Thursday, September 29, 2005

Civil War in Iraq

So how is the conflict in Iraq not a civil war? More and more in the news now, you read the dread phrase: Iraq is slipping into a civil war. It used to be, if we pull out Iraq will slip into a civil war. Well we stayed there and Iraq is slipping into a civil war anyway. But the phrasing is strange, because Iraq slipped into a civil war a long time ago. And let's stop using the word slip here. We administered a sudden shock to Iraq in the spring of 2003. We removed its government, disbanded its army and its civil service, and failed in our efforts to rebuild these institutions. The civil war began the day the first oil pipeline was bombed and the first arms depot was looted. Iraq suddenly descended into civil war two and a half years ago, and we haven't wanted to recognize it.

So what shall we do about that? The answer is the same as it has been from the beginning. Replace our leadership with leadership that recognizes the truth. You can't expect competence from leaders who use dishonesty to advance their goals. It doesn't matter here whether the self-deception we see in our president and his advisors is at all purposeful or not. It doesn't matter whether or not our leaders know they are being dishonest. They just are. A comparison between what they say and the evidence on the ground shows it. Leaders who practice dishonesty, and who display the incompetence that liars always display, have to be replaced.

"Well, how do we do that?", you're going to ask. We just reelected our leaders, and the inauguration was only eight months ago. We aren't going to impeach our president, and we can't ignore his power. We can do something to make him irrelevant, though. We can reduce his influence. We can find other leaders who are honest, who are willing to make plans and say things that that they know will bring vituperation down on them. So far we have not found those leaders in the Democratic party. We have not found them in the military, and the military is in a complicated position when it comes to politics. It took Cindy Sheehan, a citizen with no standing at all in the eyes of our leaders in Washington, to give voice to the anguish and anger that so many Americans feel now. But her voice isn't going to change our policies unless people with power act now.

The only institution with power to counteract the president is our Congress. Congress has been unbelievably craven about this war so far. A few of our representatives - Senator Byrd comes to mind - have expressed strong protest against this war, but for the most part the institution has been mushy, quiet, compliant, and hopeless in its ability offer any leadership that opposes the unbelievably bad policies coming out of the executive branch. They've been so quiet that voters just seem to expect more of the same: they don't even look to their representatives anymore to give voice to their anger. What an institution. What a failure.

So that leaves the bloggers, the demonstrators, and the voters who elect new representatives in 2006. No one seems to expect that the Democrats can take either house a year from now, when we have our midterm elections. I have just one letter from Edward Kennedy to indicate that the Democrats even want to win a majority in the Senate in 2006. Party politics has become so bad that I think the Democrats want to remain out of power until 2008, so they can blame the Republicans for every bad outcome and have a better shot at winning the White House. Another winning strategy from a party that seems to have no direction to begin with!

Well I have to be careful not to renew my bitterness here. Time to sign off for now!

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Telegraph | News | Your view: civil war in Iraq?

A clearly stated response from a reader of the Telegraph (http://telegraph.co.uk):

"The withdrawal of troops should not be a point of discussion in my mind. Britain and the US, together with some other allies, invaded Iraq with the expressed intention of ousting an evil dictator who oppressed his people and plundered the country's rich resources. As defined, this was a noble thing to do. There may have been other underlying agendas. However plausible these may be they remain the subject of speculation. From the start, it should have been obvious to all that removing one system of government results in a state of disorder, into which the invading parties must move to avoid chaos. Having taken on the saviour role, whether invited or not, the action of invasion carries with it a moral commitment to support and help the invaded country until a stable government is created that can take over. As one of the invading parties our elected leaders chose the invasion route and committed Britain to this responsibility. So the question is not whether we should pull out or not, as the answer has to be no until a stable and functioning government is created, and duly elected. If Britain and its allies were to withdraw now, the region would definitely fall into civil war and chaos. I feel for our brave soldiers and their families and loved ones. Maybe we should be careful with whom we allow to make such decisions on our behalf in the future." - Adam Jackson

Monday, September 19, 2005

The Writings of Burt Prelutsky

The Writings of Burt Prelutsky

"A Few Words By and About Ronald Reagan" by Burt Prelutsky

"A Few Words By and About Ronald Reagan" by Burt Prelutsky

A Chapter in Chesterton

Read this chapter in G. K. Chestertons' The Everlasting Man: The War of the Gods and Demons. Compare his remarks about war with the psychological elements that affect the war we are in now.

Keywords for this chapter: Hannibal, Punic Wars, Rome, Carthage