One of the arguments used by supporters of the lead-up to the Iraq War and ever since was that we needed to fight terrorism abroad before we ended up fighting it here.
The comparison was many times brought up of Prime Minister Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler’s territorial aspirations. In 1938, Chamberlain returned from Munich with an agreement signed by Hitler and himself and stated: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.”
The imagery of that war lives on in our minds and the grave mistake Chamberlain made was disastrous beyond compare. There is no way we wanted to commit the same error. However, we are.
Regardless of my views on whether or not Iraq was at all related to the War on Terror, there are those countries that really are related to the War on Terror such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
We know that Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime and continues to do little to fight terrorists and we know that Osama Bin Laden lives in Pakistan. From these two places come a large number of Al Qaeda fighters but yet because they are our “allies” in this war on terror, we let them fight it their way – which happens to be almost “no way.” Just today, “President” Pervez Musharraf stated that even talks of U.S. military strikes hurt the war on terror. While we allow them to not fight the war on terror (and to privately fund terrorist groups who fight against us), we are trying to convince them to do so with huge military trade deals and international support. These trade deals, money and training for the Pakistani Army and the legitimization of the Pakistani dictatorship are a tool of appeasement. Where will this get us?
Well, if real terrorists are more dangerous than imaginary WMD, we will be in a much more dangerous position than appeasing Iraq would have been.
What should we do instead? For starters, we should urge congress to cut federal funding for military & other financial deals with these two countries, stop providing military training and support for Pakistan, and since we had no problem invading Iraq that had no links to 9/11 and took over Afghanistan looking for someone who went to Pakistan, we should have no problem sending our troops into Pakistan to get him.
I am reminded of pieces of President Bush’s second inaugural address, the principles of which I wholeheartedly agree with:
“The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way…
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right…
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty…
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.”
I agree with these statements. I say we stop appeasing these oppressive and terrorist tolerant nations and keep our word: make clear through action that any success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people and their complete cooperation in fighting Al Qaeda.
7 comments:
I hope this post isn't so old that you miss the comments I am about to post.
This is Patricia and I just wanted to let you know I received a call from my husband last night around midnight. I usually get 1 or 2 calls a week, but until last night I had not heard from him for several weeks.
He called to let me know they had just gotten out of River City. Because this is the internet, it's best not to say names of where he is or where he's been, so I want to clarify that River City is not a place, but a state of security. There are many things that can cause River City, but when put in effect, the base, or compound, goes on complete lock-down and no communication is allowed out or in, not even to the Command at home.
My husband had quite a bit of excitement, and told me a little bit about what had been going on. For instance, before we invaded, when the UN was trying to negotiate with Sadam about his WMDs, you know what he did? He buried them all! And for the last couple years we've been digging them up. My husband got to go on a work party to help dig up a fighter planes, and apparently they are still finding tons.
I have tons I would like to tell you, but I know this comment is going to be long, so I'm just going to stick to this one subject. A few years ago, when my brother wanted to be a helicopter door-gunner, my mother and his wife wouldn't let him because they were afraid he would be shot down. I remember him telling me about it and the fact that the Iraqi's mostly only have rocket launchers and M-16's, and neither of those take down a helicopter very easily. He believed, as I'm sure most door-gunners do, that he would be safer on a helicopter than he would on the ground. (Please remember that even if 100 helicopters have been shot down so far in this war, that's a minute amount compared to what's been over there.)
Maybe Saddam didn't have all the people, the teeroists that you say are residing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but he had all the weapons. WMD are not just nukes. Now all his weapons are completely destroyed because he didn't have time to box them or cover them in any way, they were buried directly in the sand.
So anyway the whole point of this comment is to ask you as respectfully as possible, to put you money where your mouth is;) Why don't you join and go over there and find out for yourself? You can join as an Officer in the Army Reserve or Navy Reserve until you're 42 or 38 respectively. (I'm partial to the Navy.)
