May 08, 2005
Tumblers in the Lock of Time, Part Five
War
War is a beast to be kept on a tight leash.
There are those who think they can unleash it, and not have it turn on them. Wrong. Wars are ravenous beasts that rarely stay under control. The only good reason to let loose such a monster is to turn it on another like it, to let it tear that brother of his to shreds. Those who fail to exhaust the monster and force its rest at the end will find themselves staring down the muzzle into the red eyes of the demon they’ve freed.
What does Bush see now? A war still going on, two years after it's liberation. I don't think he ever expected a drug out conflict like this. I think he believed that the best would happen, and the beast could be put to rest. But war is a wild creature, never tamed, and must be dealt with as such. It will take advantage of any weakness in a policy to turn on those who have ventured too close to it.
The Europeans underestimated it, thinking they could contain it and talk it to death. They were confronting the war Osama Bin Laden had started, though, channeled through another generation's wish to settle the score, and bring the first Gulf War to its natural conclusion. They could not turn aside the frustrations of a nation that handily won the last war, and yet could not make the leader of the beaten nation submit, or the grief powered belligerence of a nation looking to unleash its military on a solid target.
Democrats underestimated it. I think we have been spoiled by a generation of limited scale wars into thinking that this too could be managed. We also underestimated the willingness of an administration to manipulate the public towards the war and about it, and forgot that people would rather be proud of making a mistake than ashamed of it, and that given a chance, a less scrupulous leader will play on that desire.
I think many people know now that this wasn't the war we should have fought, but rationalization can overcome judgment, and we can be left justifying the war by every cause except that which was it's original purpose. This was supposed to be a blow to the terrorists and a removal of WMDs from their grasps. At least that was the reason many Americans allowed this war to take place.
But we were deceived, and at the worst time possible. War is not kind on illusions or deceptions. If you're not honest with yourself and others on what you might face, and why you're going to face it, you go in half-crippled. If Saddam had WMDs, then there never would have been complaints about the nearly 1600 hundred American soldiers dead. We would have known their lives were given having saved so many other lives back home and abroad. If terrorists had been found there in great numbers from the beginning, it would have been truly cathartic to wipe them off the face of the earth there. But that's not what happened. There are those who said ousting Saddam justified this war, but I would differ on that point, and not because I find his removal a bad thing. There were ways to do it that would leave us in a position of strength, and ways to do it what would leave us weakened. Bush chose a path that left us weakened on several fronts.
He deliberately alienated allies. Nobody uses the kind of language they used regarding Europe without wanting to give offense. They wanted to drive wedges between American citizens and those of the world. The tactics they used, including the infamous "freedom fries" episode reminded me of what was done during the First World War, where Sauerkraut became liberty cabbage and hamburgers became Salisbury Steak (Hamburgers derive their name from the German city). Only this time we didn't stir up this kind of ethnic antipathy for an enemy, but for an ally, albeit an occasionally frustrating one.
He didn't start the drive for war with observation of a real threat. Remember that months passed before the drive for war met the case for war. It should have been the other way around. In times where the accuracy of our information is a matter of life and death, people are dying because somebody put together a case that was neatly compelling in its narrative, but misleading and messy in the facts. It is not merely the problem of being wrong, but having neglected being right in the course of seeking to be so persuasive.
He planned for the great beast to do what it was told, planned that it wouldn't turn on them when they turned their back. But it got the better of them, and they cannot bear to have anybody know, though everybody does. Their war got away from, unfolded in ways that defeated their expectations. Moving past those expectations would have been admitting a political defeat after all the revilement of the other side for being insufficient protectors of the realm, so instead of reining in the damnable war, they let things stay in their dysfunctional statement, raising the domestic tensions they had created using the war's build-up as a political issue further by accusing critics of the war's execution and justification of wanting to see America lose.
What struck me most bitterly about the 2002 elections was how the president was willing to divide a country in a time of crisis for the sake of political gain, and for the sake of a war that did not make much sense at the time. Iraq's neighbors seemed more natural targets. Even Gen. Tommy Franks was suggesting Yemen and Somalia, with Iraq as distant, not so attractive possibility. But as early as December or November of 2001, while we still fought the Taliban, this president wanted options on Iraq.
