Now that the issue of legality/illegality of the National Security Agency (NSA) Domestic Surveillance program authorized by President Bush has been bandied about for a few weeks, it’s time to apply some common sense and deductive reasoning to the whole affair so that we can get beyond the minutiae.
There are some undisputed facts in this case that are pertinent to the discussion:
· President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (a.k.a, FISA Court). The scope of this surveillance is unknown.
· In the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration sought a last minute change to the wording so that “in the United States” would specifically be referenced in the law. This last minute change was rejected. See Tom Daschle’s Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post for a full description of what transpired.
· The FISA Court has an approval rate of approximately 99.97% for requests brought before it.
Let’s look at these facts and draw some conclusions. First, the approval rate of the FISA Court suggests that this court is virtually a rubber stamp for warrant requests. At the very least, due to the number of requests submitted in the past (approximately 19,000), the standard required for evidence and probable cause by the Court was well known. If it was not well known, you would probably see a lower approval rate. The idea that the standard was well known is something to keep in mind as you read this.
Secondly, the broad language in the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda has been pointed to by many conservatives to be all that was required to justify the NSA’s domestic surveillance. However, on September 14, 2001, the Bush Administration itself was uncertain whether that language was sufficient enough to authorize activities on the domestic front. The attempt to insert more specific language into the law to include authorization for activities within the United States shows that the White House wanted explicit authority to conduct such activities and didn’t necessarily want to rely on the broad language of the negotiated resolution as cover. It is reasonable to assume that these domestic activities would have included surveillance. If this language had been inserted, the need for going to the FISA Court for domestic surveillance approval would have been nullified in the eyes of White House lawyers.
At this point, it’s time for a little common sense. It’s clear that the Bush Administration sought legal cover in the Resolution of force versus Al Qaeda, yet when that insertion was rejected, it did not seek authorization from the appropriate court with jurisdiction in this area that had a well known standard for evidence and probable cause. The conclusion that I am left with is that portions of the surveillance program could not meet the court’s standard for approval, so the President chose to bypass it altogether and secretly authorized the spying.
I’m not making a judgment as to whether this surveillance campaign is legal or illegal. That is for a court and/or Congress to decide, however it is clear to me that the Bush Administration knew in 2001 that this activity was on the edge of the law. It is highly suspicious that the Administration explicitly chose not to seek approval from a court with such a high approval rate of warrant requests. What were they afraid of?
For a conservative spin on the Domestic Spying Scandal, read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (registration required) by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, former Justice Department attorneys in the Reagan and GWH Bush administrations.
For an authoritative debunking of myths surrounding the scandal, read this excellent post from Media Matters for America. Almost all of the arguments put forth by Rivkin and Casey are summarily dismissed here.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Bin Laden's Greatest Ally
Does anyone remember Osama Bin Laden? He’s that guy hanging out somewhere in the Afghanistan – Pakistan border area who doesn’t particularly like the United States and its policies. With the daily doses of what is going right/wrong in Iraq, what is legal/illegal surveillance and who is wrecking Christmas, I’m wondering if anyone is mindful of the big picture in the War on Terror.
In order to examine the big picture, we need to understand the goals of each side in this war and then evaluate performance versus those goals. In my estimation, here are the goals of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror and an evaluation of progress on each:
Goal: Destroy terrorist training camps and reduce territorial strongholds of Al Qaeda.
Progress: US military action in Afghanistan was successful in deposing the Taliban and forcing Al Qaeda to move operations, but the job has yet to be completed. Bin Laden is still at large and the War in Iraq has provided additional strongholds for terrorism.
Goal: Bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East in an effort to create regimes friendly to America
Progress: This goal is the dubious link between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. At best, it is unclear as to how the democratic process is taking hold in Iraq. If a theocratic government aligned with Iran comes to power, then the Iraqi democracy experiment will have to be considered a failure, especially considering that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran.
Goal: Deal with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.
Progress: This was another alleged link of Iraq to the War on Terror, but this has been summarily debunked. Other states that fell into this category were Iran and North Korea, both potentially more dangerous than Iraq, but not much has been achieved on this goal.
I did my best to put forth these goals based on Bush Administration statements and other newspaper accounts about the War on Terror. In looking at this, albeit brief, list, I find it disappointing that none of these goals attempt to address the root causes of Al Qaeda’s terrorism versus the West. While it is true that Bin Laden doesn’t approve of Western Society in general (Freedom, Democracy, Separation of Church and State, etc.), he isn’t, as he said in his letter to America in October 2004, advocating attacks on Sweden. There is more to his motivation to attack the United States than simply hating Freedom and Democracy, which is the simplistic right-wing explanation for terrorism.
