Forty Hours and a Resolution
Hello all. Before I get into this post, I would like to reiterate Rick’s plea to expand the reach of Bravehumans. If you read my posts you know I’m a Democrat, and I lean at least a bit (maybe a lot) to the left. This describes the majority of the folks I’ve met here on Bravehumans, and that is problem I am desperate to solve. We need balanced presentation: left, right, and center for Bravehumans to work. We have the left, we have SOME of the center, but we need much more for the right. Please, if you’re a conservative and what you read here makes you think or just annoys you, comment and post. If you know a conservative, please turn him or her on to the site. The point of the post that follows here is the importance of having real, substantive debate. You need all relevant sides to have a debate, and then you have to gather the courage to have one. Please help.
Thanks.
The House of Representatives just finished what, in some ways, was a fairly historic process. Over the past week every member of the 435-seat house got the opportunity to get up and speak for about 5 minutes about a current piece of House business. That works out to just over 36 hours of statements. They actually ended up with over 40 hours of statements from most members when all was said and done. My point here is that this was a fairly unique process that took a great deal of time and effort on the part of the House members.
As many Americans are aware, the topic of this roughly 40-hour marathon was a vote on a non-binding resolution on the current troop increase in Iraq ordered by the President. The resolution (paraphrased) states that the House a) supports the U.S. troops and b) opposes the troop increase. That’s it. The resolution subsequently passed along largely party lines (17 Republicans voted yes and 2 Democrats voted no).
So what’s the result of this process? Well, it’s hard to tell. For starters, a non-binding resolution on anything has no direct impact on law, practice, or policy. By itself it does nothing. In contrast, its symbolic value may be fairly high. It is extremely uncommon for either house of Congress to endorse any rebuke of the wartime policy of a sitting President., the general consensus being that the government should keep a united front on such issues. As possible evidence of this, Democrats were unable to bring an identical resolution to a vote in the Senate.
In addition, House Democrats promise that this resolution is just the first step in an attack on the President’s Iraq policy more globally. After the House vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to support this view by calling Iraq the “worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. History”. This definitely signals that Democratic attacks are going to get more aggressive. Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin have started discussing revisiting the 2002 Iraq authorization as well.
Although I can see the connection between the resolution and these new Democratic moves (regardless of whether or not I support them), I wonder why the Democrats couldn’t just cut to the chase and start HERE rather than with the non-binding resolution. Regardless of what we may believe about these more substantive moves, why not start with substance?
One possible reason given for spending the time and effort on the non-binding resolution was to promote debate on Iraq within the Congress. This is the reason that really bugs me and I’m not alone. Here’s why:
When I was in High School I was forced into a debate class to meet an English requirement. I disliked the class, but I did learn what a debate is. As I understand it, you have (at least) 2 opposing points of view on a specific topic. OK. Check. We have opposing points of view on Iraq within the House. Each side then states its specific side as well as it can, based on both rhetoric and evidence. OK. Check. We have statements both for and against clearly stated, and more or less based on what each side refers to as evidence. Here’s where I think the 40 some-odd hours spent in the House fall apart. In a debate, each side is then required to further defend their position from the opposition and further refute the arguments of the opposition in order to strengthen its own position. This can go on for several rounds.
The point of a debate is to have everyone involved come out at the end with a better (read deeper and more nuanced) understanding of the problem at hand. In some cases one side wins and the other loses, but often not. The point is we all get closer to at least dealing more effectively with the problem at hand. This is simply not what happened in the House. I think we desperately need 40 hours of debate on Iraq. What we got was 40 hours of individual (largely pre-written) position statements on a very specific resolution. Despite what it is being called, there simply was no debate. Each House member got up and essentially reiterated his or her (likely) already well-articulated position on this particular resolution. There was little, if any, give and take in these prepared statements. I watched as much of this as I could on C-span. For the 40 minutes or so I watched before I fell asleep from sheer boredom it was simply a monotonous repetition of the party line of each side. Again, It’s hard to stress how little this bit of theater resembled an actual debate.
