Shouldn't this be a question that is asked on the campaign trail?
You know, I don't necessarily like the campaigns for the next President starting already. BUT, since the candidates did not take my counsel (well, at least most of them didn't) and have already thrown their hat into the ring, it's time to get into campaign mode.
SO I ask you: don't you think, in light of the comments made by the Senate majority leader last week regarding his view that our efforts in Iraq are a lost cause, that SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE would want to ask the declared candidates their view on the issue?
I mean, Reid really upped the ante last week. He clearly presented a view that could easily be formed into a yes-no question for everyone with aspirations of being the Commander-in-Chief of this country's military and the the chief foreign policy course-setter of the country: "do you believe the Iraq war is lost?"
Let's see how his fellow Dems would answer that question. Not only do I think that the majors will find a new way to say "next question" in 300 words or more, but I have a funny feeling they won't be quick to send Reid a thank-you basket.
YOU KNOW, this whole war issue is leading me to become less of a fan of representative democracy as a form of government. While it is certain that the war in Iraq was the main reason for a good number of the votes that helped hand Congressional control to the Dems this past November, it was not the only issue. Yet the Dems keep using the results from November as a club over the head, causing (in my opinion) more damage to the image of America abroad than anything that has happened in Iraq. The lessons of VietNam are coming back to roost (the way to defeat our army is political, not on the battlefield), but this time it is against an enemy that does not abide by the structure of a state that we could wage a full war against.
I just don't get the Dems' "big picture" on this one. Granted, they hate Bush, and would love to taint the entirety of his administration by forcing us to abandon our stake in Iraq before we had seen it through to completion. But what else does this do for them? Forget the fact that a withdrawal from Iraq would likely be a crushing blow to that entire region's hopes for stability, potentially resulting in the massacre of millions of people--what about here and the institutions of this country?
--WHY would anybody want to sign up to join a military that doesn't even have the support of the country's legislature? And let's be clear: SUPPORT for the military doesn't mean being shy about employing them to do their job. SUPPORT means acting in your best conscience to ensure the troops have everything at their disposal to do the job that they are tasked. IF Reid, Pelosi and others think that the war is lost, then they have one course of action: cut the funds. Period. ANYTHING other than that action or full legislative agreement with the President's strategy is not support for the troops--it is double-talk to undermine a political adversary.
--WHAT is going to happen to the world's oil-based economy when a good part of that oil supply is held hostage by that region? I understand that we NEED to move away from oil. . .but we can't do that tomorrow. Or even the next tomorrow. . .or the next one thousand tomorrows. And that is for this country--what about for some other places that aren't as technologically advanced as we are? "Losing" in Iraq makes that entire region vulnerable to political upheaval, increasing the risk to the free-flow of oil that helps grease the global marketplace. Even if this country had "alternatives" in place, we would still feel a pinch (or more) from the countries that were fully reliant on oil trade.
--WHERE do people from other countries go to find inspiration and hope if we fail to live up to the promise of democracy? Here is my rudimentary boil-down of the ideologies that will be at war in the 21st century, in much the same manner that totalitarianism and democracy were at war for the 20th century: hope in this life versus despair in this life. America, and other functioning democracies in this world, provide their citizens with the hope of making a better life for themselves while still of this earth. But if democracy is proven to be an empty suit--or at least to lack the backbone to stand up for itself in the face of aggression--then what "hope" do the oppressed have of making a better life for themselves and their families here on earth? That lack of hope feeds into despair. . .which feeds into the ideology that promotes the destruction of life here on earth in order to meet a supposed salvation in the afterlife. WE CAN'T LET THIS IDEOLOGY GAIN ANY MORE TRACTION!!! Democracy must thrive, and must continue to grow it's influence throughout the world--especially in places where oppression has been the order of the day for so long. To allow those oppressed peoples to remain "in the dark" about the beauty of democracy is to hurt the cause of goodness in some not insignificant manner. Every democracy we gain is worth an unquantifiable value in the long-term struggle against the forces of oppression and despair.
--WHO is going to value us as a partner for the future if we let the interests of an entire country go by the wayside because of some difficult times? Isolationism proved to be a flawed policy--and that was back when the world wasn't truly "global" in the way it did business. If our current allies decide they can do better than to have a finicky (or double-speaking) America on their team, we will essentially have isolationism thrust upon us--a truly dire scenario for our economy!
Okay, so I branched off a little bit on this one. But I just get SO WORKED UP about the Dems' strategy on this issue. Either cut off the funding and force the troops to come home, and be willing to suffer the consequences of that action, or tend to the OTHER business of the country while the military builds towards success in Iraq. That's what your job as a member of Congress is. If you want to determine foreign policy for this country, WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION for crying out loud--but don't attack our current policy while you lack the will to implement an Constitutionally-acceptable alternative.