If you read the texts of Bin Laden’s statements over the last 10 years, you will see some common threads:
1. America’s role in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
2. America’s support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
3. The plundering of the Middle East’s resources (oil) by the West.
I haven’t listed these items to show support for Bin Laden or to suggest that the US simply accede to his demands, but to provide a means of understanding the motivation of the enemy. It will be difficult for the United States to make progress in the War on Terror if it operates blindly with respect to the above grievances.
Let’s turn to Al Qaeda’s goals in its war with the West. In Bin Laden’s Letter to America from October 2004, he stated that America will have security when it stops playing with the security of the Middle East, which really means stop interfering in the politics of the region. In lieu of that, Al Qaeda’s goal is to continue the policy of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” In this effort, Bin Laden feels that the Bush Administration has been extremely accommodating.
Has Al Qaeda made progress in its policy to drive America to bankruptcy? Yes, I think it has and the Bush Administration has been its unwitting ally. By engaging in the folly in Iraq, the Administration has committed billions to the effort, and few in Washington seem to be paying any attention to the cost of the war and the surging Federal Deficit. Iraq and the War on Terror are also bleeding this country in other ways such as the loss of fine young soldiers, the loss of civil liberties and the decline of the rule of law.
I bring this up because I find it disturbing that the goals of the enemy are being achieved through the actions of the Bush Administration. It’s like a football team that scores touchdowns for its opponent and then its head coach says he wants to stick with the game plan. Isn’t it time to re-evaluate the goals of the War on Terror so that we can stop achieving the ends of the enemy? Unfortunately, everyone in the country seems to be engaged in partisan discussions rather than finding a global solution to the problem of terrorism. Perhaps I expect too much of our elected leaders, but if terrorism policy continues on its present course, we could be looking at the beginning of the demise of the American Empire.
In order to examine the big picture, we need to understand the goals of each side in this war and then evaluate performance versus those goals. In my estimation, here are the goals of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror and an evaluation of progress on each:
Goal: Destroy terrorist training camps and reduce territorial strongholds of Al Qaeda.
Progress: US military action in Afghanistan was successful in deposing the Taliban and forcing Al Qaeda to move operations, but the job has yet to be completed. Bin Laden is still at large and the War in Iraq has provided additional strongholds for terrorism.
Goal: Bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East in an effort to create regimes friendly to America
Progress: This goal is the dubious link between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. At best, it is unclear as to how the democratic process is taking hold in Iraq. If a theocratic government aligned with Iran comes to power, then the Iraqi democracy experiment will have to be considered a failure, especially considering that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran.
Goal: Deal with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.
Progress: This was another alleged link of Iraq to the War on Terror, but this has been summarily debunked. Other states that fell into this category were Iran and North Korea, both potentially more dangerous than Iraq, but not much has been achieved on this goal.
I did my best to put forth these goals based on Bush Administration statements and other newspaper accounts about the War on Terror. In looking at this, albeit brief, list, I find it disappointing that none of these goals attempt to address the root causes of Al Qaeda’s terrorism versus the West. While it is true that Bin Laden doesn’t approve of Western Society in general (Freedom, Democracy, Separation of Church and State, etc.), he isn’t, as he said in his letter to America in October 2004, advocating attacks on Sweden. There is more to his motivation to attack the United States than simply hating Freedom and Democracy, which is the simplistic right-wing explanation for terrorism.
If you read the texts of Bin Laden’s statements over the last 10 years, you will see some common threads:
1. America’s role in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
2. America’s support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
3. The plundering of the Middle East’s resources (oil) by the West.
I haven’t listed these items to show support for Bin Laden or to suggest that the US simply accede to his demands, but to provide a means of understanding the motivation of the enemy. It will be difficult for the United States to make progress in the War on Terror if it operates blindly with respect to the above grievances.
Let’s turn to Al Qaeda’s goals in its war with the West. In Bin Laden’s Letter to America from October 2004, he stated that America will have security when it stops playing with the security of the Middle East, which really means stop interfering in the politics of the region. In lieu of that, Al Qaeda’s goal is to continue the policy of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” In this effort, Bin Laden feels that the Bush Administration has been extremely accommodating.
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this
administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest
point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to
make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and
political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some
benefits for their private companies.
