August 31, 2004
Between Words and Actions
Iraqi bullets did not and still do not distinguish between the politics of one target or another. The crushing weight of the collapsing towers did not take one party’s supporters and not the other side’s. The terrorist didn’t offload the Democrats from the planes that hit the towers, nor did they circle the planes while the Republicans escaped the twin towers. Most importantly, they did not care which party was in office when they put the planes into those towers, into the Pentagon. To them, there was and is no difference.
In the end, though, the policies do make a difference.
Pride is a deadly sin in times like ours. It is a sin that breeds complacency, it is a sin that breeds arrogance. While I have no problem with being proud of our country, I do have a problem with us taking that pride, and forgetting that it is based not merely on creeds, but on the quality of our actions.
We can be determined, we can be unwavering, but we must be wise in what we apply our focus and resolve to, because a mistake perpetuated with resolve will be as a cancer upon our good intentions, sapping our will and our strength. We must not waver, but we must not go down some blind alley, cursing those who merely tell us what we are doing. Such actions will consume our ability to fight, and leave us at the mercy of those cruel, indiscriminate enemies.
We cannot falsely believe that this will be a war won on ideals alone, because in the end it is not a war fought for ideals, it is a war fought for power. Osama does not fight us simply because he hates our liberality, our open culture, he fights us, because we are powerful, and he wishes our power to wane, and his to rise. This is not merely a war against Osama's evil, it is a war against his agenda. Whatever we do that furthers his agenda furthers his cause.
He gains his power from the collapse of other people's power. He gains it from the resentment of those who rightly despise their authoritarian governments, but wrongly believe attacking us and the Western world will bring about a better world. He is a different type of tyrant, A truly new evil, born of modern fundamentalism and modern political nihilism.
The Republicans want to believe they have a new cold war, a new long term conflict that will require a remaking of the Middle East. God bless them, they want to do the right thing. Doesn't mean they are. I look at it, and I see a blind alley. It does not mean we should not push for reform, but we should ask ourselves whether our aggressive actions may get in its way. In the end, there is no solution to the fight against Al Quaeda that can work apart from the initiative and will of the people of the Middle East themselves. What Bush has done in Iraq is to vindicate Al Quaeda's view of our country in the eyes of many of these people. In a conflict where their will is ultimately more important to our victory than our own, Iraq is decidedly a mistake, one that may or may not end well, but which still will exact more of a price for Americans than a benefit.
I wish us to succeed there, but I believe it will take a different approach. Will the UN be involved? We will have to see. But one thing is clear- if we have not set up the Iraqi government to stand on it's own two feet by the end of our involvement there, we will see more the soldiers die, there or elsewhere because of it.
The GOP can bring all the grateful Iraqis they want to to the stage to celebrate the wonderful fact that these people are free of Saddam Hussein, but if they fail to give Iraq a democracy that can exist autonomous of the United States, that gratitude will be short-lived.
Bush never presented liberation of the Iraqi people as our main goal in Iraq. He never told us that ours was a pre-emptive battle against his future intentions to gain uncoventional weapons, not his actual possession of them. That is an important difference, by the way, because a pre-emptive strike is supposed to deal with an already existing, yet not already employed threat against us. Preventative wars are illegal. We can't just have nations going to war with each other because they believe the other side might one day march against them, or use a weapon against them.
The Bush Doctrine is a doctrine of destabilization which sets a precedent not only for those who are actually threatened, but those who want to act first and attack some other country with minimal pretense. The time may come where we the fruits of our actions in Iraq reflected in first strike attacks in full scale military form against Israel and Iraq from their neighbors, or a similar incident in Asia regarding Taiwan.
We can talk about courage, we can talk about wisdom, we can talk about being a beacon of freedom to the world, but that is just talk. The results of our policy will always take precedence over the intentions of our policy in their influence over events. When we conquered Iraq, we did so in a month. None of us thought that almost a year and a half later, we'd still be fighting a war, much less that so much of our blood would be spilled.
When we invaded, we expected to find WMDs, and proof of collusion with terrorists. That was our whole justification to the world for what we did- an existing, not potential, existing threat to our national security, a clear and present danger to our country which we could not wait to take care of. We can debate endlessly about the morality of letting Saddam's terrible regime continue in power, but in the end our armed forces were not meant to defend Iraqis and their freedom first, but ours. Our politicians and our soldier swear allegiance to our flag, and swear to defend our country and its welfare first and foremost. While it is not always the easiest choice to make, that is the choice we are duty-bound to make.