According to news reports, a highlight of the process was a speech by Rep. Sam Johnson(Republican of Texas) in which he described his harrowing experience as a POW and issued a powerful emotional appeal to vote against the resolution. He firmly believes that it is the first step in blocking funding for the war and, therefore, for the troops who fight it. He may well be right (Democratic protestations to the contrary). Cutting the funding is the main weapon Congress has to influence war policy in the White House. But whether or not he’s right is not my point. If this process had been an actual debate, Rep. Johnson’s comments would have been in response to a specific argument made by a previous speaker. The next speaker would then focus directly on Rep. Johnson’s comments and attempt to refute them. I did not see the specific speakers on either side of Johnson, but I am fairly sure (based on the 40 minutes I DID see) that they read prepared statements just as he did. Others who reported on the process support this.
There were days, if not weeks, of political wrangling leading up to the vote on the resolution. This was followed by roughly 40 hours of position statements by most of the House membership. This was followed by a vote, the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion and which had no direct impact on policy in any form. One of the main justifications for this process was to provide a desperately needed opportunity for a debate on the war. This debate did not happen. After all of this, I am left knowing no more than I did before it started and seeing no more clearly concerning the profoundly complex issues involved. I am, however, left a bit more disillusioned with my government.
Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant
February 23rd, 2007 09:25
Your tax dollars being completely and frivolously wasted. An historic wast of time. A monstrous fraud against the people of the United States.
That’s how I would characterize this silliness. 40 hours?? If the Representatives worked 2080 hours a year, which they surely don’t, that would break down to $3176.92 of tax money wasted in reps salary alone. That doesn’t take into account any time spent on this other than the time on the floor in the assembly, so that is a very very conservative figure of how much has been stolen from the people.
I would be more happy if they closed the building for a week, for that is the net effect of this shenanigan.
I agree with you that this was not a debate.
February 23rd, 2007 09:39
Actually, closing the building would have been cheaper than the net effect of their “debate.”
February 23rd, 2007 10:59
I’ll be your designated “righty”!
In any case, the reason that the Democrats did this debate is to see how it would fly. The debate didn’t happen there, it’s happening out here.
They aren’t sure that they can take the next step and do something more serious (defunding would be one thing, but it’s not next on the list). They all talk a lot and see what we say in e-mails, letters, blogs, newspapers, etc.
If the blowback isn’t too bad, they might even do something that isn’t completely wasteful of their time and our money.
Dan
February 23rd, 2007 11:52
Grant,
This topic perfectly shows that politicians don’t know how to deal with opium (i.e. OPM - other people’s money).
I’m regularly pressing my daughter to stop dawdling and finish the task she’s supposed to be doing. The only way we tell our politicians to stop dawdling is to vote them out of office…if we are willing.
I can’t watch c-span either. The topics intrigue me, but the speakers have a knack for curing insomnia. Educational debate on the Iraq/Iran/Islam topic (let’s just throw it all out on the table) would benefit the nation greatly, but boy would it kill the quest for political power.
Rick
February 23rd, 2007 17:13
Hi Grant, you are doing well to look for opposing views on your site. But when that happens, emotions flare. How will you prevent uncivil and unwelcome comments. Though you have experienced opposing views through debate in an environment where rules prevail, I fear you might encounter difficulty when folks’ emotions take over.
At the same time I value your idea since an honest and civil debate on your site that would bring out both sides of issues.
February 23rd, 2007 18:30
Robyn,
Welcome. You raise a great question. The answer, as new-aged and goofy as it sounds, lies within each of us. I can be infuriated with a fellow employee, but my boss, my paycheck, and my family’s desire to eat real food dictate that I restrain myself and speak in appropriate tones.
Free speech means I can say whatever I want. It doesn’t mean my words must be heard, understood, taken to heart, or accepted. If we can’t practice self-restraint, then we have a different problem altogether.
February 23rd, 2007 19:35
Daniel,
Welcome! I agree with you that it does seem like Democratic posturing, countered by Republican posturing, and back and forth.
If you have a post you would like to contribute, just send me an email.
Robyn,
You hit the nail on the head. All of us as authors are committed to being as honest and even handed as we can, and that sets the tone for the site. So far all of our commentators have been civil and open to discussion, and I think that says something to the desire for this type of site. But you are right, the comments (or a forum, etc.) are the Achilles heel of a site like this.