Has Al Qaeda made progress in its policy to drive America to bankruptcy? Yes, I think it has and the Bush Administration has been its unwitting ally. By engaging in the folly in Iraq, the Administration has committed billions to the effort, and few in Washington seem to be paying any attention to the cost of the war and the surging Federal Deficit. Iraq and the War on Terror are also bleeding this country in other ways such as the loss of fine young soldiers, the loss of civil liberties and the decline of the rule of law.
I bring this up because I find it disturbing that the goals of the enemy are being achieved through the actions of the Bush Administration. It’s like a football team that scores touchdowns for its opponent and then its head coach says he wants to stick with the game plan. Isn’t it time to re-evaluate the goals of the War on Terror so that we can stop achieving the ends of the enemy? Unfortunately, everyone in the country seems to be engaged in partisan discussions rather than finding a global solution to the problem of terrorism. Perhaps I expect too much of our elected leaders, but if terrorism policy continues on its present course, we could be looking at the beginning of the demise of the American Empire.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Patriot Act and Christmas
Patriot Act Renewal
The renewal of the Patriot Act has been in the news recently, and at the moment, it’s stalled in Congress. That’s good news for Americans that care about civil liberties and that understand the principles on which this country was founded.
Let’s dispel a myth promulgated by neo-conservatives regarding the Patriot Act: “The Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.” President Bush reiterated this sentiment in his radio address to the nation yesterday. Excrement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact, the provisions within the Patriot Act were part of a neo-con, law enforcement wish list that existed prior to 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11th provided an opportunistic moment for passing such sweeping legislation and thus endangering the civil liberties of all Americans.
I find it difficult to understand why the Bush Administration pushes so forcefully on Patriot Act renewal yet does virtually nothing when it comes to enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Remember them? A bi-partisan commission that investigated the root causes and failures that led to 9/11? Well, the Commission had a series of recommendations that were designed to fix the failures in intelligence and communication that allowed the terrorists to operate in this country, and thus by implementing the fixes would presumably make America safer. To my knowledge, the powers granted via the Patriot Act were not deemed to be impediments in catching terrorists pre-9/11. If those powers had been in place before September 11, the attacks would not have been foiled. Yet President Bush contends that the Patriot Act makes us safer. The question is “how?”, but there is no answer because the contention is purely rhetoric, and it is rhetoric that fewer and fewer people are swallowing every day. That’s why the Patriot Act is stalled in Congress.
Is Christmas here yet?
Honestly, I can’t wait until Christmas is over this year. After that, we won’t have to hear about the faux “War on Christmas” being fought by the brave soldiers at Fox News, at least not until next year. However, a lot of people have bought into this trumped up controversy designed to boost ratings and sell books (see Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson). Now you can count Congress among the fools. This past week, House Resolution (579) calling for the support of “the symbols and traditions of Christmas” was passed by a vote of 401 to 22. What a joke! I cannot believe we are paying these people to spend time on such a meaningless issue. Considering the issues before this country, it’s embarrassing that our elected representatives chose to devote time and energy to this. Bill O’Reilly has truly won the war! Fortunately, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), brought a measure of sanity to the discussion by composing a poem about the alleged controversy of Christmas and reading it on the House floor. The text of the poem appears below:
'Twas a week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a make-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.
The renewal of the Patriot Act has been in the news recently, and at the moment, it’s stalled in Congress. That’s good news for Americans that care about civil liberties and that understand the principles on which this country was founded.
Let’s dispel a myth promulgated by neo-conservatives regarding the Patriot Act: “The Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.” President Bush reiterated this sentiment in his radio address to the nation yesterday. Excrement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact, the provisions within the Patriot Act were part of a neo-con, law enforcement wish list that existed prior to 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11th provided an opportunistic moment for passing such sweeping legislation and thus endangering the civil liberties of all Americans.
I find it difficult to understand why the Bush Administration pushes so forcefully on Patriot Act renewal yet does virtually nothing when it comes to enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Remember them? A bi-partisan commission that investigated the root causes and failures that led to 9/11? Well, the Commission had a series of recommendations that were designed to fix the failures in intelligence and communication that allowed the terrorists to operate in this country, and thus by implementing the fixes would presumably make America safer. To my knowledge, the powers granted via the Patriot Act were not deemed to be impediments in catching terrorists pre-9/11. If those powers had been in place before September 11, the attacks would not have been foiled. Yet President Bush contends that the Patriot Act makes us safer. The question is “how?”, but there is no answer because the contention is purely rhetoric, and it is rhetoric that fewer and fewer people are swallowing every day. That’s why the Patriot Act is stalled in Congress.
