I keep hearing this in reference to our men and women of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly I want them all to come home safely … with their mission accomplished.
History, however, tells those that care to listen that these things are never easy … they take time, and lots of it … not a couple of years. In this age of computers and instant gratification it seems that it is hard for people to come to grips with the fact that there are things that still take time.
The situation in Iraq in particular is one that we should have known going in was going to last, in all likelihood, a decade or so … in fact I believe something along those lines being mentioned back at the start of the war with Iraq but I can’t find a specific quote so that I can properly cite a source, and time.
“Well we certainly got out of ‘Nam fast enough” … yeah … and that is widely regarded as having been a ‘bad move’ on our part. Even aside from what happened in Vietnam as a result of our withdrawal the effect on the troops who were brought home in defeat … not to the enemy but to their own countrymen … was terrible. Placing that aside, however, ‘Nam was a different story … while it was a guerrilla war we were not there occupying Vietnam and establishing a new ruling body as we are with Iraq.
And make no mistake … that was our goal in Iraq … to remove a ruling body that was hostile toward the United States and our allies. To remove a leader who had openly stated hostility toward the US, had attacked neighboring countries, had used weapons of mass destruction (if he had them or not at the time of the invasion is the discussion of another rant … he HAD used them previously on Iran AND on his own people) and was known to have ties to terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda (there was evidence of this before the war, and more evidence has been handed over by the provisional government).
You can’t walk in, remove a leader, and walk out … or else you are just leaving the door open to the possibility of the situation getting worse instead of better. If you are going to remove the leadership of a country you have to be prepared to either take over the country as part of your government or establish a new government … the Bush administration and advisors understood this and laid plans, even before the war, to help the Iraqi people establish a new … free … government.
So … how should we have known it would take time and that there would be problems? When was the last real, post war, occupation of a country by the US Military? Post WWII … Germany specifically. Can you tell me how long we occupied Germany after WWII? How long did we have a military government in that country to keep the peace?
The occupation lasted from roughly 1944-1955 … “with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and the Army continued to provide the occupation force until 1955” (Army Historical Series: The US Army in the Occupation of Germany) and it wasn’t a ‘smooth occupation’ either with Time Magazine publishing an article titled “Americans are loosing the Victory in Europe” in their Jan. 7, 1946 issue. (Life: Jan 7, 1946) and a guerrilla war against the Werewolves, a group of NAZI SS troops that fought actively into 1947 and some believe into 1949-50 primarily out of the Black Forest and Harz mountains regions.
James Rolleston of Duke University wrote this of post-war Germany, “… In such total flux no regulation could be immutable and no preconceived plan ... could be acted on. All was improvisation ….” (Excepted from a Talking Proud article which also enumerates several points of similarity between the occupation of Germany after WWII and the current occupation of Iraq) and I believe that the same quote could equally be applied to post-war Iraq, though I believe that we are at a better point in our occupation of Iraq now, than the Army was in their Occupation of Germany in the same time frame, which I believe can be attributed to learning from the mistakes of the German occupation.
We’re making progress, but it isn’t going to be over this year … or next. If we pull our troops out and make Iraq ‘stand or fall on their own’ we’re running a grave risk … at best they stand on their own but likely have some bitter feelings of abandonment toward the US … at worst they fall and the region destabilizes further complicating our problem with terrorism. I don’t believe that is a gamble we can take … I hate that our men and women are dying over there … but they are dying to make things better … for us and for the people of Iraq … and those of us back home, who are relatively safe and secure due to their efforts, need to sit back and let them do their jobs … let them finish the mission before them and come home in victory.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
The fear of a photo
No, I’m not referring to my wife’s dislike for having her picture taken. I am referring to the abhorrence of some groups of people (predominately black Americans) to having to show a photo ID to vote. Why? What’s the problem with proving who you are and that you can, legitimately, vote on the current ballet? What is wrong with this concept … why is it that some people dislike the idea so much?
