The war on terror, Iraq, and our national “leadership”
I’ve been thinking (sometimes a dangerous thing). With all the demoguogery aimed at the military and the almost sure Democratic victory in ‘08, there’s a lot to ponder.
During the Clinton years, the military was gutted, greatly defunded, and benefits taken away from retirees and some taken away from short timers, too. Other changes that occurred over time since the end of the Cold War cannot all be attributed to Clinton’s years but a sum total of the complacency with which we viewed what we believed to be a relatively benign world. The advent of the personal computer and easy access to the internet brought cultures together from across the world. Some with whom we had formed lasting bonds became bitter enemies after 9/11/01 as former friends took sides in the coming conflict.
The biggest problem with the war on terror is there is no country to which one can point and say this is where the enemy is because the enemy is in every country, including our own. I do not say this to frighten anyone nor is it a statement of sensationalism. It is simply a fact of the state of the world.
Many of our leaders believe we should concentrate on Al Qaeda only when Al Qaeda is but one part of the terrorists’ community. There are other parts that, together make up the whole, including the now deceased former dictator of Iraq. Iraq is but one front in the war on terror, albeit a particularly onerous one.
If we do not win in Iraq, we lose the war on terror, plainly and simply. There are military reasons why Iraq is important in the war on terror. To list and explain those reasons fully are the subjects of books, not a blog post. I’m not sure I understand many of the reasons myself, but then, I’m not a military expert and don’t claim to be one.
The enemy we face today is not one that can be appeased by anything but total surrender; surrender to their authority and their religion. Nor can our enemies waiting in the wings such as N. Korea and considering currents events, Russia and China are trying to reconstitute the Cold War as a prelude to armed conflict. Appeasement has been tried for decades with few long lasting results. Bargaining has been tried as well… with few long lasting results.
No one loves war but there are times when war is the only answer. We are in one of those times. After 9/11 it was said that the forces of radical Islam awoke the sleeping giant. We woke and saw the dangers all around us, not only from radical Islam but others who would like nothing better than to see America die to assuage their bitter envy and spite. Many of us are still asleep, sent back into a peaceful slumber by the lullaby: “If only we stop, they will stop” lulling you into ignoring the fact that we weren’t at war with Al Qaeda when it committed it’s great attrocity on 9/11/01, while they take no responsibility and have no commitment to the oath they took upon accepting the office to which they were elected.
Of course they’ll stop but only long enough to regroup, rebuild, and plan new attrocities with which to attack us. For them, there is no end until they are completely victorious.
To hear our congressional leaders villify our military the way they have done for at least the last three years, the most recent of which are their attacks on General Petraeus, nauseates me. I would hope it would nauseate anyone with an ounce of decency but I suppose many would say that’s too optimistic of me. To hear reports of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial defaced sickens me to my soul.
Placing our military under a cloud of hate for political gains is a double-edged sword. I hope the anti-military/anti-war crowd are sliced royally from the edge upon which they sit. When next we are attacked by forces whose greatest wish is to destroy us, I wonder if there will be anyone to answer the call, considering the way their service to this nation is viewed.
</end rant>
September 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Steph,
I’m not sure if it’s just me worn out about politics, or if my sense of foreboding is merely a reflection of too much reflection. That one half of our country would surrender without cause is downright frightening. The soldiers want to come home, but they want to come home victorious. We can blame it on the media, the education system, and the culture, but there is something dangerous about living in a society that is so fickle, so easily swayed, and so desperate for self gratification.
Faith in God is too long term for more and more people, and a society adrift in the idea that government is the authority of rights will ultimately surrender them all for comfort.
The ‘progressives’ in our midst aren’t patriotic because they are working furiously to bring America to its knees, but they pretend to act on her behalf and stand as indignantly as naked whores to evidence of their infidelities.
I had hoped for better when General Patraeus’ report came out with good news. Americans love winning. That’s how you can tell that over half the ruling class in this country aren’t Americans.
Sorry for my rant, but alas, I see no light at the end of the tunnel. All the terrorists have to do is wait us out one year.
And in that time the democrats will do their best to destroy us.
Did you hear that Hillary has hired Sandy the Burglar Berger to work on her campaign?
