My letter to congress
I sent this letter to my local representatives after recent news from www.truemajorityaction.org. I know most of you neocons will try to tell me I'm succumbing to liberalism, but on the contrary, if you read the letter, you'll find that I'm more interested in the US maintaining the "city on the hill" reputation, rather than "meddler in foreign affairs."
--
I was glad to see that Rep. Jones is leading a bipartisan effort to press President Bush to create an exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
I ask you to sign on to the resolution as a sponsor and to support it by voting for it. I understand that America is responsible for destabilizing the government and population in Iraq, and that it is difficult to withdraw without making sure that a stable government is in place, however, there is a time when we must stand back and take a look at what has been done, and what will be done in the future.
In early American history, we were also considered terrorists in using guerilla tactics to force the British troops from our soil. This is the primary reason for the Iraqi insurgency, and when you think about it, it is not America's place to tell people what type of government they should have. If enough people in Iraq feel that their lives are not being protected by their government, then it is their job to revolt. America today is seen as an occupying force in Iraq, and the majority of Americans feel that our work there should end. It is naziesque to believe that we are "above them" when it comes to decision making. Throughout history, it has been the population, not outside forces, that decide what is best for them. It is not our place, nor will it ever be our place, to tell other cultures how they should govern themselves. If it was, we would be taking active roles in all governments who do not support democracy, such as China, North Korea, and many African countries.
Also, I believe that the US is taking too much of a sole role in the Iraq reconstruction. We must involve the rest of the world in bringing peace to this region, and the people believe that perhaps the United Nations should take over in peacekeeping, to prevent the US from having a conflict of interest in the area. I do understand that peace takes time to flourish, but cultures have historically done better on their own without outside intervention.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope that my letter, among others, is enough to convince you to support the US leaving other countries to govern themselves.
--
I was glad to see that Rep. Jones is leading a bipartisan effort to press President Bush to create an exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
I ask you to sign on to the resolution as a sponsor and to support it by voting for it. I understand that America is responsible for destabilizing the government and population in Iraq, and that it is difficult to withdraw without making sure that a stable government is in place, however, there is a time when we must stand back and take a look at what has been done, and what will be done in the future.
In early American history, we were also considered terrorists in using guerilla tactics to force the British troops from our soil. This is the primary reason for the Iraqi insurgency, and when you think about it, it is not America's place to tell people what type of government they should have. If enough people in Iraq feel that their lives are not being protected by their government, then it is their job to revolt. America today is seen as an occupying force in Iraq, and the majority of Americans feel that our work there should end. It is naziesque to believe that we are "above them" when it comes to decision making. Throughout history, it has been the population, not outside forces, that decide what is best for them. It is not our place, nor will it ever be our place, to tell other cultures how they should govern themselves. If it was, we would be taking active roles in all governments who do not support democracy, such as China, North Korea, and many African countries.
Also, I believe that the US is taking too much of a sole role in the Iraq reconstruction. We must involve the rest of the world in bringing peace to this region, and the people believe that perhaps the United Nations should take over in peacekeeping, to prevent the US from having a conflict of interest in the area. I do understand that peace takes time to flourish, but cultures have historically done better on their own without outside intervention.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope that my letter, among others, is enough to convince you to support the US leaving other countries to govern themselves.