Is Christmas here yet?
Honestly, I can’t wait until Christmas is over this year. After that, we won’t have to hear about the faux “War on Christmas” being fought by the brave soldiers at Fox News, at least not until next year. However, a lot of people have bought into this trumped up controversy designed to boost ratings and sell books (see Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson). Now you can count Congress among the fools. This past week, House Resolution (579) calling for the support of “the symbols and traditions of Christmas” was passed by a vote of 401 to 22. What a joke! I cannot believe we are paying these people to spend time on such a meaningless issue. Considering the issues before this country, it’s embarrassing that our elected representatives chose to devote time and energy to this. Bill O’Reilly has truly won the war! Fortunately, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), brought a measure of sanity to the discussion by composing a poem about the alleged controversy of Christmas and reading it on the House floor. The text of the poem appears below:
'Twas a week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a make-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Setting the Record Straight
Last Friday evening, I watched National Geographic’s Inside 9/11 program, and for me, it provoked a lot of thoughts on the current state of affairs. Mostly, I was disgusted with where the Bush Administration has taken this country since 9/11/01, but that’s probably not a surprise to anyone who has read this space before.
If you haven’t seen Inside 9/11, I recommend watching it. It’s a two part program and it’s a fact based look at what happened prior to that fateful day, the events of September 11th and the response of the US in the wake of the attacks. At the end of the second part, the program reviews the US response in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Directly after that, the invasion of Iraq is mentioned. While watching that, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a giant non sequitur to the military action in Afghanistan. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general? Why is Iraq a new front in the war on terrorism?
The reason it didn’t make sense to me is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. I can’t explain why the US is in Iraq (you’ll have to ask Cheney), but I can state one thing unequivocally. It has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. Well, that is unless the plan was to create more terrorists. That’s working brilliantly.
Let’s look at this war on terror connection to Iraq a little more closely. How could it possibly be related?
· There were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, and that’s understandable since Saddam Hussein’s government was secular in nature and not Islamic.
· Both Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States, but that doesn’t make them unique or link them in any way.
· Would Iraq become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? That’s a logical thought, but is also the reason that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job to make sure that wouldn’t happen, prior to the US invasion.
· Spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East in an effort to provide security to America – this seems to be a “popular” connection, but it’s the most ill conceived of them all. In other words, the strategy is “convert them to our way of thinking so that they won’t hurt us again.”
If you buy into the spread freedom and democracy angle, then Iraq was probably the right choice. It was a secular government in a region that is increasingly trending toward more Islamic regimes and it was a government without any friends. Who would miss Saddam? Probably no one would care, right?
Here’s where this strategy breaks down. The Middle East is a region that has deep mistrust of the West, and that goes back to the Crusades. Arabs have always had a very long term view of the world and they remember the past. Put that into contrast with our society where everything is about the short term, from the stock market to what is on TV tonight, and you have a culture mismatch. If you look at the situation with absolutely no historical perspective, the idea of invading Iraq and having a happy ending seems almost plausible. However, if you examine the history of the region with the West, the very thought of invading a sovereign country in the Middle East with an eye toward converting it to a Western style democracy is foolhardy. There is way too much distrust between the societies, and much of it is deserved. The idea that freedom and democracy will flourish in the Middle East by force feeding it to an occupied country seems naïve, especially when the occupier’s President unintentionally uses the word ‘crusade’ to describe the effort. If you’re an Arab, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that this war is an extension of Christianity versus Islam when the aggressor uses the language of the Crusades? That’s not a public relations idea that’s going to take hold in the Middle East.
Also, since when does America start wars preemptively? A look at our history shows that we’ve never done that before. Supporters of the war will respond to that thoughtlessly with “this is a different kind of war” or “the rules are different in the war on terror.” Baloney! If you want to provide security for Americans, don’t go and stir up a hornets nest. If we really want to spread freedom and democracy to the region, we should have the courage NOT to invade. Change is often a long term process, and that’s probably even truer when talking about culture change. That’s not the kind of change that can be forced overnight; it has to be an evolutionary process and a partnership with the West is the way to do it.