They’ll get the WH by hook or by crook. OK – by crook.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“During the Clinton years, the military was gutted, greatly defunded, and benefits taken away from retirees and some taken away from short timers, too. ”
Say What?! See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_199911/ai_n8861661 for what
Clinton did: restored veterans benefits from the Reagan cut in the mid eighties.
As for Bush, well at http://chicagomediawatch.org/BriefingPaper_Military.htm
we learn: “The Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance . . . VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago. The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans-those with “non-service-related illnesses”-who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year. Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated. (internal VA information)” Of course you can believe what you wish, but please check the data.
September 14th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Kathy, trust your instincts on this one. I don’t believe you’re the only one feeling the way you do.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Kathy,
Thanks for the kind words about Democrats.
But you don’t have to wait a year to get America brought down to its knees. The Republicans, between the ballooning deficit, the useless war in Iraq and the constant corruption cases, have been doing a fine job all by themselves.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am
What ballooning deficit? It’s going down, not up. It was down 9.2% at the end of last month and is expected to be down some 32% by the end of this month.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
It’s being going less down for the past 2 to 3 years, but if you compare the deficit (actually – surplus!) during the clinton/republican years versus the bush/republican years it’s been horrible!
My ballooning refered to those the differences between these two periods. Even in 2001 we still had a surplus.
The national debt is also going up and up and up… (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png)
September 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
One thing nobody ever thinks about when talking about the budget is that Congress writes the checks. The National Debt and/or deficit cannot be laid at Bush’s feet alone. You spend more than you take in, you have a deficit which means you have to borrow. It’s been going up since 1969. We didn’t have a surplus at the end of Clinton’s presidency, regardless of what the books said. The national debt was still going up.
You also need to look where that money is going and it’s not to defense… which Bill Clinton gutted along with raiding Social Security of some $200 million.
http://www.federalbudget.com
Also, that chart to which you linked is skewed. Skewed charts are misleading. Clinton and BushII will both have equal time in office but the section highlighting Clinton’s time is larger than that for Bush, plus it goes into projections that may or may not be accurate but do reflect that it will continue to go up sharply even after Bush is gone.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Hillbilly,
I agree with you that the deficit cannot be laid only at the feet at the President. This is the reason I indicated the president and the congress in my sentence (clinton/republicans – bush/republicans). But, as you can read today, Greenspan puts some of the blame on the President for not vetoing the bills that were sent through. So do I.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781873/
I agree with you that spending comes in many forms and that defense isn’t the only one. Still, imagine what we could fund with all the money we are throwing away in Iraq. Heck, we could use it to feed the hungry in Africa if we are so into helping out the people in need.
As for my chart, I relooked at my chart. I think part of the problem comes with the line at the end of the bush presidency which reflects the present and not the end of his term. Still, no matter how you chart it, I fail to see the terrific impact of the Bush presidency on our national debt!
While I don’t particularly like the way the Republicans have acted in the last decade (essentially since I have been following politics – so roughly will Bill Clinton’s second term), at least I can recognize that the Clinton/Republican congress was a better combination at managing the budget. The combination of Bush/republican congress has been disastrous for this.
And don’t take my word for it, go read what Greenspan is saying…
September 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Hillbilly,
BTW, I don’t agree with the some of the content of your original post, but my beef (and what prompted me to post) is with Kathy who refers to us/democrats as: ‘we “would surrender”‘, we ‘aren’t patriotic’, we want to bring america to its knees, so on and so forth.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I would expect nothing less from Greenspan. He’s a politician and he wants to get paid for his book. If he hadn’t said that Bush was at fault in some way, how many copies do you think he would have sold? Let me give you a suggestion. Don’t read MSNBC or any other extreme leftist news alone… read some extreme conservative ones, too. The truth is usually somewhere between the two extremes but if you look at only one side and take that side as gospel, you’ll never know what the truth is.
As for the oil part of the claim, considering we haven’t taken a drop it’s hard to see how it was all about the oil.
As far as feeding Africa, that could be done a lot easier if the food wasn’t left to sit and rot because somebody in the U.N., or elsewhere, protests over the genetically engineered products, saying it might give them cancer. What’s the point of wasting all that money on food that’s going to rot because “it’s not good enough”?
To those of us on the right, it does seem like it’s all about surrender although I think more in terms of poltically correct pandering which amounts to the same thing. I’m sorry, this is one of those ‘we’ll have to agree to disagree’ because I agree with Kathy on this one. Besides, she didn’t use the word democrats, she used “progressives” which, if you knew your history is a whole different kettle of fish.