posted by tammo21 at 5:28 PM
6 Comments:
I believe finishing our mission in Iraq is a good idea. The only problem is if we make known publicly our departure from the country the people who want everything to go back to the way it was will just wait us out. That statement has been made before from all sides of the aisle. These "insurgents" don't represent the views of the Iraqi people. The men and women in that country doing their best to protect the freedoms newly won see daily the gratitude of the populace they defend. Insurgency defined is an outside force making efforts to destabilize a government for political or military gains. These terrorists won't quit just because we've left. They'll only start anew what they've been doing all along. They'll stoke their own flames with new fervor in reborn efforts made to continue their mad grasp at power. Iraq is a rich country gone horribly wrong. Under the insanity of Saddam the wealth of the region was turned to evil, hedonistic, fascist ends. You say our position in this attempt to further freedom is "naziesque". I don't think you quite understand what Nazism really meant. The people of Iraq have hope now, and although their lives are not safe at present, that hope paves the way to their freedom, and thus safety for the future. Our position in this isn't to take over their country. Our role in this fight is to galvanize their efforts and make whole their times to come. You see, for everyone who said we went to Iraq for oil there is a terrorist who knows Iraq's oil, and the powers inherent in other wealthy geographic regions will fuel their jihad against all who don't believe in Allah. If you want us out of there then I suggest you find a way to stop them from taking over once we've left. Islam isn't the problem, but jihadists are, and I have a hard time believing there's a way to truly differentiate between the two reliably. Until we can we must always be on guard.
The point is not to differentiate between islam and jihadists. And for the record, there are people in the US who want to change our way of life as well. Timothy Mcveigh for example, or the things that went on in Waco Texas. The people of this country are the ones responsible for maintaining the ideals of this country. Likewise in Iraq. The people of Iraq are the ones who are responsible for maintaining their own way of life. Democracy is something totally foreign to them, and while we may see democracy as a good thing, the nations of Islam have, for tens of thousands of years, have only known theocracy. Us telling them that democracy is the only way to go is why I called it naziesque. It is not our place to impose our way of life on them. If the people of that country want things to continue towards democracy, then they are the ones who are responsible for it, not us. If 9/11 had never happened, then we would have never gone into Iraq. Only false intelligence and Bush's ambitons led is there in the first place. Before 9/11, no one was interested in democracy in the middle east, because they understood that it is not our place to impose our way of life on anyone. This is why we do not get involved in european governments who are becoming almost completely socialist. This is why we do not interfere in the government or population of communist china. If iraq had a revolution, then we would have had a role to play there to ensure that the people's voices were heard, but there wasn't a revolution.
And before anyone says that revolution wouldn't have happened because of their superior firepower, take a look at our own revolution. We were outnumbered, outgunned, and outmatched by the British, and we managed to succeed. The same would be true of the Iraqi people if they felt that their government was not working for them. Granted, it would have taken a long time, and many would have died, but that is the price that all societies must eventually pay. A society does not respect or appreciate their freedom or democracy if it is given to them by a foreign power who "thinks" that it's the right thing for them. They must earn it for themselves. The US's place in the world is only to set an example, not to force people to adhere to our way of life.
And real quick, I never said that the insurgency would go away once we left. But when we leave, it will be up to the iraqi people to defend their freedom. And if they cannot or will not defend it, then they do not know what freedom is, and will have to go through what we had to go through before they will truly appreciate it. Every society must go through the same process, freedom cannot simply be handed to them.
There are a couple of holes in your logic. First of all, we're not forcing democracy on the Iraqi people. We're allowing people who knew only totalitarian rule the chance to choose for themselves. They didn't have to vote to have a democracy. Obviously that's what we wanted, but the people were the ones to choose, and for almost a week during the two it took to count the votes there was real nail biting around the world because the obvious leaders were either theocratic or democratic. Democracy won out, and it hasn't been forced on these people.
Second, you are probably right in saying our ousting of Saddam wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been keyed up by the national terror apprehension, but the fact still remains that Saddam was ruling a country at the full expense of a corrupt UN and not participating peacefully with the rest of the world. During our missions in Iraq there have been numerous cases where evidence of terrorist training camps have been found in Iraq. Under the attitude America has had since being attacked by terrorists our primary goal of removing the chance of whatever weapons (WMD or otherwise) Iraq had from being used against us or another peaceful nation. Since that was our mission (contrary to popular reporting), and that mission is still ongoing, there is no reason to abandon Iraq to outside powers (read: insurgent terrorists) before they can adequately protect themselves. This type of mentality is exactly why we still have military bases in Germany (Cold War forward defense), Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and other countries we've been obligated to defend.
