Saturday, April 29, 2006

Get Out of Iraq and Start Fighting Terrorism

There was another huge anti-war protest in the streets of New York today. The usual suspects were there, and that only makes the majority of Americans automatically think they are on the opposite side of whatever is being protested. There is a large segment of society that is automatically diametrically opposed to anything that someone like Rev. Jesse Jackson is for. This is a logical fallacy on their part.

The Bush administration has made a tactical error in the war on terror. This is not a traditional war, but the Administration insists on having our military fight it that way. The very use of the word "war" is probably inaccurate. Battle is probably a better choice. Much as the words "war on drugs" created false expectations along with the unrealized "victory", calling this a "war" on terrorism made it possible for our government to launch us down this path, with hardly a voice raised in opposition, by creating a false expectation of the necessary response. What else do you do in a "war" that you are trying to win other than invade the enemy's country?

Even if the absolutely best possible consequences ensued from invading, conquering and setting up democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and whatever other countries end up on the agenda, it will not impact the problem with terror. The best you can hope for is a relatively low loss of innocents in those countries, along with a relatively low loss of our own young people and then those countries rapidly installing democratic systems and the majority being satisfied with the changes and not upset with our country (and pushed further toward siding with terrorists). That's the BEST. And that isn't bad! The problems are:

A) There is no guarantee that all of those good things will come to pass - ever. In fact, some of the more negative potential consequences are almost a certainty.

B) When you invade a country, you are fighting primarily with the armed forces of that society. In the case of Islamic societies, those soldiers you are fighting are not usually associated with terror. In fact, many times the terrorists residing within that country hate the armed forces as much as they hate America.

leading to the most import problem -

C) The people who already hate us, and the western world, enough to wage a war of terror will be almost completely unaffected by this! There will still be 10's of thousands of militant, fundamentalist, islamofascists living in those countries and all over the world. These folks are largely hidden in their beliefs and lives and you only find out about them either after they have taken violent action or after you hear about us breaking up one of their cells.

As we run around doing nation conquering, our government not only creates the illusion of actually fighting a war on terror, but wastes an incredible amount of resources doing it. We could fight the real war at a fraction of what we spend now. The saving of thousands of innocents and U.S. ground soldiers is a pretty hefty coincidental benefit to this proposal.

This battle is not about "countries". There is not a "country" to conquer to end our problems. In fact, doing so can complicate some very tricky issues and actually make them worse. Then again, if you are more interested in creating capitalistic democracies than in ending, or lessening, terrorism - then I guess Bush is doing exactly the right thing.


tom l said...

"if you are interested in creating capitalist ..." - doesn't it beg the question, cui bono? or in other words, follow the money? Bush the other day was almost bragging about how oil cost less than $20 a barrel when he took office.

more and more the whole thing reminds me of the bogus california energy criss of a few years ago - it was nothing more than highway robbery. pirates. simple as that.

one difference is that the 'war on terror' was tailor-made for a karl rove type, whose only real goal is republican hegemony. they thought they could bully the democrats on terrorism for a generation. the only problems were a) their own incompetence and b) reality.

Al said...

In downtown Visalia there was a small gathering where bands played, speakers spoke and various groups had tables and booths. Among the groups present was Peace Fresno, made famous in the movie Farenheight 911 in which a group of 60-something cookie baking peace activists were infiltrated by the FBI and Fresno PD. I talked to this little white haired lady (call Homeland Security!!!) and she said that CA Attorney General Dan Lundgrin investigated why they were infiltrated but never gave them the results of that investigation as to why this country would waste law enforcement resources (as if Fresno wasn't a crime infested dump filled with gangbangers that could use the police resources fighting THAT problem)infiltrating this group of peace loving grannies. This lack of accountability is kind of unnerving.

John said...

Pigeon said: ""if you are interested in creating capitalist ..." - doesn't it beg the question, cui bono? or in other words, follow the money?"

Well, it SURE DOES, Pigeon! I just thought I'd leave it to some bright reader to mention this. I'm agnostic on it, but, YES the question is certainly sitting out there.

I would say that these people are smart enough to know they aren't fighting a real battle against terrorism. Therefore you would need to look at their motivations. But it's the Bush Administration, so it IS possible that they really think this is a great way to stop the next 9/11!

John said...

Al, I actually have a passing acquaintance with Sheriff Pierce of Fresno Sheriff’s Dept (the guy they showed in F911). He was a room mate of my cousin in the late 60's early 70's before they both got into the Sheriff’s dept and Pierce was best man his wedding in '75. My cousin resigned from it about a year ago, somewhat under a cloud himself regarding his close involvement with the owners of Harris Ranch.

Enzio Pesta said...

You really are on the fence about everything, aren't you, Middleman?

Your blog makes my brain hurt. Please, a little humor every so often, for the love of God!

John said...

Pesta said: "You really are on the fence about everything, aren't you, Middleman?"

People hate arrogance. The first and surest sign of it is being "positive" that you are right. I'm not on the fence on many issues, but I always ask myself if I'm really on the right side of it, and not afraid to admit I'm wrong and jump back across if necessary.

Sorry about the humor(lessness)!

Hank Barnes said...

I ain't a big fan of Bush, nor a big fan of the Iraq war.

But, sakes alive, I dislike these protests!

Congress has the power to end the war. It needs a majority to rescind the "authorization".

So, do the hard work of trying to persuade your elected officials, jeez!

Impatient Patient said...

Humour? Why humour? Go watch TV for humour. Go make faces in the mirror. Everything does not have to entertain or feel good.

How is this a humour filled subject in any way, anyways?

Fence sitting is good, by the way. Except when there is a lot of evidence that one side is a bit more credulous than the other.
A good thing to remember is that no matter who or what you support, you always need to be aware that they can change direction at any moment and be the bad guys. It is when people support ONE THING AND ONE PARTY AND ONE RELIGION.... without acknowledging that they can veer off into craziness just like anyone else that really crazy stuff happens. You need to be prepared to yell at the top of your lungs that YOUR emperor has no clothes if necessary.