Now, with hindsight, I know things were worse than I imagined. Worse, it seems quite like that my president, or at least his immediate staff knew then what I know now. They sacrificed post 9/11 unity, the lives of thousands of American Soldiers, our good standing in the world, and our ability to fight other, more useful battles in the war against terrorism, and for what? To solidify control of the Senate and House? Are not the peace and security of this country more important than that? Are not the responsibilities of office deserving of deeper thought and consideration than as an excuse to settle old scores?
This creature war should never be confronted with such carelessness and recklessness. Boldness, courage, and optimism are not sins in the midst of a war. We've never said they are. We just don't think it's optimism to ignore problems, boldness to get us into a counterproductive mess like Iraq, or courage to to be too chick to own up to mistakes and correct them. Sure, the president wants us to believe that the previously mentioned virtues are his. But has he demonstrated them, or just claimed them?
Can he call it leadership when he doesn't know or doesn't care what he's taking us into? When he tells us our purpose for doing this is one thing, then changes his mind when events don't support his original contention, that's not leadership. That's political maneuvering meant to evade a need for leadership that this president does not have the strength of character to meet.
This war is about a series of weaknesses that gave way in our government, weakness that have everything to do with it's authority and the checks and balances that tell us that this authority is reliable. Worse, these were not just lines we drifted over, but lines our executive branch willfully crossed. Add to that the fact they've taken a political stand on not going back on those lines, and you've got one massive headache on your hands. And out there lurks the consequences of an ill-considered war. Something's got to give. Hopefully it will be the politics, because I don't want to consider the alternative.
Look at history, and you will find that war is never a simple affair. The mustering of armies has always been an expensive proposition. Even Sun Tzu talks about it. Modern technology has only enabled us to extend ranges, bring about greater destruction with fewer weapons, and solve some logistical problems that our forebears had far less easier times with.
But the cost of maintaining an occupation, of maintaining fuel and supplies, and a real rebuilding of the country we just smashed will not go away. We can't just call for a mulligan on this invasion. We've done it. We're stuck with the consequences whether we like it or not. I would prefer that we bravely face those consequences so we can revise our strategy towards one that's in our country's best interests. I would prefer that our leaders realize that they can't force the resolution they want here or abroad, and finally realize that our strategies need to work smarter, not harder. At the beginning, I knew one thing about the war on terrorism: the winners would be the ones who endured the conflict best. Short Term political wish fulfillment will lose us this war.
We have an agile enemy that works mostly on a civilian level, only occasion presenting broad targets. The inclusion of law enforcement as part of the War on Terrorism is no copout to pieces of paper, but an appropriate opposition of our enemies forces with our own at the right scale of engagement. We may think that it's all wonderful to "fight them over there so we don't fight them here", but the trouble is, they are already here, and we must take care of them here, or this is all in vain. We must set our defenses well and attack the enemy where it counts, or we will see a second tragedy on our shores, one we had more than enough warning for. Make no mistake, though we unleashed the monster in Iraq, al Qaeda let it slip in New York, and we have yet to hear that they have reconsidered their war on us.
They still stalk us. They still want Americans dead. They still want our power broken, and our influence removed from the Middle East. War has come to us in this century, as it must, as it would have anyways. I am convinced there is no permanent peace for any society. I doubt we will ever see a generation that will not have to serve. The question is, when the matters of war come upon us, will we take a mature, open-minded approach to our situations, or will we end up letting the beast devour our hopes and our dreams in the foolishness of short-sighted leaders?
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 8, 2005 09:21 AMInteresting article, Stephen. War is upon us, for whatever reason. I suppose that’s the real question: why is it upon us? What is the real root of the death and destruction at first delivered upon us in New York and now delivered upon Afghanistan and Iraq?
I, for one, have no idea.
Wars are usually led by people seeking resources and power and fought by people misled by their leaders - thinking they’re fighting for freedom, justice, religion. An emotional cause to drive them - then, lose a family member, friends, a town…and the original purpose is strengthened by vengeance.
As we develop as a “civilized” world - we need to rely more on compromise, friendship, sharing to get ahead. Don’t step on others to survive. Instead, bring them up nearer to your own level to better everything. We give a lot as the richest country in the world. We need to make an effort to not just give, but to both let others grow without our culturally divisive influence.
Posted by: Thomas R at May 9, 2005 12:22 AMI like War. The Death, Destruction and the Drama beat Survivor any day. And the Special Effects… Unbelievable!!!!
Surely, the cost of Spreading Freedom is well worth it. I mean, Saddam killed ga-zillions of Iraqis. Those Iraqis dead from OIF should be grateful to Bush.