One of the common statements I hear about this is ‘we’ll loose our right to vote’ … What? Are you a legal citizen of the United States, and have you registered to vote? If the answer is ‘yes’ then you have nothing to worry about step up, show your ID, and vote. IF you are not a legal citizen on the United States OR you have not registered to vote … (or you are legally dead, etc) then buh-bye, you have no right to vote anyway.
‘You should just be able to show that you live in the area … with a utility bill or something.’ … yeah … that will work … lets use utility bills as ID … I get, what … a power bill, phone bill, and water bill at the minimum … that’s 3 bills … should I be able to give the other two bills to someone off the street and say … here, go vote? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be a citizen to get your utilities hooked up, you DO, however, have to be a citizen to vote legally.
Keeping in mind that a ‘photo ID’ in itself doesn’t prove citizenship …
‘They’re taking away the anonymous ballot!’ … um … no … unless they are attaching your ID or putting your name/SSN on the ballet somewhere then showing your ID to a poll worker so that they can check your name against a list of registered voters does not take away the ‘anonymous’ portion of the ballot. Yes, they know you voted, but they have no way of knowing which ballet you cast or (as a result) who/what you voted for. There is no intention to start tracking peoples individual voting habits.
Part of the idea behind this is so that poll workers can make sure that ‘you’ only vote once. The ultimate goal is to lessen (or more hopefully eliminate) voter fraud. To stop non-citizens from voting, to stop people voting multiple times, etc. And I have to conclude that the organizations that are fighting against policies that would reduce voter fraud must have the most to loose from the elimination of voter fraud due to participation in it. The individuals … most are sheep … doing what the organizations tell them to do ‘in their best interests’, some are leaders using paranoia and misinformation in order to achieve their goals, knowing that the majority of those listening to them won’t think or question what they say.
Personally I think that it’s too easy to vote even with showing a picture ID. I have always felt that there should be more requirements to voting. Citizenship is one thing, but as the masses are generally woefully under informed I feel that there needs to be something more … a minimum awareness of the importance and responsibility of voting … required to be a registered voter. (NOTE – I’m not saying that the ‘masses’ are too dumb to vote … I don’t believe that … I simply believe that the vast majority of the masses make no effort to be informed of important issues. If those same ‘masses’ were to put forth the effort to be informed I believe that, for the most part, they would have the intelligence needed to make a good decision (even if it was one I disagreed with.)) At the very minimum I believe that a regular civics exam should be required to keep voter registration current … if you can’t answer certain questions about how our government operates then, in my opinion, you have no business voting anyway.
I have said it before, but I feel that it bears repeating – the ‘right’ to vote is a power, and like all power it brings with it responsibility. Specifically the responsibility to be aware and informed about the issues … to know what is going on so that you can use your power in an informed manner to help steer things in the direction that you, as an informed citizen, believe is the best.
The system works so long as those voting are aware of the issues and the various solutions that might be presented. Even in a Presidential Election you aren’t voting for an individual … you are voting for a vision of the future … a set of solutions to the problems facing the nation. If you aren’t aware of the problems facing the nation, or the difference in the visions presented, how can you pick which one is the best for the country? And, as someone who works on them, let me tell you that choosing based on political commercials is one of the worst things you can do … and yet probably a good percentage of voters in any election will do just that … or worse yet, will vote for someone just because of the political party that they are affiliated with.
One of the common statements I hear about this is ‘we’ll loose our right to vote’ … What? Are you a legal citizen of the United States, and have you registered to vote? If the answer is ‘yes’ then you have nothing to worry about step up, show your ID, and vote. IF you are not a legal citizen on the United States OR you have not registered to vote … (or you are legally dead, etc) then buh-bye, you have no right to vote anyway.
