OPERATION RESCUE
Some Americans get on the United States' case for being "World Police". They question our reasoning for stepping in around the world to put out fires. At the risk of sounding conservative here, I will say that maybe it isn't such a bad thing if we do this. The preservation of human dignity is something inherent in our nation's values. If we want the rest of the world to be like us when it comes to democracy, maybe we should be helping the downtrodden, especially when they are getting beaten up.
Given this, it seems to me that the first Gulf War might not have been such a bad one for us to get into. The Iraqi army had invaded another nation, Kuwait, and we went to the Middle East to liberate the Kuwaitis. We rescued them from the prospect of having to live under Saddam Hussein, and through our actions we crippled Iraq militarily, causing that country to cease its programs for producing weapons of mass destruction.
Now that I have a few of you conservatives agreeing with me, I must reiterate: going to war might not be such a bad idea if you've been attacked, or if you're helping someone who has been invaded without provocation by some creepy dictator. Are you still with me? Now, it appears that Iraq itself has been invaded without provocation. (By a creepy dictator, some might add.) So I guess this raises the question: should we go back over to the Middle East and oust the invaders from Iraq? After all, Iraq is a sovereign nation which has been invaded, and it is now occupied, against its wishes. So do we send our troops over there to fight the invaders? And after we oust the invaders, what kind of sanctions should we apply to their country? They did violate international rules, of course.
Silly me! We would be going over there to fight ourselves! When it comes to war, I guess we all need to think things through before we get into it, eh?
As for Saddam Hussein, don't believe for a second that I'm not glad we caught him or that I think we should have left him in power. I just don't believe it should have taken a large-scale military involvement to accomplish the job of removing him... with the proper intelligence and planning, why couldn't a Special Ops team have done it? Oops! That would be like sanctioning the assassination of another country's leader, and that would be violating international rules... so I guess maybe we shouldn't have done it that way, even though it would have cost us far less in lives and dollars. But then our administration isn't one to save money, after all. Or apparently lives, either.
And don't believe for a second that I don't support the troops. They are simply obeying orders, and they are doing so with the belief that what they are doing is protecting our country. It's just that I think they ought to be in Afghanistan, if anywhere other than home. Their orders come from the Commander in Chief, and I am glad they follow the orders. However, I don't believe the roght Commander in Chief is running the show. If the Commander in Chief doesn't seem to have a plan, I think we need to support our troops in the best ways possible by first having a plan, then by giving them the tools they need to finish the job as quickly and as best they can, and then ultimately by our bringing them home alive.
Thus, I propose Operation Rescue, in which we send troops to Iraq to help eventually bring our troops home. We can probably do this without a draft. This would increase the total number of troops, and it wouldn't end the war right away... but if there is truly safety in numbers, the more people we have there, the safer our guys might be, and they might get things somewhat stabilized more quickly. With different U.S. leadership, and with a chaotic Iraq becoming an increased problem for the stability of its region, we should be able to get other countries to contribute a bit more to the effort. A new leader who doesn't view the U.N. as irrelevant, who doesn't view most of the rest of the world with disdain, who is open-minded when it comes to religion, and who wants to get at the root of Islamic hatred for the West will help get us out of this mess in a more timely fashion than the current powers that be. I believe that most other countries of the world don't like Bush and don't want to deal with him. When polls are run in other countries, it is no surprise to me that the rest of the world seems to want Kerry to win. I know I do, anyway.
Given this, it seems to me that the first Gulf War might not have been such a bad one for us to get into. The Iraqi army had invaded another nation, Kuwait, and we went to the Middle East to liberate the Kuwaitis. We rescued them from the prospect of having to live under Saddam Hussein, and through our actions we crippled Iraq militarily, causing that country to cease its programs for producing weapons of mass destruction.
Now that I have a few of you conservatives agreeing with me, I must reiterate: going to war might not be such a bad idea if you've been attacked, or if you're helping someone who has been invaded without provocation by some creepy dictator. Are you still with me? Now, it appears that Iraq itself has been invaded without provocation. (By a creepy dictator, some might add.) So I guess this raises the question: should we go back over to the Middle East and oust the invaders from Iraq? After all, Iraq is a sovereign nation which has been invaded, and it is now occupied, against its wishes. So do we send our troops over there to fight the invaders? And after we oust the invaders, what kind of sanctions should we apply to their country? They did violate international rules, of course.
Silly me! We would be going over there to fight ourselves! When it comes to war, I guess we all need to think things through before we get into it, eh?
As for Saddam Hussein, don't believe for a second that I'm not glad we caught him or that I think we should have left him in power. I just don't believe it should have taken a large-scale military involvement to accomplish the job of removing him... with the proper intelligence and planning, why couldn't a Special Ops team have done it? Oops! That would be like sanctioning the assassination of another country's leader, and that would be violating international rules... so I guess maybe we shouldn't have done it that way, even though it would have cost us far less in lives and dollars. But then our administration isn't one to save money, after all. Or apparently lives, either.
And don't believe for a second that I don't support the troops. They are simply obeying orders, and they are doing so with the belief that what they are doing is protecting our country. It's just that I think they ought to be in Afghanistan, if anywhere other than home. Their orders come from the Commander in Chief, and I am glad they follow the orders. However, I don't believe the roght Commander in Chief is running the show. If the Commander in Chief doesn't seem to have a plan, I think we need to support our troops in the best ways possible by first having a plan, then by giving them the tools they need to finish the job as quickly and as best they can, and then ultimately by our bringing them home alive.
Thus, I propose Operation Rescue, in which we send troops to Iraq to help eventually bring our troops home. We can probably do this without a draft. This would increase the total number of troops, and it wouldn't end the war right away... but if there is truly safety in numbers, the more people we have there, the safer our guys might be, and they might get things somewhat stabilized more quickly. With different U.S. leadership, and with a chaotic Iraq becoming an increased problem for the stability of its region, we should be able to get other countries to contribute a bit more to the effort. A new leader who doesn't view the U.N. as irrelevant, who doesn't view most of the rest of the world with disdain, who is open-minded when it comes to religion, and who wants to get at the root of Islamic hatred for the West will help get us out of this mess in a more timely fashion than the current powers that be. I believe that most other countries of the world don't like Bush and don't want to deal with him. When polls are run in other countries, it is no surprise to me that the rest of the world seems to want Kerry to win. I know I do, anyway.
1 Comments:
America has indeed made great sacrifices for other countries. I think that's the greatest floor in the conservative aurgument, that to announce yourself 'liberal' is to denounce the military. I just don't think thats in anyway true. I personelly have a deep respect for the military, in fact it was a very definite career prospect. I have no doubt that under John Kerry the war on terror will continue in a more focused manner. I'm trying to think (and I may be wrong) but a RAND paper I had seen stated that the last effective assasination against an enemy personality was Yamomoto back in 1944ish, Somalia? Haiti? Elsalvador? Panama?
Post a Comment
<< Home