I will admit. The entertainment value of a neverending war has lowered the ratings a bit. I mean, who wants CSI to keep trying to solve the same case, right? Having the same bombs go off is killing the plotline. Think of the Children watching at Home!!!
For this reason, I advocate Spreading Freedom to IRAN!!! New Suspense!!! New Story!!! BETTER RATINGS!!!! Let the March to whatever-Capital-Iran-has begin in JUNE!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a couple of questions while we are on the subject of ‘war’. Why did we go to war in Kosovo? And why are there still American forces there? And what *IS* out exit strategy?
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 9, 2005 07:32 AMRhinehold, here’s an interesting thing we (well, most of us) learned from Kosovo. In a nation building exercise, the mission is not accomplished “until the political indigenous will and structures exist to support a stable government and a local security force to keep the peace.”
Given the Clinton-era operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti, it’s pathetic that President Bush thought we’d be out of Iraq by the end of 2003.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 9, 2005 08:19 AMRhinehold:
The US is not paying for Kosovo. Kosovo is paid by someone else.
Posted by: Aldous at May 9, 2005 09:33 AMAP,
I agree, the post war maintenance has been botched.
Aldous,
Oh, so the US going into a foriegn country and removing the leader of that country, remaining for years later trying to help keep the peace is OK as long as ‘someone else is paying for it’. Meaning the UN. Which they get from the dues we pay…
So you’re of the camp that the only thing we did wrong in Iraq is that we paid for it ourselves directly instead of filtering the funds through a corrupt world body first…?
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 9, 2005 09:50 AMSo the UN is more corrupt than our own government? I don’t believe it for a minute.
Posted by: Ruth at May 9, 2005 10:52 AMThe question is not duration. In preventing genocide, you stay there as long as you can, which, given the fact we’re not footing the bill, is pretty long. We’ve had a World War Spring from that region, so turning this fits my notion on turning one beast on another to their mutual destruction.
Additionally, we are quite clear on why we’re in Kosovo- to prevent the slaughter of the Kosovar Albanians and their forced removal from their lands. We know we’re in the right there, and we put enough soldiers on the ground to do it right in the first place. It was from the successful ongoing occupations of the Balkans that we got the figures that told us more people were needed to sit on Iraq as a country.
Most importantly, the cause for this limited war was not based on cobbled deceptions. In fact, our reactions in the Balkans were belated responses to problems that had been in full flame since the time of Bush Sr.’s Presidency, and which he in fact took flak for. People were asking Bush 41 whether the lack of oil was the reason he didn’t go in to oppose the obvious evil of the Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia. It would be three years before anybody did anything.
All in all, there is no comparison. In Kosovo and Bosnia, there was clarity to the mission objectives, reality behind the Causus Belli, and international support, ultimately, for doing the right thing. Even though both are exercises in nation building, Kosovo and Bosnia are examples of it done right.
I am not utterly against war. I see it as a necessity in a world where not all evil and misguided men can be stopped with words,logic, law and good will. But we must acknowledge that with the use of war comes the prices of war, and that sometimes using war as a solution to problems is like swinging a sledgehammer around your living room to smash a cockroach. The Roach may have richly deserved it, but you may end up destroying a great deal that’s valuable to you in order to show it who’s boss.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2005 11:25 AMGood article, Stephen.
In your followup you said “I am not utterly against war” and I think that it’s worth noting that that is true of many of the “anti-war” faction. I don’t agree with what Bush did with Iraq - but I, and many of us that were opposed to Dubya’s foray into Iraq were, and are, supportive of the war in Afghanistan, which had a stronger justification. I’m also not in favor of pulling out of Iraq before it’s stable. I am in favor of accountability for mistakes and deception.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 9, 2005 12:01 PMI have a couple of questions while we are on the subject of ‘war’. Why did we go to war in Kosovo? And why are there still American forces there? And what *IS* out exit strategy?
I’ve been wondering that myself. I’ve also been wondering what our exit strategies are for Germany and Japan, since we’ve had troops in both of those countries since WWII.
In fact, the only country we’ve invaded since that we DON’T still have troops in is Vietnam.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 9, 2005 01:52 PMRhinehold,
There are still Americans in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Grenada, Panama, and the list goes on.
The difference in Kosavo and Bosnia has been spelled out rather well by Stephen. I would like to add, however, that we had a sanction from a world body. Although you may not think much of that world body, many nations do. It gave war a “world authority” so to speak. Sure, we did most of the work, but anyone who knows about war knows that the psychological plays as much a part as the tactical. We had support there…we don’t here.
