necessary, because this war was a necessity if we were going to save lives, and continue to exist.
Throughout history, retrospectively, there are many places that one could point too and say, “You know, if they had only done such and such, then all of this could have been prevented.” It is somewhat like the butterfly effect, as applied to history. Generally, only in retrospect are the connections between actions and their ultimate effects easily seen. However, this is not always the case, sometimes apparently unrelated subject to action events can be seen in advance. The Iraqi war is such an instance; in fact the reason for the war in Iraq, ultimately had nothing to do with Iraq.
Terrorism strikes where there is a perceived weakness. Terrorist will continue, regardless of the conditions in the world. Where they will ply their trade depends on where they perceive they will get the most bang for their buck. Terrorist wish to demoralize the populations they attack not energize them. Terrorists also, do not wish to attack where they will be met with strength and pursued. This is counterproductive to their aim, instead of instilling terror and making the population more compliant to their demands, it makes them appear weak, and encourages others to defy them. In other words, terrorists are bullies, with very little real power. And just as with a neighborhood bully, if they are stood up to and backed down, the bully will leave for easier places.
Saddam Hussein was a bully, and a perfect one of which to make an object lesson. Taking down Saddam Hussein sent a message to the other bullies in the global neighborhood, and rallied those who do not wish to be bullied. President Bush understood this. He also understood that this war would not benefit him politically, and in fact carried great political risks. Yet he knew that it was far better to fight an easy war against a weak opponent, than later to take on a much more costly and risky war against opponents, who had made alliances, consolidated their power, and possessed nuclear weapons; and this in a world where there was less will to resists and engage such powers.
In World War II, the United States waited too long to attack and quash the threat, instead allowing it to burgeon into what would be the axis powers, that eventually cost half a million US lives and the use of nuclear weapons. By attacking Iraq now, the United States has sent a message to the other bullies on the global block, and they have backed down and become more compliant to ‘diplomacy.’
Would the American electorate understand such intricacies? Probably not. In a perfect world the US president should always tell the truth to the people he serves. However, we are far from a perfect world, and in fact we are living in a more dangerous world than at anytime in the past. If John Kerry should be elected president by the American people, there will be dancing in the streets in the far corners of the world, and the time of the United States as a bulwark of freedom and hope will be waning.
posted by Tharmas Erthona at 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home