‘You should just be able to show that you live in the area … with a utility bill or something.’ … yeah … that will work … lets use utility bills as ID … I get, what … a power bill, phone bill, and water bill at the minimum … that’s 3 bills … should I be able to give the other two bills to someone off the street and say … here, go vote? Not to mention the fact that you don’t have to be a citizen to get your utilities hooked up, you DO, however, have to be a citizen to vote legally.
Keeping in mind that a ‘photo ID’ in itself doesn’t prove citizenship …
‘They’re taking away the anonymous ballot!’ … um … no … unless they are attaching your ID or putting your name/SSN on the ballet somewhere then showing your ID to a poll worker so that they can check your name against a list of registered voters does not take away the ‘anonymous’ portion of the ballot. Yes, they know you voted, but they have no way of knowing which ballet you cast or (as a result) who/what you voted for. There is no intention to start tracking peoples individual voting habits.
Part of the idea behind this is so that poll workers can make sure that ‘you’ only vote once. The ultimate goal is to lessen (or more hopefully eliminate) voter fraud. To stop non-citizens from voting, to stop people voting multiple times, etc. And I have to conclude that the organizations that are fighting against policies that would reduce voter fraud must have the most to loose from the elimination of voter fraud due to participation in it. The individuals … most are sheep … doing what the organizations tell them to do ‘in their best interests’, some are leaders using paranoia and misinformation in order to achieve their goals, knowing that the majority of those listening to them won’t think or question what they say.
Personally I think that it’s too easy to vote even with showing a picture ID. I have always felt that there should be more requirements to voting. Citizenship is one thing, but as the masses are generally woefully under informed I feel that there needs to be something more … a minimum awareness of the importance and responsibility of voting … required to be a registered voter. (NOTE – I’m not saying that the ‘masses’ are too dumb to vote … I don’t believe that … I simply believe that the vast majority of the masses make no effort to be informed of important issues. If those same ‘masses’ were to put forth the effort to be informed I believe that, for the most part, they would have the intelligence needed to make a good decision (even if it was one I disagreed with.)) At the very minimum I believe that a regular civics exam should be required to keep voter registration current … if you can’t answer certain questions about how our government operates then, in my opinion, you have no business voting anyway.
I have said it before, but I feel that it bears repeating – the ‘right’ to vote is a power, and like all power it brings with it responsibility. Specifically the responsibility to be aware and informed about the issues … to know what is going on so that you can use your power in an informed manner to help steer things in the direction that you, as an informed citizen, believe is the best.
The system works so long as those voting are aware of the issues and the various solutions that might be presented. Even in a Presidential Election you aren’t voting for an individual … you are voting for a vision of the future … a set of solutions to the problems facing the nation. If you aren’t aware of the problems facing the nation, or the difference in the visions presented, how can you pick which one is the best for the country? And, as someone who works on them, let me tell you that choosing based on political commercials is one of the worst things you can do … and yet probably a good percentage of voters in any election will do just that … or worse yet, will vote for someone just because of the political party that they are affiliated with.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Strange new world
It is a crazy world we live in, wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan … not against the Iraqi or Afghani people, but against fanatical elements within their culture that preach hatred and intolerance. Who teach that the way into the graces of god is through the murder of those who live or believe differently.
But then … are we not there killing them? I can already hear you saying “Klik, are you loosing your nerve?” No, not in the least. We are doing what we must … as the attacks on 9/11/01, last years attacks in Spain and the recent bombings in London show, we really have no choice.
Surely they attacked us for a reason, not just to randomly kill innocent people. I am certain that they fell that the did … in their minds they had a reason, even if that reason was only a hope of spreading Islamic law. But aren’t we in essence trying to spread what we call ‘freedom’?
There is the heart of the trouble though … and the solution. We can not win this war through force of arms, though force of arms is necessary to allow us the opportunity to win. We need force of arms to show that we will not tolerate attacks on our people or our culture and that we will not cave in from fear. Force of arms, however, will not bring us victory in this war.