Ruth,
Excellent point about the UN and our own government.
It seems folks can only find blame with anyone else who isn’t American. We have our fair share of problems and corruption. Most of it we will never even know about due to cover-up.
Was Iraq a mistake? Yes. But in the words of my uncle who was in retail….”you break it, you buy it”. We’re there now, right or wrong, we must fix it. I only hope we can learn from our mistakes. Sacrificing lives so quickly is never justified by a “civilized” society (and I’m not simply talking about American GI’s…there is American contractors, and God only knows who many inocent Iraqi’s).
Posted by: Tom L at May 9, 2005 02:04 PMGreat book about the causes/effects of war in general: War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, a former New York Times war correspondent. It goes into government use of propaganda, the widespread nationalism during war, the psychological effects of the war on the individual, the emphasis on war and violence in human society, and much more. A great read for anyone interested in foreign affairs, politics, or life in general.
Posted by: Ryan at May 9, 2005 02:15 PMStephen, you brilliantly posited one of the most succinct psychological analyses of America’s role in Iraq when you said:
Democrats underestimated it. I think we have been spoiled by a generation of limited scale wars into thinking that this too could be managed. We also underestimated the willingness of an administration to manipulate the public towards the war and about it, and forgot that people would rather be proud of making a mistake than ashamed of it, and that given a chance, a less scrupulous leader will play on that desire.
My hat is tipped..
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2005 06:24 PMWhile I know many of you are inclined to ask the question “why are we at war,” that becomes less and less relevant by the day. I would like to invite all of you to start asking “what are we going to do now?” Though it is debatable, I believe that it is more important now to distinguish the road ahead and the best way to traverse it. I know a lot of you are still hurt by the indignation and disappointment brought upon you by President Bush, but there’s little sense now in brooding over it.
Not that any of you are brooding :)
Posted by: Zeek at May 9, 2005 07:14 PMZeek and Tom, as soon as we handed over the government to Iraqis, our reason for being there was reduced to being a Praetorian Guard to the Shiite dominated government until Iraqis security forces are trained.
Any chance at shaping the political environment to something more pro-US was lost when Ayatollah Sistani forced Bush into holding early direct elections without educating the electorate on their responsibilities, and without educating the candidates on their duties to the people.
Brooding no….disappointed….Very!
So, what are we going to do now?
This is a good question. We still don’t have an exit strategy, the military is having one heck of a time obtaining new recruits (geez, I wonder why?), and anytime anyone gets sent overseas they have no idea how long they will be deployed or when they will be going back when they get back home. Many of our so-called reservist are finding themselves unemployed when they return. Yes, what are we going to do?
The President refuses to come up with an exit strategy or even a goal. I’ve heard “I’m not going to put a date on this because the terrorist will know it” more than I care to. Maybe, just MAYBE, our TROOPS need to hear it!!
Setting an exit date or a date for a planned troop downsizing would be considered a goal. You know, one of those things one strives to achieve. If things don’t work out as planned the date can be changed. Right now it’s open-ended. Kind of like the federal deficit.
Posted by: Tom L at May 9, 2005 09:33 PMOh yeah, and what are we going to do about Iran? What are we going to do about North Korea?
Let me answer these for you….we’ll use diplomacy. Why? Because we are over-extended and I’m sure that’s the only reason. We rushed into Iraq for something…WMD? Now we are pretty damn sure Iran and North Korea have or will have the mother of WMD. What to do?
What ARE we going to do now?
Posted by: Tom L at May 9, 2005 09:38 PMRight now it’s open-ended. Kind of like the federal deficit.
Heh. Good one. :)
Posted by: American Pundit at May 9, 2005 09:42 PMDavid Remer-
Thanks.
I think the crucial, unasked question is this: how do we wage our wars from now on?
If we do not learn our lessons from this war, regardless of whether we win or lose, the way we wage war will turn much darker, and much nastier, and the people who will pay the worst prices will be the average American citizen.
And the reason we will end up this way will be that we have lost our sense of shame, our sense of universal ethics and morality. I think the politicization of the religious right has served as a means by which our country has become more, not less corrupt. Why? Because it has justified the Machiavellian uses of power in the bright shining cause of good, thereby providing evil, hypocritical, incompetent, and corrupt practices the cover of a greater cause.