Rick is right. It is up to us as a community. As long as the community values open and honest discussion then it will win the day.
February 23rd, 2007 23:04
Ummmm.. what if your a “silent majority” member?
February 24th, 2007 12:13
I think the 2006 elections were very good for this country, and we’re starting to see some of the effects of that in the Congress. The trouble is (as I see it) is that if the Democrats go too far, or too fast, there will be a backlash from the right (most recently Joe Lieberman is threatening to become a Republican and throw the balance of power) and little will be accomplished. On the other hand, if they do too little, they will get steamrolled and have little influence. So there is a happy medium.
In terms of the reach of BraveHumans, I suggest participating in (or leaving comments) at the type of sites that you wish to attract. Just get your name out there.
Thanks.
Alex
February 24th, 2007 12:42
Hello all and thanks for the comments,
Daniel, I agree that the Dems are poised for something more, but I’m not sure what. I am incredibly conflicted about this. On one side I firmly believe the war was a mistake and has been profoundly costly in more ways than I think we are yet aware. On the other, I can’t get past the unavoidable need to stay in Iraq until we can leave with some real chance of stability behind us. Nick posted something on Bravehumans about this about a week ago. To get the job done could easily take 50-100,000 more troops. It might not work even then, and the stability we create could be profoundly anti-American.
And, thanks for being the “designated rightly” but if this works for you tell your friends. Bravehumans is really looking for a community of conservatives to talk to. In any event please keep coming back yourself and welcome.
February 24th, 2007 12:44
Hi Alex,
Yes, that’s a way to get this done. I am doing so- although not as much as I need to be. Thanks for the push.
-Grant
February 24th, 2007 13:43
Hi StrataFire,
Well, reading and thinking is much better than not, but I personally would love to hear what you have to say.
-Grant
February 24th, 2007 15:06
On the subject of welcoming different points of view… A prerequisite for a real exchange of ideas, is the understanding that the other side is listening. Genuinely listening.
It is quite easy to listen (to take in, absorb, receive) material that is agreeable. It is MUCH harder to take in, receive, absorb material that is disagreeable to us. It creates inner dissonance, makes us uncomfortable. We shy away from that. It might lead to a change in us, and that isn’t always welcomed at the first step of the journey.
So, I need to make an effort on the listening side of matters. Also, for me personally, when I’m speaking in a potentially hostile environment, I need to summon some courage and I need to put my views carefully, with respect.
I think I see quite a bit of this careful receptivity happening here. So, I express it just to be part of the dialogue that helps keep it in view.
February 24th, 2007 16:54
Gillian-
I think it’s wise to keep thoughts such as yours in mind. We want BH to be a real exchange; not just superficial chat. When I think back to the person I was as a young adult, I have changed significantly in many ways. Most of those changes were easy. Many were downright painful.
I hope that all who come here and continue to return are willling to examine the viewpoints expressed here as legitimate, serious, enlightening, and, potentially, persuasive. So far, so good…
February 26th, 2007 12:25
Dear Grant,
I believe we are in agreement in our disappointment in the “Non-Binding Resolution”, however, that may be the last point on which we find agreement.
The point of the vote was for the Democrats to register their difference with the President and his policies without suffering the displeasure of the broad middle of the voters. This is a dishonest manouever, intended to record vehement difference, while at the same time, preserving the claim of supporting the troops in the field. Nothing could be further from the truth. The goal of the Democrats is to have the military and the President’s policies fail, as this is the surest way for them to succeed.
The Democrats at this time in our history are incapable of wishing for our troops to win. As a result, there is no price they can pay in order to guarantee success. They only see the strengths of our enemies, and weaknesses in our beliefs and principles. The other side is under no such handicap.
This vote was explicitly an exposition of positions. A real true debate would necessitate a rationale of why we cannot succeed, why we should not succeed, even why we should not attempt to succeed. Such a clear statement would doom the Democratic Party at the polls for an entire generation, til those who heard those speeches had passed on. Instead, it will be framed as the Murtha “slow bleed” proposal, of heaping excessive training on deploying troops, thereby delaying their overseas rotation, throwing all planning and relief schedules into the dustbin. This is death by a thousand cuts. Eventually, a vote will reduce the funding, but only reluctantly, and for the benefit of the troops, you see. There will be no mention in this reduction of funding of the cost to the US in future terror attacks.