I commend you on your effort to find the truth. You read tons of information and you try to find better sources than the general media. You really do try to be informed, but it seems like you have certain criteria for who's word you're going to believe. Do they have to have degrees? Do they have to be veterans of other wars? Do they have to be good speakers or writers? Do they have to have a certain rank? Give me your criteria for who you will listen to and I will give you someone I've talked to personally who fits the bill. Everything that I hear from people who've actually been there, or are there, say that your sources are wrong.
PS - mum's the word about Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I love you guys and please don't take offense to my emotions/opinions.
I hope this post isn't so old that you miss the comments I am about to post.
This is Patricia and I just wanted to let you know I received a call from my husband last night around midnight. I usually get 1 or 2 calls a week, but until last night I had not heard from him for several weeks.
He called to let me know they had just gotten out of River City. Because this is the internet, it's best not to say names of where he is or where he's been, so I want to clarify that River City is not a place, but a state of security. There are many things that can cause River City, but when put in effect, the base, or compound, goes on complete lock-down and no communication is allowed out or in, not even to the Command at home.
My husband had quite a bit of excitement, and told me a little bit about what had been going on. For instance, before we invaded, when the UN was trying to negotiate with Sadam about his WMDs, you know what he did? He buried them all! And for the last couple years we've been digging them up. My husband got to go on a work party to help dig up a fighter planes, and apparently they are still finding tons.
I have tons I would like to tell you, but I know this comment is going to be long, so I'm just going to stick to this one subject. A few years ago, when my brother wanted to be a helicopter door-gunner, my mother and his wife wouldn't let him because they were afraid he would be shot down. I remember him telling me about it and the fact that the Iraqi's mostly only have rocket launchers and M-16's, and neither of those take down a helicopter very easily. He believed, as I'm sure most door-gunners do, that he would be safer on a helicopter than he would on the ground. (Please remember that even if 100 helicopters have been shot down so far in this war, that's a minute amount compared to what's been over there.)
Maybe Saddam didn't have all the people, the teeroists that you say are residing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but he had all the weapons. WMD are not just nukes. Now all his weapons are completely destroyed because he didn't have time to box them or cover them in any way, they were buried directly in the sand.
So anyway the whole point of this comment is to ask you as respectfully as possible, to put you money where your mouth is;) Why don't you join and go over there and find out for yourself? You can join as an Officer in the Army Reserve or Navy Reserve until you're 42 or 38 respectively. (I'm partial to the Navy.)
I commend you on your effort to find the truth. You read tons of information and you try to find better sources than the general media. You really do try to be informed, but it seems like you have certain criteria for who's word you're going to believe. Do they have to have degrees? Do they have to be veterans of other wars? Do they have to be good speakers or writers? Do they have to have a certain rank? Give me your criteria for who you will listen to and I will give you someone I've talked to personally who fits the bill. Everything that I hear from people who've actually been there, or are there, say that your sources are wrong.
PS - mum's the word about Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I love you guys and please don't take offense to my emotions/opinions.
Patricia,
Thank you for sharing your comments and feelings. I guess I am not sure where we disagree. What one of my views don't you agree with? I listen to everyone and try to make my own opinions based on what I hear, see and read. These are all my own opinions. I don't consider however credible sources to be the news. I try to read what the news reads. Let me know where we differ.
God bless,
Ken
You want to put someone in the White House who'll pull out of Iraq. You believe there were no WMD in Iraq. You think that going into Pakistan and Afghanistan is more important than Iraq. And most of all you seem to believe that the media knows the inner workings of the military. I'm not saying I know the inner workings of our military, but I have been told over and over again that the only authorized speaker for the military is the Commander In Chief. The military doesn't give interviews or give accountability to the American people. It sometimes sounds like there are two sides being represented, but the side of the military is never represented by anyone who actually knows anything. That's why I say that the only way you're going to get both sides is if you join.
I'm very sorry for these comments, as you know I'm a very emotional person. I do not mean to be argumentative in any way, I guess I was taking my frustrations out on you... I'm very, very sorry. I do respect your opinions very much and I hold you and Anji in the highest regard. I'm very sorry for my behavior.