The morality of our actions in attaining a goal are as important as the goodness of the goal we seek. Other wise, we rot ourselves inside. I despise this war because of how it’s eating away at our national character, and forcing good people to take their own journeys to the dark side in order to follow where there leaders have gone. He has promised us power over the world that has so wounded us, but all he’s given us is empty self-proclaimed victories.
No war has seemed so dark in it’s heart to me as this one. No conflict has left me feeling so used by a government, so astounded at its ability to wreck what was once so proud and noble about this country. What makes this worse is the uneasy feeling that if we don’t learn our lesson now, the darkness of this war will pale before the evil the next one will bring on us, as Korea paled before Vietnam, and WWI beside WWII. This country doesn’t need another four years of this kind of shit. I don’t need it. The American people are not pawns to be sacrificed for some Pentagon Intellectual’s notion of good Geopolitics, or corporate efficiency brought to the military. It is their interests and their lives our government’s supposed to defend, not the sacred cows of the defense establishment, nor the delusions of an administration.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2005 09:56 PMStephen,
“I think the crucial, unasked question is this: how do we wage our wars from now on?”
What do you mean “from now on?” You really think Americans are going to remember this in 30 years? Just look at Vietnam. That was the perfect lesson on things NOT to do yet we still failed to learn the lesson. If a kick in the ass like that can be so quickly forgotten, I’m thinking the mistakes made in Iraq will soon fade from our memories.
Posted by: Zeek at May 9, 2005 10:23 PMZeek
It’s funny you brought up Vietnam. It was a disaster because a Democrat started it. Democrats have no idea how to prosecute a war.
When a Democrat president is elected again (God forbid) I pray that they don’t start any wars. Hopefully they’ll stick with diplomacy. They seem to be good at talking (unfortunately you get all the social programs too). As soon as someone needs their ass kicked we’ll need to elect another Republican.
Posted by: Pat at May 9, 2005 10:52 PMPat, you mean like WWII when the Republicans didn’t want to fight? Also, it’s interesting that Eisenhower signed the truce with North Korea and Nixon & Ford lost the war in Vietnam.
If you want to talk history, it’s always the Republicans who are first to sit at the surrender table.
Pat,
FDR was a Republican? and to think of all the socialist type things he did.
Men are men. Parties are parties. To say that a democrat can’t wage a war and a replican can is akin to saying black folks can’t play baseball. PLEASE!!!! If a war is NECESSARY…the key word here….I’m sure our elected leader will do his best to protect our interest. No matter what party they happen to belong to. In fact, I’m sure GW is doing his best…unfortunately, I’m not sure his best will get us out of Iraq anytime soon. The problem with this war is that it was unprovoked and unnecessary.
But leave it to the kings and nobles of the world to sacrifice a few pawns in the name of WMD, no I mean to oust a horrible dictator, no…really it’s becuase Iraq flew planes into the world trade center….oh yeah, wrong again! It’s in the name of democracy….yeah, that’s it…democracy. I only hope he can get that part right and finalize his stance on why we are there to begin with.
Posted by: Tom L at May 9, 2005 11:19 PMPat,
“It’s funny you brought up Vietnam. It was a disaster because a Democrat started it. Democrats have no idea how to prosecute a war.”
It’s funny you should say a Democrat started the Vietnam war because it was a Republican (Eisenhower) that got us tied down there in the first place by sending billions of American dollars and 900 advisers to prop up Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of Vietnam. Also, I seem to recall that when the Republicans got back in office they kept screwing things up just like their Democratic predecesors.
In either event, that is besides the point. My point was that Bush forgot the lessons Vietnam taught us, and therefore it is likely that the mistakes we made/are making in Iraq will be repeated some thirty odd years down the road.
“As soon as someone needs their ass kicked we’ll need to elect another Republican.”
Yes… that’s right… let’s just keep kicking everyone’s ass until the problem seems to fix itself.
“When a Democrat president is elected again (God forbid) I pray that they don’t start any wars.”
Yet for some reason when a Republican is president it’s a good idea to start a war?
*Looks at Iraq and Iran-Contra*
Ah yes… I see what you mean now… (Wait, no I don’t).
Ignore Pat. He would pull the republican lever in a voting booth if the name beside the ballot was Adolf Hitler.
Posted by: Tom L at May 9, 2005 11:37 PMPat-
It’s funny you brought up Vietnam. It was a disaster because a Democrat started it. Democrats have no idea how to prosecute a war.