You mentioned a need for a debate. As I see it, there was a surfeit of debate. There was, to my knowledge, seventeen resolutions in the UN, all debated at length, and all not complied with by Saddam and the Baathists. In addition, there was a debate in the Congress and the Senate prior to authorizing the President to act. Many are now saying they were misled. This is just way too convenient. They had access to the current intelligence, not just the President’s summaries for a television audience. Either they voted for it out of political expedience, or they have changed their mind now for political gain.
As I see it, we are fighting a war not of attacks and defeats on the field of battle, but a war of perceptions in the American mind. The Al’Quada are fighting a war of wills with our people. The Democrats say they can relieve the suffering of our people, just let us call all our troops back, and when we are offending no one, no one will offend us. The Republicans say there are those who very much dislike us, or find it highly useful to dislike us, and will work actively to diminish our friendships and our influence worldwide. They say, we are much better off fighting a forward fixed battle, rather than letting them metastsize into a thousand urban guerilla attacks on the West worldwide.
I propose that international relations is much more akin to the “rules” and the environment of the live adventure than that of a civilized locale with well known customs, rules and laws with an effective enforcement and judicial system. In the game, one would definietly prefer an inferior enemy to be forced to stand and fight against your concentrated strength. The alternative is to allow them to attack in a hundred places at the time and place of their choosing, forcing us to disperse our strength making us strong nowhere and weak everywhere.
The information I get from fellow pilots who have access to intelligence briefings and directly from those who have been there is that we are winning the military battles. The terrorists are paying a terrible price in losses of fighting men in order to attack our troops. If we convince them that we cannot be blackmailed into withdrawal, that will change the entire calculus. Remember, the Tet uprising in Vietnam was an overwhelming and resounding military defeat. The Viet Cong were a force of irregular troops of southern origin. After the suicidal attacks in Tet, they were wiped out almost to a man, and the Viet Cong ceased to be an effective military force for the rest of the war. The North Vietnamese were prepared to sue for peace term until they saw the tone and the content of the coverage of the American press. Due to that, they settled on a policy of bleeding the Americans til they cried and went away. Even then, after we “redeployed” in that earlier war, the South Vietnamese prevailed militarily, until the US Congress cut of the funding supporting their war effort. Some months later, the regular army of North Vietnam occupied the free south. Then began the reeducation camps, the boat people, a real Cambodean invasion, the killing fields.
What travesties, tragedies and massacres will be encouraged by a US defeat and withdrawal from the Middle East, I wonder ? Will this new dispersed, assymetrical war soon be coming to my house, to yours ?
February 26th, 2007 13:18
Dennis,
I have to take serious disagreement with this statement:
It is a broad-stroke generalization which implies the actions of congressional democrats borders on treason. As moderator, I’m going to call foul.
That being said, you make several interesting points.
I agree the non-binding resolution has the feel of wanting the cake and eating it too. Congressional Democrats are in a bind because many of them disagree with the President’s policy, but the only way to combat those policies is to withhold funding, which could impact the security of our troops. So they take the non-binding resolution route. Their only other alternative would be more drastic, such as drawing up articles of impeachment.
Your point about the need for democrats to provide alternatives, or to argue as to why the surge is the wrong path is well taken. (Anyone want to take up that flag?)
We disagree on the Iraq war, but I am particularly intrigued by your information on Iraq from fellow pilots. I would love to hear more about where you think we really stand in Iraq, and what you feel would be necessary (troop levels, time, cost) to win in Iraq, and what that victory would look like. Perhaps you could expand on your statements as a post for BraveHumans? Having this discussion is important, I think, and I think it merits its own post, rather than being buried in comments.
February 26th, 2007 15:59
Battles are won on the battlefield, but wars are won in the stamina and will of the people as a whole. A people fighting for their own homeland have a massive advantage.