The US likes to think of itself as the standard bearer for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the War in Iraq has revealed that today’s United States no longer deserves that lofty title. The latest blow to this is the continuing saga of torture. Torture has been proven to be ultimately self-defeating, yet we have an Administration that has used and wants to continue to use torture as an interrogation technique. What happened to the sentiment of overthrowing Saddam because he tortures his own people? It’s OK for us to torture them, but not him? Isn’t this a classic double standard? And I haven’t even brought up the fact that the new regime seems to have set up its own torture structure. Are we replacing one set of torturers with another? Surely, that wasn’t the point of the invasion. What a truly shining example we are setting for the rest of the world by defending our use of torture.
As I said earlier, I can’t tell you the real reasons the United States invaded Iraq, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the security of this country. If we don’t know why we are there, how can we possibly figure out how to extricate ourselves from this mess? So far, no one in Washington has an answer to that question.
If you haven’t seen Inside 9/11, I recommend watching it. It’s a two part program and it’s a fact based look at what happened prior to that fateful day, the events of September 11th and the response of the US in the wake of the attacks. At the end of the second part, the program reviews the US response in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Directly after that, the invasion of Iraq is mentioned. While watching that, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a giant non sequitur to the military action in Afghanistan. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general? Why is Iraq a new front in the war on terrorism?
The reason it didn’t make sense to me is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. I can’t explain why the US is in Iraq (you’ll have to ask Cheney), but I can state one thing unequivocally. It has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. Well, that is unless the plan was to create more terrorists. That’s working brilliantly.
Let’s look at this war on terror connection to Iraq a little more closely. How could it possibly be related?
· There were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, and that’s understandable since Saddam Hussein’s government was secular in nature and not Islamic.
· Both Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States, but that doesn’t make them unique or link them in any way.
· Would Iraq become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? That’s a logical thought, but is also the reason that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job to make sure that wouldn’t happen, prior to the US invasion.
· Spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East in an effort to provide security to America – this seems to be a “popular” connection, but it’s the most ill conceived of them all. In other words, the strategy is “convert them to our way of thinking so that they won’t hurt us again.”
If you buy into the spread freedom and democracy angle, then Iraq was probably the right choice. It was a secular government in a region that is increasingly trending toward more Islamic regimes and it was a government without any friends. Who would miss Saddam? Probably no one would care, right?
Here’s where this strategy breaks down. The Middle East is a region that has deep mistrust of the West, and that goes back to the Crusades. Arabs have always had a very long term view of the world and they remember the past. Put that into contrast with our society where everything is about the short term, from the stock market to what is on TV tonight, and you have a culture mismatch. If you look at the situation with absolutely no historical perspective, the idea of invading Iraq and having a happy ending seems almost plausible. However, if you examine the history of the region with the West, the very thought of invading a sovereign country in the Middle East with an eye toward converting it to a Western style democracy is foolhardy. There is way too much distrust between the societies, and much of it is deserved. The idea that freedom and democracy will flourish in the Middle East by force feeding it to an occupied country seems naïve, especially when the occupier’s President unintentionally uses the word ‘crusade’ to describe the effort. If you’re an Arab, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that this war is an extension of Christianity versus Islam when the aggressor uses the language of the Crusades? That’s not a public relations idea that’s going to take hold in the Middle East.
Also, since when does America start wars preemptively? A look at our history shows that we’ve never done that before. Supporters of the war will respond to that thoughtlessly with “this is a different kind of war” or “the rules are different in the war on terror.” Baloney! If you want to provide security for Americans, don’t go and stir up a hornets nest. If we really want to spread freedom and democracy to the region, we should have the courage NOT to invade. Change is often a long term process, and that’s probably even truer when talking about culture change. That’s not the kind of change that can be forced overnight; it has to be an evolutionary process and a partnership with the West is the way to do it.
The US likes to think of itself as the standard bearer for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the War in Iraq has revealed that today’s United States no longer deserves that lofty title. The latest blow to this is the continuing saga of torture. Torture has been proven to be ultimately self-defeating, yet we have an Administration that has used and wants to continue to use torture as an interrogation technique. What happened to the sentiment of overthrowing Saddam because he tortures his own people? It’s OK for us to torture them, but not him? Isn’t this a classic double standard? And I haven’t even brought up the fact that the new regime seems to have set up its own torture structure. Are we replacing one set of torturers with another? Surely, that wasn’t the point of the invasion. What a truly shining example we are setting for the rest of the world by defending our use of torture.
As I said earlier, I can’t tell you the real reasons the United States invaded Iraq, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the security of this country. If we don’t know why we are there, how can we possibly figure out how to extricate ourselves from this mess? So far, no one in Washington has an answer to that question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)