The Republicans love to talk about kicking ass. They go into Fallujah the first time, get halfway in, order a withdrawal. Then they let it fester for months as a terrorist haven.
There’s a old adage in writing: show, don’t tell. Stop telling us you Republicans are such badasses. Start proving it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2005 02:28 AMAnd don’t forget that it was Clinton’s military that did such a brilliant job in Afghanistan. There are still Pentagon officers who laugh about Rumsfeld saying he’d create a leaner, meaner military, when it already existed.
Re: Pat
Stop telling us you Republicans are such badasses. Start proving it.
Ironically, Bush did. By sticking to his guns, and seeing it through to the end rather than go all waffle-like as Kerry would have inevitably done.
Really, to take Fallujah as an example of… what? Not kicking ass?
Perhaps if we had postponed the Iraqi elections, as Kerry and most of the liberal elites counseled, we could have created a true uprising amongst the Iraqi people by also really cracking down hard on anyone we suspect of harboring terrorists or former Baathists. You know, do exactly what the left says we war mongering brutal GOP chickenhawk-types want to do anyway? Kill innnocent people, shoot first, ask questions later? etc.
Counter-insurgency requires that you apply force judiciously and err on the side of not ‘killing them all, and let god sort em out’. You are not only trying to discourage the bad guys, you are trying to win over the people, (and maybe even some of the bad guys.)
And the reason we will end up this way will be that we have lost our sense of shame, our sense of universal ethics and morality. I think the politicization of the religious right has served as a means by which our country has become more, not less corrupt. Why? Because it has justified the Machiavellian uses of power in the bright shining cause of good, thereby providing evil, hypocritical, incompetent, and corrupt practices the cover of a greater cause.
This is just plain silly. And quite the opposite too.
There is no such thing as evil in the lexicon of the left, Stephen. I’m surprised you haven’t received any of the memo’s. There is no black and white. No absolutes. No definite answers. Morality is relative. It cannot be defined by a single culture or set of beliefs. All worldviews are equally valid. We shouldn’t be intolerant of others beliefs after all. No culture is inherently better than another.
Posted by: ericsimonson at May 10, 2005 03:47 AMThere is no such thing as evil in the lexicon of the left
You read too much Hannity and Coulter, eric.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2005 04:31 AMThe Right is happy the way things are in Iraq. They can keep harping on Terrorism as long as the fighting continues. Plus, they can pay off their Halliburton pals along the way.
Posted by: Aldous at May 10, 2005 05:04 AMAldous,
I’ll be much happier when the Iraqis no longer have to fear death at the hands of their fellow Iraqis.
When the Iraqis have a stable and reasonably liberal democratic government that allows them to safely raise their families, start businesses, build homes, and pursue their dreams— I will be happy.
Posted by: ericsimonson at May 10, 2005 11:37 AMEric- Why did Bush wait until after the Elections to put down an insurgency uprising in Fallujah? Why didn’t he take care of the problem the first time around? Why did he pull out our soldiers in the middle of the offensive, and let the problem stew for half the year? What’s so damn black and white about that?
We believe in evil, but we believe it’s in us too, and if we feed it enough, we become evil too, despite our best intentions. You go out there and you apologize for torture, for dishonesty and negligence in they way we were sent into this war, and hardly mention the fact that we can’t account for billions of dollars for the money that we’re supposed to be using to get this nation back on its feet. A bright shining cause means nothing without people being on their best behavior.
As for their being no absolutes or definite answers, that’s because we’re human, with the endless ability to twist and turn meanings, living varied lives beyond counting. We’re too complex to resolve our behavior to easy answers and pat explanations.
But the world is not a random place, and the needs and vulnerabilities of human beings aren’t random either, and that means certain nexuses of commonality exist. From one perspective, Evil may be a simple matter, but in truth it is as complex as the human behavior it affects. That’s the damnable thing about it. We can’t define evil out of our society. We can’t define it out of our selves.
There are impulses we have to fight, and compromises we have to avoid. There are folks we must protect, and rights we must uphold. That means our apparent options are limited, but if we’re not blinded by an affinity for dark solutions, we will see options open for us that will better serve our people and our consciences. Evil is not just a choice, it’s a habit, and a way of life that we could end up choosing if we don’t watch ourselves. That we intend better when we start out will not necessarily make our fall to the dark side any less of a tragedy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2005 03:10 PMTom,
“Ignore Pat. He would pull the republican lever in a voting booth if the name beside the ballot was Adolf Hitler.”