I can’t see any way that the US can bring peace to Iraq. Iraqis are fighting each other about who gets to control the wealth and power of the country. It’s a civil war and the US are unwanted outsiders. The way forward may be to find an outside influence that is acceptable to the three sides of the civil war. And that is most likely to be found in a coalition of neighbours. The new leadership team in the White House seems to be moving in this direction.
Once again, from an outsiders perspective, the starting place for understanding the whole situation is not the perspective of US interests, the starting place is local geography and history. The US made a policy mistake when it attacked Iraq. The mistake is evident in the 12,000 doctors who have left the country since the invasion, evident in the child mortality rate, evident in Haliburton aid scandals, evident in every single fact of the situation.
The real question is how the hell can the US get out without making matters worse and preserving a bit of dignity?
February 26th, 2007 20:37
Hi Dennis. Welcome back and thanks for giving me someone to argue with. Here goes.
I have to say that there are certainly democrats that fit your description of wanting first last and always for the Bush administration to fail in all things and most particularly Iraq. I would put these in the same circle of Hades that should house those conservatives who’s sole purpose seems to be to support the Whitehouse without question.
But I have to agree with Brian concerning you characterization the democratic party as whole. The Dems are not all scoundrels, fools and cowards and the same can be said of the Republicans. It must be possible to both question the war or strongly support it without being branded either way. If it’s not, the country is farther gone than I thought and this whole brave humans thing is a stupid waste.
My question is how do we get past the extremists on both left and right and find some way to talk about this in some kind of useful way. This is HARD. I’m disgusted by the Bush Presidency. I want the man gone. Yesterday. Getting past that takes a great deal of work for me. The thing that makes it possible is to believe that there is some middle ground that that allows the country to move forward. I think the middle ground starts with agreeing that just “getting out” of Iraq would be both catastrophic and cowardly. I agree. We have to win. Too much rides on this to fail. But my question is this: What is winning and how do we do it? I desperately want someone I can marginally trust to help me figure this out. I want some political leader to step forward and say something useful about how this can be accomplished. I hear none. On any side.
After 9/11 congress was absolutely gutless and all the “we were misled” lines we’re hearing now should fall on deaf ears. I DO however think the American people were misled. We were told that the US went in After WMD and some claimed connection to terrorism. Think about it. Saddam DID flout UN resolution after resolution, but if that were used as the primary basis for the invasion it never would have happened.
But this is old news. The debate I want is one on the current situation and that is simply not happening. I am willing to forget whatever axe I have to grind with the Bush Administration if only they or anyone else could come up with some viable plan to get us to a reasonably stable Iraq that is not the home office for every American hating terrorist organization on the planet.
-Grant
February 27th, 2007 18:57
One of the difficult situations with foreign policy is the need to keep some things private. I would love to know what can’t be told to the public because it would cause greater risk to national security or the troops.
Bush always has that look on his face of, “there are things I’d like to tell you, but I can’t”. I realize that it may also be the look of “I can’t believe I’m telling you this….” I am often curious about how much a Democratic president *could* tell us, and if it would be much different from what Bush is saying.
March 14th, 2007 17:25
Good Morning Grant,
Glad to know you are enjoying our give and take, my “take” on your “give”, and vice versa !
My, my, your response is as if a smorgasbord has been presented and there is no limit on my diet ! Oh, Boy !
I offer my thoughts in the spirit that only by engagement of committed opponents, bringing all the force of persuasion they possess, can we find our differences, our points of commonality, and begin to fashion a negotiated consensus. In reference to one poster’s remark regarding how do we correspond when passions are raised, I say, only when passions are raised is the debate worth having. The key, even with diametrically opposing views is to recognize that we have a mutual interest, and as Mr Franklin mentioned, “Either we hang togather, or we shall assuredly hang separately”. If one reviews the debates of the Constitutional Convention, there were few concessions to feelings. The points were forcefully made, kept on topic, and not directed to the man, but to the point of debate. We can disagree strongly, forcefully, even vehemently, without losing respect for the person, even while we may have little sympathy for his proposals.
I see several topics of concern in your post.
In the first paragraph is the phenomenon of the pure active partisans, of both sides.