Sure … we could grind them into dust … hunt them all down and kill them to prevent them from killing us. But doing that would make us no different from them. Justifying murder to promote our cause and security. Some would say that is the case anyway, but I see a difference … a light that shines into this dark world. That light is hope … and in hope lays our victory. It is hope that we bring and through hope that we show ourselves.
We do not seek to change Islam … rather we seek to co-exist with it. This is the difference … this is what we must show them … that we are willing to let them be them … but only so long as they allow us to be us. If they punch us … we will punch back … if they leave us to live our lives in peace … so too will we leave them to live their lives in peace.
Opposing us are the radical Islamic clerics who seek to spread their power and influence … to bring all people under the laws of their religion and power. To let us be us would, ultimately, be contrary to that goal. They can not spread their power and influence if they allow us to maintain our own culture and moral identity. For as long as they hold the hearts and minds of the masses we will never know peace or safety because they will continue to use their influence and religious positions to rail against peaceful co-existence … against tolerance … by painting us as evil demons to be destroyed at all costs.
It is a fight, however, that they are loosing … As we show our strength in our opposition to those that kill women and children in the name of morality and god, at the same time we show our compassion in helping others and by our presence the masses begin to see. They can see that we are not the evil demons that they have been told …
The world is smaller than once it was, and we can not sit idle and ignore those who would threaten our safety to spread their own power … but neither can they easily keep their followers in dark ignorance of us.
The war is not with Islam … it is with intolerance, no mater where it festers … it is against those who would use terror and murder to further their power … it is a war that has no borders, no boundaries … and an enemy that has no face and are not confined to any specific race, culture, or religion.
But then … are we not there killing them? I can already hear you saying “Klik, are you loosing your nerve?” No, not in the least. We are doing what we must … as the attacks on 9/11/01, last years attacks in Spain and the recent bombings in London show, we really have no choice.
Surely they attacked us for a reason, not just to randomly kill innocent people. I am certain that they fell that the did … in their minds they had a reason, even if that reason was only a hope of spreading Islamic law. But aren’t we in essence trying to spread what we call ‘freedom’?
There is the heart of the trouble though … and the solution. We can not win this war through force of arms, though force of arms is necessary to allow us the opportunity to win. We need force of arms to show that we will not tolerate attacks on our people or our culture and that we will not cave in from fear. Force of arms, however, will not bring us victory in this war.
Sure … we could grind them into dust … hunt them all down and kill them to prevent them from killing us. But doing that would make us no different from them. Justifying murder to promote our cause and security. Some would say that is the case anyway, but I see a difference … a light that shines into this dark world. That light is hope … and in hope lays our victory. It is hope that we bring and through hope that we show ourselves.
We do not seek to change Islam … rather we seek to co-exist with it. This is the difference … this is what we must show them … that we are willing to let them be them … but only so long as they allow us to be us. If they punch us … we will punch back … if they leave us to live our lives in peace … so too will we leave them to live their lives in peace.
Opposing us are the radical Islamic clerics who seek to spread their power and influence … to bring all people under the laws of their religion and power. To let us be us would, ultimately, be contrary to that goal. They can not spread their power and influence if they allow us to maintain our own culture and moral identity. For as long as they hold the hearts and minds of the masses we will never know peace or safety because they will continue to use their influence and religious positions to rail against peaceful co-existence … against tolerance … by painting us as evil demons to be destroyed at all costs.
It is a fight, however, that they are loosing … As we show our strength in our opposition to those that kill women and children in the name of morality and god, at the same time we show our compassion in helping others and by our presence the masses begin to see. They can see that we are not the evil demons that they have been told …
The world is smaller than once it was, and we can not sit idle and ignore those who would threaten our safety to spread their own power … but neither can they easily keep their followers in dark ignorance of us.
The war is not with Islam … it is with intolerance, no mater where it festers … it is against those who would use terror and murder to further their power … it is a war that has no borders, no boundaries … and an enemy that has no face and are not confined to any specific race, culture, or religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