When was the last time you voted for a Republican? Or would you pull the democrat lever in a voting booth if the name beside the ballot was Hugo Chavez? (notice my example is a real liberal and yours is just stupid).
Posted by: Pat at May 10, 2005 03:17 PMPat,
FYI:
Presidential election voting record: Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry
House of Representatives: J. Duncan (R)- I’ve voted for him 3 times
Senate: Gore (D), Fred Thomson (R) - voted for him twice, Clement (D), Clark (D)
There’s the bulk of my federal voting record. Yes, I do cross party lines.
I think many people on bost sides vote for a party rather than an individual. People are more important than any party. Some have stronger views on certain issues important to me than others (independent of their party).
My point regarding your voting for Hitler if he ran under a Repblican ticket was not the he was conservative….but if he “said” he was republican I think it wouldn’t matter to many becuase they are voting a ticket rather than an individual. The same could be said about many on the left. It’s time to take back our country from lifetime political elite. The only way to do that is think outside of party politics. Vote for people NOT parties. George Washington, the father of our country, was entirely against parties. He tought they would ruin our country. I use to not agree, but as both sides are becoming more polarized I can begin to see his point.
The reasons I didn’t vote for GW: I feel he took us into an unjust war too quickly on false pretenses (my feelings haven’t changed about that either), He and his “party” have taken a huge budget surplus and inverted it, and he is pandering to the religous right which I feel violates what Thomas Jefferson called the separation of church and state. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Christian. I feel it VERY wrong to use my Saviour’s name to garner votes. GW is not the only one guilty of this…many on the right are “using” the church for votes.
Posted by: Tom L at May 10, 2005 07:18 PMeric,
“I’ll be much happier when the Iraqis no longer have to fear death at the hands of their fellow Iraqis.”
And Iraqis will be much happier when they no longer have to fear death at the hands of the U.S. Remind me again, whose happiness is the priority here?
Posted by: Zeek at May 10, 2005 07:41 PMEric,
You write that for liberals: ” There is no black and white. No absolutes. No definite answers. Morality is relative. It cannot be defined by a single culture or set of beliefs. All worldviews are equally valid. We shouldn’t be intolerant of others beliefs after all. No culture is inherently better than another.”
Interesting. Perhaps this belongs in a separate post. Does this imply conservatives see only black and white?
For the conservative who sees only black and white, perceiving the liberal’s full spectrum of color would be astounding.
Think of the ray of light on the cover of “Dark Side of the Moon” exiting the prism in color. Pink Floyd is a notoriously liberal group. Perhaps, for the conservative, there simply is no prism.
Consider Dorothy opening the door to see a full world of color. (Frank Baum was a socialist, by the way). And later, who should be the absolute ruler of Oz? Not a great and powerful wizard, but… And when Dorothy says “I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” What’s a conservative from Kansas to think?
Apparently a conservative has definite answers, knows absolutes. Care to spell that out, in political terms appropriate for this site? A definitive morality which can be spelled out by one religion, one culture, shared by conseratives?
And whose worldview is most valid? Or, in absolute terms, whose worldview is the only valid one?
Should we be intolerant of other beliefs? Again, in political terms, would you care to specify which belief is right & which is wrong? When confronted with a wrong belief, what course of action would be appropriate?
Do conseratives believe one culture is better than another? Is it a matter of one being superior, and the rest equally inferior? Or is there a heirarchy of cultural superiority?
And where does Canada fit into this scheme?
Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2005 10:01 PM
Re: Zeek
“It’s funny you should say a Democrat started the Vietnam war because it was a Republican (Eisenhower) that got us tied down there in the first place by sending billions of American dollars and 900 advisers to prop up Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of Vietnam.”
Now you’re saying diplomacy by Eisenhower (a favorite of the Democrats) is what started the war. Johnson micro-managed the war from the Whitehouse and it wasn’t until Nixon got in office that the military’s hands were untied.
Rolling thunder was a huge Johnson mistake.
When Nixon implemented Linebacker I and II the Air Force bombed the North Vietnamese into submission. It had nothing to do with a Democrat.
If Johnson had been allowed to continue prosecuting the war we’d still be there.
Posted by: Pat at May 11, 2005 12:35 AMTo All Republicans:
The Army will set aside a full day on May 20 as the day to have every recruiter across America review Army recruiting policies and standards. It’s an effort to stop overly aggressive recruiting tactics.