You are right in stating a person, or in this case, a country won't respect something that is given to them instead of something that is earned. However, if a people are not capable of earning for themselves, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, and freedom is something which they desire (as is the case in both countries), shouldn't those who are capable make right the wrongs and provide for those who have little choice in the matter; to give that choice to them to do with as they please? Terror is a power motivator... In Iraq and Afghanistan it motivated the citizens into inaction. No reasonable, humane person would, with the power we command as the US, deny these people the choice they've asked us for time and time again. It's unfortunate that we haven't done something sooner, as should be the case. The US military machine is at the mercy of politicians in their worldly movements, I'm affraid, and if something doesn't fall within our interests abroad the military won't be involved. It's a sad reality of life in the real world. Someone who is not properly motivated will not put out selfless extra effort at the risk of life and limb. Up until now that motivation didn't exist for our government. Now that it does there are those who would besmirch the good name of all we fight for to keep us from doing what is right. Remember, what we're doing now is the same thing we did during World War 2... The only difference is this time the enemy doesn't call a single country home, and they'll use innocent lives to make their case against us.
We may not have forced them to choose democracy, but we forced them to choose. They didn't ask us to give them the choice, and it's arrogance for you to assume that if they chose theocracy or a dictatorship that we would just stand idly by and accept it.
The comparison to why we still have bases in germany and japan is not a good one. We decimated those countries. If we pulled the same stuff in Iraq that we did in Germany and Japan, there would not be an insurgency. But we left buildings standing, we left homes intact, we left warehouses and manufacturing and power intact. If we had leveled every building in baghdad before we sent in ground troops, like we should, then there would not be an insurgency. But this isn't a war, it's a politically correct load of crap. We don't want to hurt their feelings, or trample on their gay ass religion, so we try to take it easy, and what happens? Our soldiers die. Until our president is willing to commit to the war he started, he should not be in command of it. Either we are at war, or we aren't, there's no halfway namby pamby kind of war.
And just to reiterate, it is not our responsibility to spread our way of life around the world. Our military is sworn to defend THIS COUNTRY, not others, against enemies, this constitution, not others, against enemies. Iraq was not an enemy, iraq was not a threat, we had that country pinned down even before we invaded, and
I'd just like to point out that the WMD claims were wrong. And this is nothing like what we did in WW2. We invaded Europe in WW2 because it was conquered by Germany. Iraq was not conqering anything, nor were they in a position to, and if there was corruption in the UN fucking everything up, then we should have gone to them first. Now afterwards, they're still dancing around that scandal, playing politics. If there were terrorist camps in iraq, all we had to do was bomb them. We already had bombers available to do it. Not to mention the fact that any population can revolt. Saying that they couldn't is just not true. Obviously they can revolt since they're revolting against us right now.
And real quick, what is wrong with assassinations? Why didn't we just send in some delta team to take saddam out? Everyone gets ooked out by that word, but seriously, if that had happened, how many thousands of live would not have been lost?
Assasination would have been a good start, I think. The reason we didn't can be chalked up to the political correctness which is ruining our efforts everywhere in the world. During the Clinton administration our special forces had both Bin Laden and Saddam seconds away from a quick and painless death, but the trigger wasn't pulled because of red tape and, ultimately, because liberal cowardice won't allow for really tough decisions to be made until its too late to make them.
This war has parallels to WWII. I may have overstated that it is just like WWII. This truely is a global effort, even if the people who should be doing some of the job are making things more difficult they they have to be out of spite. Our constitution stands for what is good and just in this world; the confluence of freedom tempered by the constraints of justice to form a better union of peoples in this nation. This is going to sound corny, but I find that the following lines are very indicative of what our country has stood for time and time again throughout it's history: "True privilage isn't bestowed upon a body, it's earned. Through our earning our privilage we've discovered this truth in life; If there is injustice in this world those who have the power to do right the wrong are obligated by that power to right the wrong." That attitude has been used to stir the fires in the American people's hearts on an opportunistic basis over the years, and unfortunately, in some cases has been used devisively. I believe in this instance the devisiveness has been on the part of those who would say we should do nothing because it's none of our business. I'll have to admit, when this started my gut reaction was to do nothing because it seemed to be none of our business. The thing about it is the fact that the people who are fighting against us in Iraq are not Iraqis... They don't represent the public sentiment in Iraq, and for the most part they are not even Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi people did ask for our help. That fact has been lost on a world populace who can only see the destructive nature of a desperate quarry with little or no value for innocent lives, or their own, for that matter.