The second mentions the problem of characterization of politicians vis-a-vis the party line and their perceived allegiance to the same, and the effect on their public perception.
The third asks for an honest debate sans “extremists”, and a leader to advocate an effective middle ground which will “win”.
The fourth questions the rationale and the justification for the war.
The fifth acknowledges the utility of setting aside personal disgust and dealing with the actual situation seeking a solution involving a stable Iraq without attracting the ire of those who oppose our aims.
Active partisans are the ideological standard bearers of each group. The committed warriors, those who seek success, not those who seek truth or wisdom or consensus. They have their place in the political world where it is the competition for the public’s’support which we use to keep score and gain the authority to move the group’s agenda. This is the normal give and take when we set up a system to compete without actual physical violence. Remember, this is the only real altenative to life being like the adventure, where might makes right.
The characterization of a group member for their support of the group’s stated policy also falls into the sphere of the active give and take of politics. While I may like and respect a particular person, if he or she supports a policy, which in my judgement, cannot lead to victory, then I can legitimately view it as wishing for our policy, and by extension, for our military to fail. As a result, I will view this person as an advocate. If they have reservations, it matters little to you and I, for only their actions by voting and advocacy matter. The internal friction of choice inside each is the cost of having their position. At the end of the day, they must take a position, and I will approve or dissapprove as a citizen. In my original post, I referred to the “Democrats” in the aggregate, based on the policy being pursued by their leadership, and supported by the votes and the words of the individaul members. I cast no aspersions on them individually. I make the claim that their policy will have a certain result. Leadership counts, and when the leaders say it can’t be done, the troops lose hope and the enemy takes heart. This is not about debate on the topic, this is about policy and real action.
The third point wishes to move the extremists out of the debate and to have those of the middle ground take the initiative. Let me say firstly that only the warriors can make true peace. Only when the most committed can be convinced of either the rightness or the pragmatism of a solution can you really have agreement. In this same paragraph, you illustrate this beautifully. While you evinced an enormous disdain for the Bush Presidency and I think for the man himself, you pragmatically set that aside in the interest of finding a real solution to our political/military/financial dilemma. This is the only way forward when committed opposites engage.
The second part is a wish for a leader to articulate an effective solution which will win. Asking what is winning, and how do we do it, is the heart of the question, and will drive some very uncomfortable conclusions. This is not politics at all, but is the real debate which you have been craving in the previous paragraphs. I say beware what you ask for, for you may yet have it. If we are in a conflict with a committed opponent, I speak now of those who wish harm to the West and the defeat of our aims worldwide, we cannot win by half measures, nor by seeking to avoid the pain of the conflict. To do so directly tells the opponent where to inflict pain, and for how long he must be resolute before we withdraw due to our losses. The committed opponents believe there is no price too high to pay for victory. One cannot use proportional response, measured response, or any other euphemism for a partial effort. This reveals a fatal flaw, a lack of will to pursue and gain our stated aims. This type of enemy can only be defeated by physical elimination, destruction of the means to fight, or destruction of his will to fight. There is no compromise between a free, democratic, multi-ethnic Iraq, and theocratic, autocratic, dictatorial regime seeking to impose Sharia on all humans. In this view, which I share, the level of effort and the time of commitment to the task is daunting. In our sound bite driven, hyper cyclic news reporting, flooding us with a tsunami of small pieces of information without context or analysis, the ability of any leader to make the case for a long term struggle of epic proportions is greatly diminished. I also think that Rick has a valid point in the preceding post, that as a leader, one is privy to information which would prove harmful to our nation and citizens were it to become public. The difficulty for the Democratic Party is that one cannot support the troops and concurrently fail to provide all possible aid and materials, including pubilc expressions of confidence in victory. Whether we wish it to be so or not, wars are really won and lost in the will of the peoples on both sides. There is no haflway either. There is only win and lose. All else is poppycock. If we “win” and Iraq emerges as a reasonable democratic Muslim society, the impetus of the theocratic, controlling movement will be slowed and set back. If we “lose”, the disaffected young men of the world will be drawn to the struggle, encouraged by success, and wishing to be a part of this historical campaign.