The awful reality is that Washington D.C. fails to acknowledge is that the majority of this country doesn’t trust any of them and the majority are getting angrier and angrier. Now maybe you trust them, maybe some others trust them but the majority really doesn’t. Not anymore, not after this last year of temper tantrums and schoolyard behavior.
However, I do have to say to Kathy, not all Democrats side with the extreme left. There are several who comment on this blog besides A.C.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Terming Alan Greenspan a politician is a bit of a stretch. Although a life-long Republican, he never ran for or held office. He was an economist, he worked with the libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand. He was appointed Fed Chairman by President Reagan, and remained in that post under succeeding presidencies. He was awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush. While I have not read his book (economics is too dry and tedious), I suspect his writing is economic-based rather than political. I’m not sure about
democrats, progressives, liberals etc being a ‘whole other kettle of fish’ for in these days of extreme divisiveness one’s perception of the ‘other side’ twists original definitions: two
examples..seeing a liberal as a socialist/communist; seeing a college young Republican as a ‘YellowElephant’..eg, someone who is all for war, but will not serve. These are not true
perceptions, nor do they serve other than as inflamatory polemic.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I just have one thing to say: Andrea Mitchell(Greenspan) and NBC.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Oh, and just in case you missed it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297037,00.html
September 17th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
BB, I got one of your comments out of moderation… must have been the links but it’s up now. As far as what the media says… I lived through that gutting and I watched as benefit after benefit was cut away during the Clinton years.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I personally didn’t talk about the Greenspan/Oil angle. My point about Greenspan was his criticism of the way Republicans managed the finances of the country.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Actually the press misquoted Greenspan – imagine that!
September 18th, 2007 at 8:24 am
[...] addresses the way democrats support the troops in this must read. And she handily dispatches the [...]
September 18th, 2007 at 8:36 am
“I personally didn’t talk about the Greenspan/Oil angle. My point about Greenspan was his criticism of the way Republicans managed the finances of the country.”
A.C. they all mismanage it, Republicans and Democrats alike. Putting the blame on one political party over another or even more than another doesn’t do anything but play the blame game.
I still advocate a clean slate… start over with the entire federal government, give power back to the states… then, maybe, just maybe, the federal government can do what it’s supposed to be doing instead of everything else besides.
I’ll keep advocating it in the hopes that enough people will listen and give their potential candidates closer looks before casting their votes.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Hillbilly,
It’s not a blame game. Clinton and the Republican congress did a good job at managing the budget. Maybe if in 08 the Democrats win both houses and the White House we will see similar behavior from them. I agree with you that spending isn’t the monopoly of only one party. It’s just that the current group in charge (Republicans in the WH and Congress) are terrible at it.
Anyways, I am sure we will agree to agree that we are both eagerly waiting for the 2008 elections! The new Hillary health care plan gave me hope once more… I would love to read your opinion on the plan.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:12 am
“The new Hillary health care plan gave me hope once more… I would love to read your opinion on the plan.”
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither… they won’t get it either. And forcing me to sacrifice my liberty for someone else’s security just makes me angry.
When has the government ever managed anything of this magnitude without creating an unmanageable behemoth that eventually, the rest of us get stuck with?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hillbilly,
Insurance is a fact of life in many fields, particularly automobile insurance. I know that you are willing to sacrifice your liberty in many areas since a few months ago you told me you were in favor of some social programs. (yes not all, but some)
I really think the plan is interesting. Personnally, I think there is actually too much choice in there.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
A.C. some programs have been around since long before I was born. There’s not much I can do about them except accept them. However, that doesn’t mean I want to add more to the mix considering that absolute mess that’s been made of those social programs aforementioned as being around longer than I’ve been alive.
Federalism is all about states’ rights, letting the states handle those social issues from a state’s standpoint. What would work in say, California might not work in New York or Florida. Same thing for Tennessee and Utah, for instance. Nationalizing anything such as that is a recipe for disaster because it lumps everybody in as the same… that’s socialism pure and simple… but nobody has the courage to call it so in the upper echelons of politics.
Now if you like socialism, that’s all well and good. There are any number of countries around the world where you can be quite comfortable but people like me, who love liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility, there’s nowhere else but here and if it means a fight to keep it that way, so be it.