A Long Road to Hoe
Despite my left leanings, or perhaps because of them, I wanted to make sure it is clear to all that I support the Iraqi people in their quest for stability, democracy, and peace. Even though I feel we could have gone about this process in a much more organized fashion from a position of power instead of one of intense controversy, we are nevertheless entrenched and we have to pray now for the best. This article, and in fact the whole site, gives a nice perspective into some of the hearts of the "man in the street" in Iraq. Good luck, brothers and sisters. We are truly in this together.
posted by Smorgasbord @ 5:16 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Good post, Smorg!
-Jack
Smorg,
Here's another interesting article. Its along your line of reasoning...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050830.shtml
A couple of comments on that article: First, the source is undeniably biased. I read Town Hall, but I do so knowing that they are the yang to my yin, so to speak. They don't typically represent a well balanced view. Second, I agree with Limbaugh's point that we have to assess how we operate in Iraq based on what's going on now, not what happened in the past - only fringe weirdoes think otherwise. Third, and this is where the bulk of the controversy lies, I disagree with his comment "The truth is that we were morally and strategically justified in attacking Iraq, based on the information we had available at the time of the attack". Keep in mind that we're now moving away from Iraq at present and onto a larger matter of how we got to this mess in the first place, but that's been the real battleground issue for most of "left" vs. the "right". Not too many people outside the extreme left and Cindy Sheehan are calling for an immediate pullout. I'm not. I know that wouldn't do anybody any good. But I'm still pissed as hell at our "leader" for getting us in there in the first place. Here's why...
The first part of Limbaugh's comment makes me cringe. "Morally justified"? That's just awful. Who are we to be foisting our morals on other nations? One of the reasons much of the middle east hates us is that they think we have no morals. This kind of thinking only fuels that fire.
Now, the occupation being "strategically justified" is where the real debate is. This ties into other posts and comments I've made about Bush's leadership. First and foremost, there are several members of Bush's administration who have been chomping at the bit for over a decade to invade Iraq - that's no secret. These people had/have a very real opportunity to make boat loads of cash not only for themselves, but for their corporate buddies who keep them in power. It's not a conspiracy theory of any sort, it's just a result of the way our government and our pervasive corporate culture are intermarried. Second, Bush is a notorious delegator. His "gift" - his only skill as a leader, as far as I'm concerned - is schmoozing. He's a marketing type. He and Rove and their team of handlers took Bush's image as a shit-kicking, no frills, straight talker and ran with it to the umpteenth degree. Good for them, I guess. But because of two things: Bush's ability to market himself and, unfortunately, 9/11, the administration decided to take the first excuse they could for doing something they already had planned years and years ago. That is why I don't buy we were "strategically justified". Yes, I understand that Bush supporters argue we were justified "based on the information we had available at the time", but my argument is that if the administration hadn't made up its mind before hand, and if Bush was more of a critical thinking leader and less of a cheerleader, we would have made the right decision - which through 20/20 hindsight we now know was NOT to invade without near unilateral support from the western world.
You see, like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the events of 9/11. I have many friends in NYC, I visit there often, I'd been to the World Trade Center many times. I think it is very important to remember what a terrible tragedy it was, not just by giving lip service, but by keeping it in our hearts every day. When we invaded Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible, was there. The world cheered us on as we dismantled the Taliban. We didn't find Bin Laden, but we still had the support of the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD. Then we got greedy. The universal support we enjoyed from every western government and almost every western person needed to be nurtured and prolonged as much as possible. Think of what we could have accomplished toward ending terrorism if we had universal support - morally, monetarily, and in man power. If our president was a critical thinker and had no ties to big business oil, he would have realized ANY suggestion to turn our back on such a gift, that arose phoenix-like from such a tragedy, would have to be severely and utterly scrutinized. Had the administration's reasons for invading Iraq been severely and utterly scrutinized the truth would surely have been revealed. And now we all have the benefit of knowing, because it is jammed down our throats by the "left" and marginalized by the "right", what the truth really is. It's too bad it's too late to do anything about it.
I see what you're saying, Smorg. I think Limbaugh's main point is that the two issues should not be related when analyzing them. I think on this he is correct. He points out truthfully that the two issues are often thrown together by a lot of the far left right now. View yourself as the exception, not the rule.
Regards,
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home