The decision to invade was not simply that Saddam had not complied with a UN Resolution, as if he were a bad boy who needed to be taught to obey. It was the nature of the subject of the resolutions, the various forms of WMD’s which he had developed, and had used on his own civilian population, and had used in an eight year war against Iranian armies. In a speech in Cincinnati on Oct 7, 2002, President Bush made his case for direct action against Iraq, against Saddam really. It had been proved by inspectors that he had stockpiles of chemical weapons, that he had at one time ongoing nuclear research, and had the design for a working nuclear device, lacking only the appropriate fissionable material. — President Bush said, “Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. .” — I acknowledge that this type of assertion does not rise to the level sufficient to convince you, never mind sufficient to the level of proof. I can only say that this does convince me that Saddam was as dangerous in 1998 as Hitler was in 1938. I also am convonced that the Osama’s and the Al-Zarwaquiri’s are also as dangerous a threat. Saddam’s threat was direct and physical. He aspired to leadership of greater Arabia by dint of military weapons. The Islamists are a philosophical, ideological, and physical threat to the West and it’s values. They deny the validity of our beliefs, and of our societies as they currently exist. In their eyes, we are all sinful and it is their duty to bring us to Allah, or to render our societies non-viable by disruption and chaos, inducing self doubt making us unable or unwilling to defend oourselves. The question is does the liberal open societies of the West have the spirit, the belief in itself to vigorously defend it’s values and it’s way of life. Justice Robert Jackson said, in the context of our Constitution, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”. We each have rights, but I am not required to protect your rights to the demise of myself. I see this parallel in the international arena. We are not obligated to respect those who avowedly have declared their intent to destroy us.
You last paragraph seeks 1) a viable plan for 2) a stable Iraq, 3) without conflict with American hating terrorists. As I see it, you can have 1 & 2, or you can have 1 & 3. The aims of the terrorists and our aim for a stable, non-threatening, democratic Iraq are antithetical to each other. The mainstream media give virtually no ariplay to the small and large successes being gained by our civilian and military forces in Iraq. For all the success of the IED’s, there are numerous devices found and disposed of. For all the casulaties our troops are suffering, the Islamists are taking far more, and far more disproportionally. This is a conflict we can win. One of the tenets of guerrilla conflicts, or insurgent conflicts, is that they are driven by ideology, not by a cold calculation of warfield costs and gains. Typically, they are very containable, as they cannot fight open full field battles. They are often illtrained, poorly led, poorly equipped, and take high casualty rates. Since they recruit true believers, there are many replacement fighters. Generally these movements can drag on for about fifteen years, then fail by their inability to deliver. The IRA, the MauMau, the Red Army Brigade are all examples of movements which inflicted great harm one small pinprick at a time, but were finally defeated by their inability to win against a professional army, committed to the fight, supported by the will and the arms of it’s people. We can defeat the Theocratic Despots if we have the will and the courage equal to the fight.
This has been a long reply, due to the mountain of ideas. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. Thank you, Grant, most sincerely.
Denis
March 15th, 2007 22:15
Well said, Denis. That was a powerful and stirring call to arms. The issues are clear- two sides, just like in Genesis and the Fall. The cause is just- the open-minded values of the West. And, if these were not enough, our very homes are in jeopardy. 9/11!9/11!! 9/11!!! Can we please stop with the appeals to fear?
(I’d better get this off quickly, or Brian will throw a flag on this play.)
( For those of you who don’t know us, Denis and I are brothers. Brothers who really and truely love each other. Like this…)
As you say, lots of meat here. I’ll just try a few tid-bits…thanks for the entre.)
You suggest that it is a battle between two sides. But don’t we now have the National Intelligence Estimate, released by the Bush administration, which represents the findings of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and projects events in Iraq over the next 18 months? They say it’s not a civil war–it’s much worse, with “hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.” The violence between Iraqis has overshadowed threats from al-Qaida as a major challenge to U.S. goals there, according to the summary. Added to the sectarian violence, however, are attacks on U.S. and coalition forces and violence within Iraqi sects.