Right now, we face a danger from an enemy that thinks long term, that plans extensively, that trains it's soldiers to pass through the cracks in our system. That we have not been attacked since 9/11 should not be reassuring, because they spent eight years planning 9/11. Bush has spent the years since 9/11 proudly proclaiming himself a war president, a president tough on terrorism, a president with the will and the boldness to get things done. The blood of our soldiers, the empty space where the evidence was supposed to appear to justify our war, and Al Quaeda's continued attacks around the world years after it was supposed to be defeated testify that for all the virtues Bush claims, his actions speak differently. For some of us, those actions speak louder than the flag-wrapped rhetoric of Bush's campaign and this convention.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2004 12:54 AMStephen:
If you havent done so recently, you really should read Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, in which he lists the reasons for going to war with Iraq. He begins with the fact that Saddam signed a peace treaty, and then broke it continually. He then shows how Saddam did not allow unfettered inspections, as sanctioned.
He showed also how UN intelligence said Saddam had botulinin, sarin, VX gas, and the like, while US intelligence showed Saddam had chemical munitions. He showed how Saddam was blocking UN mandated U-2 flights.
And he also talked about the many human rights abuses that Saddam committed.
Bush said the following words, showing that waiting too long can have disastrous consequences:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
When you read his statement in full, its easy to see how Bush touched on many of the issues that you say he didnt. Amazing what we can learn, isnt it?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 04:32 PMjbod, I think your partisan blinders are on too tight. Ponder for a moment the meaning of Bush’s words:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? “
Saddam did put us on notice in 1991 and again with each violation of the no fly zone. There was no surprise waiting to jump up and catch us off guard here.
al-Queda warned us with the first towers bombing almost a decade earlier and with subsequent attacks on our personnel in the world. There was no sneaking up on us and surprising us with an imminent threat, here.
Bush is talking to the ignorant who won’t notice that that there were ample warnings of what was to come and from the terrorists themselves. It is just plain false that what Bush said about us being surprised by imminent attack. As the 9/11 Commission report points out, we had all we needed to prompt us into motion to prevent 9/11 from occurring before 9/11. All that is except political will and open non communication between divisions in our government.
It is we who failed to use what we had. There were no boogeymen waiting in the dark to suddenly and without notice kill Americans on American soil. That is why I can’t accept Bush as a leader. He simply hasn’t the capacity to see reality for what it is. He is only capable of western movie mentality, good guys with white hats, and bad guys in black turbans, and he who is quicker on the draw wins the day. Sorry, nothing about what happened to us or will happen to us is anywhere close to that simple minded in scenario.
We need a President who can deal with reality, not some movie script.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 05:25 PMStephen, this is one of the wisest and most insightful articles I have read at WatchBlog. Very well elucidated and premised. It is rewarding to read wisdom and recognize it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 07:14 PMI’m not all that into politics but all of this controversy over the war really bothers me. When I was in school and studied WWII, we entered the war because we were attacked by Japan without notice. (sound familiar?) Not only did we go to war with Japan but we also went to war with Germany and Italy even though we were in no eminent danger from them.
We went into those countries and removed the tyranical governments and allowed them to become what they are today.
If this is wrong and is different then what is happening now, please explain.
P.S. In my personal view, I think that when we do go to war like this and in Kuait, we should be reimbersed by those countries once they are back on their feet. Kuait should be giving us oil for free for saving their butts.
Posted by: Roy at September 1, 2004 12:27 AMStephen,
I’m sorry but the flaw I see in your argument is that if you do not wish to change anything in the middle east, if upsetting the terrorist and the terrorist minded must be avoided at all costs, exactly how do you propose to fight the war on terror?
It does not mean we should not push for reform, but we should ask ourselves whether our aggressive actions may get in its way.
Surely arrests, cruise missile strikes, and special forces will also be seen as vindicating Al Qaeda’s view of our country as infidels who must die. Surely just because it’s not an all out invasion will it be seen as ‘good’ intervention. Do we wait for them to enact democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we wait for them to convince themselves they are wrong? As the Germans eventually would have I’m sure, becoming pacifists one day out of the blue?
In the end, there is no solution to the fight against Al Quaeda that can work apart from the initiative and will of the people of the Middle East themselves. What Bush has done in Iraq is to vindicate Al Quaeda’s view of our country in the eyes of many of these people. In a conflict where their will is ultimately more important to our victory than our own, Iraq is decidedly a mistake, one that may or may not end well, but which still will exact more of a price for Americans than a benefit.
I agree with the statement in bold. However, you are mixing apples and donuts. The initiative and will of the people cannot work without freedom. Al Qaeda is a symptom of a wider disease that has spread and is metastasising throughout the muslim world. Only decisive and arresting actions that have deep long term significance can effect a change in the middle east. Their will is exactly what I am talking about changing. You can’t do that the Kerry way. Islamofascism is not a boogeyman. Like fascism in the formerly democratic Germany it grew in the open throughout German society long before Hitler came on the scene. I am afraid that the John Kerry top-down approach of ‘diplomatique’ and status quo will have the opposite effect it is thought it will. Rather than endear them to us we will be despised for our weakness.