SO I ask you: don't you think, in light of the comments made by the Senate majority leader last week regarding his view that our efforts in Iraq are a lost cause, that SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE would want to ask the declared candidates their view on the issue?
I mean, Reid really upped the ante last week. He clearly presented a view that could easily be formed into a yes-no question for everyone with aspirations of being the Commander-in-Chief of this country's military and the the chief foreign policy course-setter of the country: "do you believe the Iraq war is lost?"
Let's see how his fellow Dems would answer that question. Not only do I think that the majors will find a new way to say "next question" in 300 words or more, but I have a funny feeling they won't be quick to send Reid a thank-you basket.
YOU KNOW, this whole war issue is leading me to become less of a fan of representative democracy as a form of government. While it is certain that the war in Iraq was the main reason for a good number of the votes that helped hand Congressional control to the Dems this past November, it was not the only issue. Yet the Dems keep using the results from November as a club over the head, causing (in my opinion) more damage to the image of America abroad than anything that has happened in Iraq. The lessons of VietNam are coming back to roost (the way to defeat our army is political, not on the battlefield), but this time it is against an enemy that does not abide by the structure of a state that we could wage a full war against.
I just don't get the Dems' "big picture" on this one. Granted, they hate Bush, and would love to taint the entirety of his administration by forcing us to abandon our stake in Iraq before we had seen it through to completion. But what else does this do for them? Forget the fact that a withdrawal from Iraq would likely be a crushing blow to that entire region's hopes for stability, potentially resulting in the massacre of millions of people--what about here and the institutions of this country?
--WHY would anybody want to sign up to join a military that doesn't even have the support of the country's legislature? And let's be clear: SUPPORT for the military doesn't mean being shy about employing them to do their job. SUPPORT means acting in your best conscience to ensure the troops have everything at their disposal to do the job that they are tasked. IF Reid, Pelosi and others think that the war is lost, then they have one course of action: cut the funds. Period. ANYTHING other than that action or full legislative agreement with the President's strategy is not support for the troops--it is double-talk to undermine a political adversary.
--WHAT is going to happen to the world's oil-based economy when a good part of that oil supply is held hostage by that region? I understand that we NEED to move away from oil. . .but we can't do that tomorrow. Or even the next tomorrow. . .or the next one thousand tomorrows. And that is for this country--what about for some other places that aren't as technologically advanced as we are? "Losing" in Iraq makes that entire region vulnerable to political upheaval, increasing the risk to the free-flow of oil that helps grease the global marketplace. Even if this country had "alternatives" in place, we would still feel a pinch (or more) from the countries that were fully reliant on oil trade.
--WHERE do people from other countries go to find inspiration and hope if we fail to live up to the promise of democracy? Here is my rudimentary boil-down of the ideologies that will be at war in the 21st century, in much the same manner that totalitarianism and democracy were at war for the 20th century: hope in this life versus despair in this life. America, and other functioning democracies in this world, provide their citizens with the hope of making a better life for themselves while still of this earth. But if democracy is proven to be an empty suit--or at least to lack the backbone to stand up for itself in the face of aggression--then what "hope" do the oppressed have of making a better life for themselves and their families here on earth? That lack of hope feeds into despair. . .which feeds into the ideology that promotes the destruction of life here on earth in order to meet a supposed salvation in the afterlife. WE CAN'T LET THIS IDEOLOGY GAIN ANY MORE TRACTION!!! Democracy must thrive, and must continue to grow it's influence throughout the world--especially in places where oppression has been the order of the day for so long. To allow those oppressed peoples to remain "in the dark" about the beauty of democracy is to hurt the cause of goodness in some not insignificant manner. Every democracy we gain is worth an unquantifiable value in the long-term struggle against the forces of oppression and despair.
--WHO is going to value us as a partner for the future if we let the interests of an entire country go by the wayside because of some difficult times? Isolationism proved to be a flawed policy--and that was back when the world wasn't truly "global" in the way it did business. If our current allies decide they can do better than to have a finicky (or double-speaking) America on their team, we will essentially have isolationism thrust upon us--a truly dire scenario for our economy!
Okay, so I branched off a little bit on this one. But I just get SO WORKED UP about the Dems' strategy on this issue. Either cut off the funding and force the troops to come home, and be willing to suffer the consequences of that action, or tend to the OTHER business of the country while the military builds towards success in Iraq. That's what your job as a member of Congress is. If you want to determine foreign policy for this country, WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION for crying out loud--but don't attack our current policy while you lack the will to implement an Constitutionally-acceptable alternative.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home