Nationwide, the Army wants to make sure men and women who become soldiers do so without being threatened.
The announcement comes just one day after the 11 News Defenders exposed a Houston Army recruiter threatening to arrest a local young man if he didn’t report that day to the army recruiting station.
Sgt. Thomas kelt left this message on that young man’s cell phone: “Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn’t hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o’clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That’s the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o’clock. You fail to appear and we’ll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back.”
Posted by: Aldous at May 11, 2005 02:54 AMit wasn’t until Nixon got in office that the military’s hands were untied.
Yikes! Pat, is that revisionist history, or just lack of education on the war? From the first day of Nixon’s presidency, he and Kissenger were looking for a way to retreat with “honor”.
phx8, it’ll be interesting to hear eric’s reply. So far, everything he’s posted looks like it could have been lifted out of an Ann Coulter book.
Pat-
Rolling Thunder was indeed a mistake, but not because it tied the hands of the military. It was a mistake because North Vietnam could absorb the damage to their industrial centers without much damage to their ability to escalate a ground war which they had significant advantages of economy and manpower in. In short, they could cheaply raise the ante on the numbers on their ground forces, while such escalation on our part would not only be controversial, but also expensive and nowhere near as sustainable.
We are lucky in the current war that, despite the constant terrorists attacks, people are still lining up to sign up to keep the peace and join the army. Vietnam was not such a case. In Vietnam, the ARVN army was next to useless, which was why we were fighting their side in the Vietnamese civil war and not them. We never really got them into this great vision of Vietnam as a Democracy, and Ho Chi Minh’s vision the a unified Vietnam of flows into the vacuum.
Linebacker was the mistake Johnson made just made more so. If the intense bombing of Rolling Thunder hadn’t done the job with it’s focus on military and industrial targets, What were the attacks on targets that killed more civilians going to do?
I think it is only fair at this point to point out that your supposition that Nixon bombed the North Vietnamese into submission runs rather counter to the fact that they today are in control of Vietnam. Pardon my ignorance of the intricacies of submission, but I think it’s the side that gives up that submits, and as hard as it may be for hardline conservatives like yourself to admit, we were the ones who submitted, and under a Republican administration, no less.
I won’t contradict you by saying that Johnson’s war was a good idea. I think the war in general was a bad idea. Not because defeating communism was a bad idea, but because we started out the war with so many handicaps we didn’t overcome, executed the war without a good read on our enemy and what it would take to defeat them in any real sense, and did so for allies who had little of the motivation it requires to defend one’s country.
A lack of restraint does not necessarily win wars. Our forces should be fully invested in whatever action we do take, but it should be effective, clear-eyed, wel-planned action, or else the sincere feelings and motivations will only add to the frustrations of the miscalculation, and the moral force it takes to win will wither away.
We cannot impose victory. We must earn it by being smart and tough at the right places.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2005 10:09 AMRe: recruitment, most recruits believed in serving their country and were proud to defend it. I imagine the shortfall of recruitment goals might have something to do with the fact that Iraq was not an action to defend the country, no, just to ensure the safety of george’s election, “I’m a war time president’(as soon as I start one)’” knowing Americans don’t turn out an incumbent in time of war. He remarked to his dad’s biographer about the waste of political capital from gulf one because it was over before Sr’s reelection campaign had begun. With Afghanistan at risk of a short victory and knowing he was not elected in the first place, the smart political move was start a war, one that preferably is still somewhat active in 2004. So the banner “Mission Accomplished” was a little premature, but he probably saved the banner and stood under it on 11/02/04. Draft is coming, the Selective Service has the infrastucture and the guidelines with new legislation (passed years ago)in place preventing deferments, including women too. Which will probably prevent another adventure for purely political gain.
Posted by: Douglas Lee at May 11, 2005 10:23 AMStephen,
“We are lucky in the current war that, despite the constant terrorists attacks, people are still lining up to sign up to keep the peace and join the army.”
I think the word “lining up” is an exaggeration at best don’t you? The military recruiters at my school are pretty damned lonely in their lil’ corners.
Posted by: Zeek at May 11, 2005 05:16 PMI’m speaking of the Iraqis, not Americans
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2005 07:05 PMStephen,
“I’m speaking of the Iraqis, not Americans”
Ok, you should have made that clear, I can’t follow giant mental leaps with ease…
Posted by: Zeek at May 13, 2005 09:59 PM