Let’s not forget that Osama Bin Laden didn’t proclaim that the US would fight to the bitter end. He said we were a rotton and corrupt society that didn’t have the stomach to fight, a bankrupt empire ready to fall. That we were paper tigers. A house of cards waiting for the right touch. What’s more, the Arab world in general is cloaked in a reality all their own. I don’t think the left really understands ‘the enemy’ as they say we must.
The Iraqi information minister Al Sahaf is probably more indicative of the ‘truth’ and the news that inform the opinion of the muslim world than you might imagine. Remember that much of the Arab world was stunned, literally stunned, when it turned out non-Arab TV was right and our Army was in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein had fled.
As Kerry’s policy suggests, surely we need the French and the UN to have a sucessful occupation?
A threat by a militant Islamic group in Iraq to murder two French hostages unless Paris abandons a law banning muslim headscarves in schools was being treated as a national crisis by the French government last night.After two emergency sessions of the government, the Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, met with President Jacques Chirac in the Elysee Palace last night. The President also sent his Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, to the Middle East to help gain the hostages’ release.
…Although France has a history of negotiating with terror groups and paying ransom demands for hostages, the country’s political leaders were united yesterday in condemning the political “blackmail”. nzherald
The BBC’s Angus Roxburgh in Paris reports that a large crowd of people gathered in the city’s Trocadero Square on Monday evening, to show their support for Christian Chesnot of Radio France Internationale and Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro newspaper. Thousands in France demonstrated solidarity with the journalists He says French people have been appalled by their plight, and are baffled that the country’s citizens should have been targeted by Iraqi militants, given France’s vocal opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. news.bbc via the Belmont Club
Surely this is not the way you would suggest such things be dealt with? The French are declaring an all out effort for a ‘political solution’ in Iraq.
France is leading untiringly a resolute action against this scourge and it is always bringing its support and contribution to all the initiatives of the international community in this field,” said Cecile Pozzo di Borgo, spokeswoman of the French Foreign Ministry. The spokeswoman reiterated her country’s call for efforts to seek a “political solution” to the Iraqi crisis, adding that “the organization of free and democratic elections would permit to get together conditions of a real political and economic reconstruction of Iraq”.This suggests that the French diplomats are attempting to link the release of the French hostages to changes in the method and manner in which the Iraqi elections will be held. The mere fact that France is negotiating implictly means there will be a quid for the quo. After all, in 2003, European hostages held by Al Qaeda affiliate Algerian Islamic militant Group for Preaching and Combat were released in exchange for $6M dollars, according to Deutsche Welle. There were even demands from German politicians to force the ex-hostages to reimburse the state for the payout.
the Belmont Club
In short, the preferred solutions you are referring to for the war on terror are the same policies that didn’t work in the past and are inadequate in their totality for dealing with this threat.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 1, 2004 03:01 AMDavid:
Saddam did put us on notice in 1991 and again with each violation of the no fly zone.“we had all we needed to prompt us into motion to prevent 9/11 from occurring before 9/11. All that is except political will and open non communication between divisions in our government.
Thanks for making my argument for me. Usually you oppose my thinking, but your examples simply reinforce my comments.
Saddam DID put us on notice, yet little was done. I agreed with Operation Desrt Fox in 1998, but it did not accomplish enough. The UN killed many trees by writing and rewriting resolutions, but Saddam just laughed at these. Economic sanctions were criticized by the left because they were supposedly causing the death of 5000 children per month—-now that the sanctions are gone, the left says they were working.
You are absolutely correct in saying that we did not have the political will to solve the problem. Precisely my point. We needed a leader who has the will to take on the job. And Al Gore and John Kerry are not the men who could or would have done so.
So, David, I’m not sure where you disagree with me. You say we had all we needed before 9-11 to act—-yet we didnt. And the left is still saying we should not have acted.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 1, 2004 01:03 PMI’m thoroughly enjoying reading this link. All parties are providing thoughtful, well written posts. I feel we need to do all we can to help Iraq establish free government, but we need to keep in the FRONT of our minds the DEEP hatred these terrorists have for the United States and its citizens… regardless of the reasons. Do you really believe these people will respond to anything short of the tactics being used? Please… you are kidding yourselves. They hate us with every ounce of their being, because of our power. They will do everything they can to keep their focus and try to bring us down. More attacks will surely follow. Do you really believe passifism is the answer?
Posted by: Laurie at September 5, 2004 02:37 AM