So, this notion of defeating a Great Enemy is perhaps as elusive as was King George’s notion of maintaining his Empire on this continent. Any plan will need to take that into account. Continuing to frame this as a simple conflict between Good and Evil oversimplifies the debate and , like the clear and simple announcement that “They have WMDs and they are clearly allied with al Qaieda” which misled us so effectively, prompts action but not necessarily Right Action. It is certainly possible that we now need to stay there and to try to accomplish some good, but we at least need debate on these two questions: 1) What we can accomplish of value, and (2) What is the evidence that we are doing more good than harm? Because Gillian has a point: ours is not the only frame of reference.
A second note: you refer to the IRA as yet another group defeated by a committed and militarily superior force. But as you well know, they were just the latest incarnation of the desire of a people to manifest their own destiny, The struggle (oh Gawd, here he goes…) began in 1155. Pope Adrian IV issued a papal bull “Laudabiliter ” giving the English King Henry II lordship over Ireland. (By an odd quirk of rhetoric, there is now noted to be some academic dispute over its authenticity; the original document is no longer in existence, only later copies exist.So, like the famous State of the Union speech, the Tonkin Gulf incident, and doubtless others, the justification for war may have been in question.)
But I will put that aside to make this point: Ireland’s patriot-insurgents did not give up over the next little while.IN faact it took 900 years Gotta love those Brits–there’s a group who can realy staay the course! The Irish came back , geeneration after generation.Why do we think the Persians/Iraqis will do less for “faith, home, and freedom ’till the last”? Many people join the Taliban because they are poor and ignorant of other choices. Perhaps the same is true of Bin Ladin’s support. Diplomacy has been suggested as a crritical component for a successful strategy by some wimp. Oh, no, wait, that was the current General in charge of operations in Iraq! Perhaps he , (like George Bush?) knows something we don’t.
MOstly human, sometimes brave-
Nick
March 16th, 2007 10:41
Hey Nick,
I take the point well that the mix in Iraq is complicating, but I still maintain the validity of the Great Enemy as a working construct. Let me explain, before that seeming contradiction explodes on this screen.
Iraq is an ancient land, peopled by three maiin groups at this moment in history. Given that the reign of Saddam arrested the competition of these groups and the eventual resolution of their competing claims in determining the shape of their society, it is natural and normal for this civil and social conflict to occur. Our role is to help them through that period. If it were only an internal matter, I would strongly advocate a withdrawal of most of our militaryforces, leaving military advisors, law and police experts, judges and diplomats to assist in the formation of a new society.
Unfortunately, the locals are not the only ones trying to form a country. So are the Islamists, who are trying to take over another country to use as a base, a training ground, a treasury, and a diplomatic cover. These are the folks who cannot be allowed to succeed. They have designs beyond any individual country. The Iraqis saythat we are not wanted, and so I also say I do not want to be there. But we cannot leave or the divisions among the Iraqis will be exploited ruthlessly to deny them a civil and free society. Only we in the West can give them this chance. I see no Eastern nation getting involved in this effort.
Taking the second point, it fails upon it’s own merits. The level of congruence between the British in Ireland, and the West in in Iraq is virtually non-existent.
The Brits came in as conquerors. We came as liberators.
The Brits raped Ireland. We are rebuilding Iraq.
The Brits disenfranchised the Irish. We are supporting the formation of a free, democratic, and independent Iraq.
The Brits had to be thrown out. We will leave willingly.
I do believe that negotiations are crucial to a fit, just and lasting resolution. We are negotiation daily on all manner of large and small concerns with those who are trying to build a country.
I just do not think that you can negotiate with a radical ideologue who is committed to one’s destruction. There is no middle ground there. Either I become Muslim, like Bin Ladin, or he kills my way of life, and likely me in the process.
Don’t forget, I am their immediate target within the aircraft on the next attempt.
There will be no negotiation, no mercy, no taking prisoners, no quarter, no exchange of view, no diplomacy.
I will have my throat slit .
This is the reality.
Every flight accross the water. Every day I go to work.
Not my reality, or their reality, or point of view, intent, desire, wish, or debate.
They want to kill me, then thousands of innocents.
Is this not evil ?
And are we not bound to confront it and defeat it ?