9 posts tagged “war”
On April 10, 2003, President George W. Bush game a speech in which he said:
First I want to draw attention to the fact that the United States has been an aggressive country, acting militarily in South America and the Middle East over the last several decades. We do also have weapons of mass destruction, in fact we have more than the rest of the world has all put together, and the Bush administration is seeking to expand funding to improve and upgrade the nuclear arsenal.The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and order, so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq’s future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world.
Second, Bush clearly says we will remove our military when Iraq has a representative government. They have one, we all saw the purple fingers. Time to go.
A recent internal Pentagon investigation just found that intel was purposely manipulated to mislead the Department of Defense (DOD) in order to go to war with Iraq. The Pentagon kept pressing for links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, which have subsequently found to be false. The Pentagon concluded that the action was inappropriate but legal.
How exactly is lying to the country, causing tens of thousands of human deaths, not criminal?
I've been thinking about war, sin and personal responsibility. It seems like everyone that actually supports a Christian's ability to war (John 18:26) gives the justification that it is not the individual who is killing (Exodus 20:13) but it is the state. I don't really see how one can divorce a person's actions from that person, but we'll skip over this part for another even more ridiculous reason. Giving up personal responsibility with the guise of acting for the nation allows a person to do anything no matter how morally reprehensible. If you can murder and lie (Exodus 20:16) to wage war, what else can you do? Serve another god (Mars perhaps)? (Exodus 20:3) War on the sabbath? (Exodus 20:8) Rape and pillage? (Exodus 20:14, 15) Make an oath? (Matthew 5:33-36) I can add here a big et al. Honestly, where does it stop and how do we fault our waring enemies whoa re themselves only acting for their nation? How do we accuse any nation of cruelty, how do we say any nation is acting incorrectly? We were not given rules for how a government should operate, only how people should operate, and I believe every Christian should follow those rules without passing their own duties off to the government.
This year we (the USA) established the Iraq Study Group, a ten-person bipartisan panel consisting of five Republicans and five Democrats who had held posts such as Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State, US Attorney General, White House Chief of Staff, and US Secretary of Defense. This commission's job was to assess the condition in Iraq and make recommendations to policy regarding Iraq. Among other things, this panel recommended a phased withdraw of troops and open dialog with Syria and Iran. While this group was conducting their study a growing sentiment in our Capitol on all sides of the issues, and among the Military leaders, that we did have to start getting our troops out of Iraq. This of course has been the belief of a majority of the rest of the world's population. Support for the Iraq occupation dropped to an all time low below 30% here in the States. Even the Secretary of Defense that Bush himself appointed after Rumsfeld resigned, Robert Gates, served on the Iraq Study Group and only resigned the group after he was nominated for his current position.
After the commission's findings were publicized, George W. Bush said he would listen to all his advisers and formulate a plan to "win the war" in Iraq. Leaks have been coming out of the White House saying Bush's plan is "Surge and Escalate," which will bring an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. This goes against the advice of the military leaders here, the Iraq leaders there, and pretty much every expert in policy.
This is a disastrous plan. The "US Invasion" of Iraq has been seen as a "US Occupation" and sending in more troops when a wide majority of Iraqis want us to leave will only solidify this belief. The entire Middle East region is afraid we'll have a permanent military presence in Iraq, and adding to this belief may "escalate" in a way quite unintended. The only people who think this is a good idea are the Washington neo-cons who thought every idea Bush had was a good one only to see it fail miserably in a foreign policy disaster. We're losing face all over the world and every decision we make only adds to this distrust.
We do need to open dialog with the neighboring states in the Middle East. These places are not nationalistic like western countries are, they're tribal, they're religious, and these things extend beyond borders. Everything in the Middle East is intertwined. In a recent Iran election, results showed anti-Ahmadinejad vote. The people of Iran have showed they're not in support of the hard-line President that is the thorn in Bush's heal. Recently, Flynt Leverett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times (which the White House censored even after the CIA cleared it) pressing how important it is for this President to not miss the opportunity to fix relations with the most powerful nation-state in the Middle East before it's too late. I agree. We can't afford to let our relationship smelt.
And the Democrats can't really do anything about this either because they've only got control of the war chest, not the troops, and if they cut funding the neo-cons will say how the Dems are weak on terror and how they want to put the troops in vulnerable positions without enough body armor and bullets. So basically living in the States is currently like living under a heavy cloud with nothign we can do except wait out the last two years of this administration. It's depressing.
The Zionists keep saying Israel is only seeking peace, and that's why they've put up the apartheid walls through the Palestinian cities, and why they're so brutal to the Palestinian communities saying if they had to chose between Palestinian comforts and Israeli lives, they'd chose lives. But Israel just confirmed they allowed an arms shipment from Egypt to Fatah so the Palestinian civil war (between Fatah and Hamas) can escalate even further.
Last night, the Discovery Channel held a special by Ted Koppel called The Price of Security, which dealt with the questions around what has happened since 9/11 concerning security and civil and privacy rights. It was very informative, broke some misconceptions, and brought up some very important questions. The first ninety minutes was a documentary style about what had happened, and the second ninety minutes was a live forum discussion about the issues with people involved. If you have the opportunity to watch this, I think you probably should.
There were some important questions raised about how we're supposed to fight this Global War on Terror and preserve our American values and Constitution. However, I think the question that needs to be asked is, "Can we win a war on terror?" I don't think we can win a war on terror anymore than we can win a war against any ideology, and an example of this is the war on Marxism in South America. Terror is a nonentity. You cannot fight what is intangible with what is tangible. Because it is a nonentity, there are no defined enemies, there are no defined goals and objectives, there is no gauging success and failure. As a result, there is no winning this war. This isn't because we will lose, but because there is nothing to tell us when we can declare the war over. This is what I fear the most.