I'll say it again: We are not forcing our way of life on the people of Iraq. We only facilitated the Iraqi people's ability to choose. I'll say this again as well: Fear is an amazing motivator for inaction. The Iraqi people did nothing to change their lot in life because it had been demonstrated by the old Iraqi regime that anything remotely approaching treason will be punishable by death. In most cases this demonstration resulted in the offending induvidual simply vanishing. The people were more affraid for their lives than they were motivated to do something about their sorry lot in those lives. But, as with all sources of irritation, enough will finally be enough. The people had reached that point and although it wasn't highly publicized, they did ask for help. The UN turned a blind eye, for obvious reasons. We, as a country with the means to right these wrongs, were obligated to right these wrongs. The problem is, in this era of touchy feely BS everywhere, and politics being the bigger motivator in the minds and hearts of those who would make the tough choices, unfortunately we have stumbled into something instead of running into it sure footed and confident of our abilities. The military knows what it can do. Congress, on the other hand, knowing what the military can do, is reticent in their application of that ability simply because they won't keep their jobs when this is all over if many someones have a different point of view.
That's why things are the way they are now. Politics has become the way things work. Decision makers are more worried about keeping their jobs than they are about actually making the wrongs right. That is why things are so difficult to do just about anywhere you go in America... The people who can have forgotten that they should BECAUSE they can. That has translated into a blunting of our sword, so to speak. The military is brought to task by people with no understanding of what really needs to be done because something seemed to hurt the feelers of our enemies. How is that productive? The only productive part of that is that people like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pilocy look like saints to their voters by trashing the things that should be done to protect those same voters.
I do think we should be doing things the right way, Jake. The problem is, the right way isn't up to people who want to get the job done. What the right way entails is left up to people who are more interested in getting to keep their job than in actually doing that job. President Bush has to follow the rules set forth by the lowest common denominator because politics are what's causing things to fall apart around his head. I don't agree with everything he's trying to do at home, but giving people who would otherwise not have the chance to choose the opportunity to choose is always the right thing to do.
Well then I guess in your opinion it would be ok for socialist Europe to invade and reorganize the US government then because they may see it wrong that we don't give out free healthcare and have a $20/hour minimum wage.
We are a minority in the world. 300 million people is a tiny fraction of the number of people in the world, and my opinion is that it's all well and noble to fight for what's right, but what we see as right is not always right to others.
I also think that the Iraq situation was an internal situation. If the people had revolted, it would have been a civil war, which we have no business getting involved in. Likewise, Iraq was a non-aggressor since we beat them in Desert Storm. And there's absolutely no justification for invading a soverign nation without provocation. The whole basis for our invasion was not "because it's right," or "to spread democracy." It was to fight terrorism and destroy the Iraq WMD's. Now that we find out that Iraq had little if no ties to osama bin laden, and that there are no WMD's, what little is there left to go on? It's convenient that the invasion premise was twisted into a noble effort to bring freedom to a downtrodden people, but if Bush was interested in that, he would have brought it up far before 9/11 ever happened. He would have brought it up 2 months after taking office if that was his true motivation. It was a crusade for him, and it still is.
Right now, it's just a game of politics. He can't figure out how to recover from his blunder of taking our forces into a country on bad intelligence, so he's trying to put a positive spin on it by saying that it's our duty. Well screw that, it's our duty to do a lot of things, and the primary focus of government is CIVIL DEFENSE. If he was smart, the second he concluded that the WMD's did not exist, he should have pulled all our forces out immediately, and left a letter of apology on Al Zarqawi's doorstep.
Post a Comment
<< Home