A few words on politics, war, and Dr. Martin Luther King

So I here I am reflecting on the news out there and I started this stream of thought.

The Democrats are currently raising a storm on how horrible the administration of President Bush is. The major thing they are citing is how they never would (even though they did) put the youth of America on the front lines without reason. The Democrats would like us to forget that they, along with Republicans, voted and approved of the war with Iraq. Nor would the Democrats like us to recall that they, along with the Republicans, voted to approved the Patriot Act.

I realize that after the attack that destroyed the Twin Towers, everyone in the country wanted to draw blood. As the only superpower, or in effect as the empire of the world, we were going to get it too. I have no problem with that. Unlike politicians I believe that any decision I make is right at the time, though the consequences may not be what I expect or like. But at any rate, we as a country committed ourselves to reduced freedoms, expanded governmental powers (including those of the President), and a never-ending war.

Let me clarify something. There cannot be a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an ideal, a thought and as such it cannot be destroyed. If it could either the British (in their fight against the IRA) or the Israelis would have done so long before we decided to. We can fight and destroy the terrorists though. (Of course in doing so you will ultimately create more terrorists.) You cannot fight a war against individuals though. A Declaration of War cannot be entered into against individuals. A nation can attack threats to its citizens and defend itself against acts of aggression, but it still isn’t a war. The game of words is just a tool to lull the citizens of this nation and the world into a more passive state. If the Government said it was going to enter into a never-ending battle against an ideal, there would have been an uproar.

Now if the Congress had truly wanted to not fight, they simply needed to look at the War Powers Resolution of 1973 - section 2 article c part 3, which states “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States” is needed for the President to act. Iraq had not attacked the U.S. and the then stated imminent threat does not qualify. So all they had to do was say no. If they had reservations, and some did, they just had to vote no and investigate further. Most did not, thus they allowed the President and his administration to go forward on evidence that seemed shaky, to me at the time. I’m not the smartest man in the world, nor am I as well informed or familiar with the nature of information at the disposal of Congress, but if I had doubts they should have as well. The fact that they did not, as a group, does not allow them to hope that enough time has passed to say they never intended the current situation. This is the natural progression of the actions we have taken with their approval.

Again this has nothing to do with a “war” on terrorism. Our attacks in Afghanistan are not against the people pf that nation, but small groups within the country. Because many local authorities backed these ‘cells’ they too became fair game. But Afghanistan is not a very inviting country. It has a bland look, few major cities by U.S. standards and little technology. You just can’t get news flashes back to the public fast enough for our greedy eyes to stare at a television with. Our success in Afghanistan, in upgrading technology and improving the quality of life (to more American standards) just hasn’t happened fast enough for the music video addled minds of many Americans, especially without visuals.

The Patriot Act has already been discussed to some degree in my earlier post Patriot Act and Politics. Please read that to see my thoughts there.

So Democrats are preoccupied in taking the other side of the current war with Iraq. Its sad that the motivation is not because our efforts, as a nation, have been poorly planned or due to the fact that the reality of changing a nation in such a fundamental way takes longer than a television season. The reason for the Democratic Party suddenly jumping sides is that they think this will help them with elections. It’s not enough that they failed to impress the nation with the fluff presented by the last 2 presidential candidates. The fact is that they still have no plan other than saying, essentially to me, ‘the other guys are not nice and I am.’ That is not a plan, but it does go over well in a sound bite (which I despise) and at a rally.

The wounded duck plan of limping away from Iraq is ill-conceived in my judgement. It will not only fail in stabilizing a region that is rife with conflict, it probably will create more. Taking away support of a developing democracy (that we instituted), and allowing the ethnic and religious factions in Iraq to splinter and fight helps no one. The mere suggestion that we may withdraw has lead to increases of attacks on our soldiers. That makes my blood boil. I have said many times, and it won’t be the last time here I am sure, Politics should NEVER be involved in military decisions. It only and always costs lives. Viet Nam told us that, and many in this nation are old enough to know what that cost us as a nation.

I will not say staying in Iraq and getting that country stable is not going to cost lives. If the goal of the nation is to gain a strategic foothold in the Middle East, and by that foothold improve our oil supply, we cannot leave. If we wish to remind other volatile nations of the world that America can and will act in its own defense, or proactively if need be, we cannot leave. To forgo the impression that having a good PR campaign will be enough to beat the military forces of this nation, demands that we not leave. Provided that the above are important, and our having created this conflict suggests that they are, then the fact that lives will be lost is part of the overall that is the plan.

I do not intend to be mean or harsh. I do appreciate the lives of our troops. I understand what it means to stand for our nation, under whatever administration, and defend the decision made - even if they are against a personal view or are unpopular. My father volunteered for the Marines and went to Viet Nam. It cost him for the rest of his life, but he was proud of doing his duty for the country. I volunteered, and had the luck of not having to give life or limb. Others in my family have also made the choice to defend the nation, regardless of personal opinion. I may not agree with why we started the fights we are in, but I’m raging mad at the politicians screwing around and increasing the loss of lives because a poll leans one way or another.

Let me close this, I suppose you can call it a streaming thought rant. I think on a day meant to remember a great leader of men, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., not using his name and words to advance a political agenda would be nice. ( I mean Sen. Dick Durbin comments). I also wonder the fact that “fewer than one in six whites, 15 percent, planned to commemorate the day,” lent itself in any way to such (what I call) political verbal arm-twisting. Perhaps next year will be better, but I won’t make a bet on that.

This is what I think, what do you think?