Patricia,
Gotcha. Your comments are perfectly all right and I appreciate them. Emotion plays an important part of our conclusions. At the end of the day, things have to feel right. Here are my responses to where you think we differ:
1. You want to put someone in the White House who'll pull out of Iraq.
I have never written that. I do believe however that the war was not faught BECAUSE of WMD. I will respond to that after point #2. Regarding pulling out of Iraq I have not yet made a decision regarding this. It is hard for me to believe however that a war that is unconstututional (i.e., the constitution only gives Congress the authority to declare war and that a president cannot declare war without their approval. Yes, Congress did pass the resoultion authorizing force but that too was unconstitutional. If congress believed it was justified, they should have declared war and let the Commander in Chief run it. As it is, Congress has the authority to revoke their authorization and the politicians are running the war. That is not good.), should continue in this way.
2. You believe there were no WMD in Iraq.
I know there were WMD in Iraq and they have found them burried. WMD was the scapegoat for the war - not the reason for the war.
#3. You think that going into Pakistan and Afghanistan is more important than Iraq.
I never said that going into Afghanistan was more important than Iraq. I do however strongly believe that Pakistan is a much greater threat than Iraq ever was the national security of the US. It was Pakistan who setup Iran's nuclear program. It was Pakistan who setup North Korea's nuclear program and it was Pakistan who setup, partnered with and supported Osama Bin Laden and the extreme muslim faction that wages war against us today. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and was the source that tried to bring them into Iraq - Hussein however never went that route. Pakistan is where Bin Laden is. There are soooo many reasons why Pakistan is the true source of the middle east's real problems and future threat to global security. Their nuclear program still goes untouched by the US while they continue, to this very day of May 2nd 2008 to work on it and disseminate their technology throughout the world. Iraq never did anything even remotely close to this. What made them a target? According to Alan Greenspan's book, "The Age of Turbulence," Greenspan without hesitation said that it was largly over oil. Why? Because oil is essential to the stability and national security of the US. The oil is not for Exxon or Chevron - but essential to our vitality as a nation. Do I beleive that was justification for war? That is a thought process that I am still working on.
#4. And most of all you seem to believe that the media knows the inner workings of the military.
I have never said or written that. On the contrary, I believe very little of what the media says. They don't really care about the truth. They care about ratings.
I hope this helps you understand my opinions a little more.
I have often thought about joining the military. I actually did enlist in the Navy when I was 17 but I never swore in. I had a change of heart and just some answers to my prayers that pointed to another direction in life for me. I still think of it but know that Anji would not support that decision.
What do you think of my responses? Does that help?
Ken
That does help a lot. I guess I just misunderstood you. I had forgotten that story of when you almost joined the Navy. But I do have one more point to clarify. You said, "Regarding pulling out of Iraq I have not yet made a decision regarding this." But in fact, by voting for a President who plans on pulling out as soon as possible, you have made a decision. Please let me know if I am wrong about your presidential candidate of choice.
Patricia
Patricia,
I am glad that helped. I have not made up my mind about a presidential candidate. There is a lot to consider about the candidate besides the war. I am leaning towards McCain at this point. I know too much about Clinton to put our country through that. Obama I don't view as capable or sufficiently grounded in the principles that make America what we are. I view him as someone who is genuinly well meaning when it comes to politics but that he does not share the same ideals of freedom and liberty that our founding fathers espoused and that I espouse. John McCain seems closer to those ideals.
One problem with McCain is that it would be harder for him to break up the monopoly on the different departments (DHS, Department of Sate, Department of Defense,etc.) that the Neocon Bush Administration officials have created and put in there people who think in line with the principles of freedom and the constitution than it would be for a Democrat. A democrat would come in and make sweeping changes - which are needed - a Republican probably wouldn't.
That is my dilemma. I would like to see a change to American foreign policy. I also do not want to see our country head down further on the socialist agenda of the democrat party.
We essentially will have to make our choice. Do we want a change in Foreign Policy or a change in Domestic Policy? McCain wouldn't change the Domestic or Foreign. Clinton/Obama would change both.
So, that is the thought process I have to work through.
Anji loved your e-mail to her yesterday by the way. She is grateful for your friendship as well.
God bless,
Ken