When the war never ends, the executive branch has expanded powers indefinitely. They can do whatever they want under the guise of fighting this war. They can (and have) take people off the street and detain them for as long as they want without ever having to explain why they were taken, or bring evidence against them. The executive branch of our government turns into the military branch, and we become a military power, not a civil power. The Constitution does not afford a military branch, and it frightens me to think we're moved in that direction. We're now looking at pax americana through expanded military presence in every part of the world.
I was thinking about when Dick Cheney said (source):
What the Democrats are suggesting, basically, about a withdrawal -- you can call it redeployment, whatever you want to call it. Basically, it in effect validates the terrorists' strategy. You've got to remember that the Osama bin Laden-types, the al Qaeda-types, the Zarqawi-types that have been active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United States' will. There's no way they can defeat us militarily. Their whole strategy, if you look at what bin Laden's been saying for 10 years, is they believe they can, in fact, force us to quit, that ultimately we'll get tired of the fight, that we don't have the stomach for a long, tough battle and that we'll pack it in and go home.
A few thoughts here:
This administration makes it sound like everyone is a terrorist that doesn't want America to be in Iraq. This comes from their confusing the war on terror and the Iraq war. They say if we pull out of Iraq, we'll be fighting terrorists here. Of course the fighting in Iraq is not against the USA (mostly). The Iraqis are fighting each other because there are so many factions (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, etc) fighting for control. there are terrorists fighting the Iraqi government because they see it as a US puppet govt. attacks on US targets has been slowing down, and our troops' deaths are coming from actions we're taking.
"Validating the terrorist strategy" by pulling out or redeploying means the terrorists are looking for us to leave the region. Most people in the Middle East want us out of the region as well, so they're supporting the terrorist strategy!
"Breaking the United States' will" to do what? Fight? We’re fighting because the terrorists don't want us to fight? We’re fighting to show them we have a strong will to fight?
Cheney says Bin Laden and the others "believe they can, in fact, force us to quit." and what if we do quit? Then the terrorists win because there is no more war? No more senseless death? No more hostility?
Cheney makes it sound like we're fighting for pride. We’ve got the guts to fight, and keep on fighting. It’s pointless. Fighting because someone else doesn't want you to is adolescent.
I guess they're right when they say we won't lose this one because we've already lost it. If terrorists want to fight us so much, why do we satisfy their desires?
I'm pretty sick of the rhetoric the current administration is using. They have little catch phrases they use that are entirely unqualified. "Stay the course."
Recently, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow blamed 9/11 on George H.W. Bush (the senior) because "the United States walked away...in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't 'stay the course'."
Bush also frequently says we have to stay in Iraq "until the job is done."
There is no qualifier. It's as if "stay the course" is the objective we need to complete. There is never any indication of what "the course" is. The justification for the war has changed so many times (along with the name of the operation) nobody has a clue what we're doing. Until what "job" is done?
The administration is hijacking language to make their point. They turn it around on any dissenter as well. "The democrats don't want to 'stay the course', they want to 'cut and run'."
It's true, we should finish "the job", but it's also important to have objectives other than "staying the course". How are we to know when the job is done if there are no definitions.
The Bush administration has not defined the "course" or the "job" but continues to ask for support, and they will speak harsh words against anyone who is confused by their twisting of words. Bush, in his last press conference, made an incredible insult to people who disagree with him. "I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live." Oh, they're not unpatriotic, they are just stupid. They're out of touch with world events.
If I was going to take a canvas and paint a portrait, how would I do it? I would start by painting a woman in a hat. But then I wouldn't want a hat on her anymore, so I'd give her a bouffant. Someone would criticize the painting, and I would change it to a man in a suit. I won't ever finish it, but when anyone asks, I'll say I was staying the course, and I wouldn't stop until the job is done. This is how absurd it is. There is no plan on how the painting will end, or what it's supposed to be. Currently it looks like a crawfish. When it's changing constantly, how am I supposed to determine when the job is done? How am I supposed to stay the course when it keeps changing?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his Farewell Address, said this:
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
It is with this speech (from the television archives) that Why We Fight begins. This documentary, named after the Frank Capra propaganda films of the early 1940s, plays out over Eisenhower's Farewell Address, and rests in the context of his warning to remain vigilant. The film maker made this documentary surprisingly balanced, with interviews of everyone from Bill Kristol to John McCain, from a vietnamese refugee to former security advisers. It even featured the son and granddaughter of Ike himself. The film maker left out any narration, and let everyone speak for themselves. Of course I disagreed with people on both sides, but there was an awful lot of history and information in it that I was simply befuddled.
The topic was focused and dealt with the military industrial complex and the militarization of America over the last 60 years, and its affects around the world. Usually when I watch a political documentary, it strays from the subject at times to try and prove a point, and Why We Fight did a very good job of keeping with the subject, while also moving through the emotions of a retired NYC police officer who lost his son in the WTC attacks and had his name written on a bomb destined for Iraq.
I'm a sucker for good documentaries regardless of which point of view it is, and this one was particularly well done. It travels from the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan through the jungles of Vietnam, from the present war in Iraq back to the Washington Farewell Address.
Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
If you enjoy documentaries as much as me, this one is not to be missed. To end, I'll add a bit more of Ike's address:
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
4.5 of 5 stars
