In posting commentary in internet forums, it has become increasingly evident
that there is a body of opinion, which does not understand the essential
difference between those of us who favor a strong military, and applaud the
heroism of America's men at arms, yet utterly reject the sloganized, totally
counter-productive rhetoric of John McCain and the Neocon sloganeers, now
rushing to support him.
All Americans can be proud of the bravery and efficiency with which American
soldiers have undertaken the duties assigned to them in Iraq. What
Conservatives, however, are coming increasingly to reject, is the lack of
political leadership in Washington, which would expend American youth and
resources to do for other peoples, what the Constitution does not authorize,
and what, clearly, actually hurts our long term interests.
Whatever one thinks of the reason for going into Iraq, initially, we won a
quick and decisive engagement. Our youth and equipment all performed
splendidly. The problem comes, now, in the pursuit of three absolutely
absurd fallacies:
1. The pursuit of the idea that we promote the cause of freedom, by
providing internal security to a people we claim we are setting free.
Nothing is more intrinsic to the freedom of any people than that they assume
responsibility for the maintenance of their freedom, and for the maintenance
of internal security, law and order, etc.. Can anyone imagine anything that
would have been more ridiculous, than had the French fleet, which arrived at
the right moment at Yorktown, remained to stabilize our communities--then in
considerable flux, because only 1/3 had actually backed the Revolution,
while another 1/3 had actually opposed it. Would we have been stronger,
more self-reliant, more determined to remain free, had we been coddled and
diapered by another power?
2. The idea that you can impose "freedom," by military force; or define
"freedom" for any other nation, tribe or community! Anyone familiar with
the history of settlement in America should be able to instantly point to
all sorts of examples of the absolute absurdity of that idea. Massachusetts
was settled by Puritans, whose highest priority in their new freedom, was to
establish a Theocracy. Trust me, you did not want to be a Quaker and go to
Massachusetts, a generation later, where one of their remedies for someone
violating their peace by preaching Quakerism, was a red hot poker through
the tongue (source, Bancroft's History of the United States). On the other
hand, freedom for the second sons of the landed gentry in Virginia was found
in carving out landed estates as great or greater than their older brothers
were inheriting in England. Later, it was to find freedom from the cousins
of the New England Puritans, under Cromwell, etc..
The point is that every race, nation, tribe or community will see "freedom,"
as the condition that lets them enjoy their priorities; and no one can
define your priorities for you and reasonably call it "Freedom."
3. The third bit of consummate folly, embraced by many in Washington today,
and represented in the present campaign by Senator John McCain and the
Neocon propagandists, is that we are somehow protecting America from Al
Qaida if we provoke an ongoing fight with Al Qaida in Iraq, and then
gradually win that fight. No one ever doubted that the "surge" would help
in that localized fight. What is really pathetic about McCain and his
cohorts, is that he boasts as though the idea of sending in more troops was
some sort of brilliant strategy on his part. But what he does not grasp,
and what those impressed by the slogans overlook, is that even if completely
pacified, Iraq is only 2% of the Islamic world; while our silly pretense,
that we can do in the Near East, what the British could not do in Ireland in
Three Centuries--that is change another people's culture;--is seen as an
insult in most of the other 98%; thus providing an enormous aid to terrorist
recruitment.
Originally, the Al Qaida accusation, that we were seeking to attack their
culture was a big lie. But McCain and the Neocons are doing their damnedest
to give that lie credibility. Even worse, they have glamorized Al Qaida's
efforts by suggesting that although they are managed out of caves, with no
organized army, navy or air force; they provide us with the great challenge
of the Twenty-First Century! It does not take much analysis to understand
how that hyperbole turns what started as the suicidal madness of a few
fanatics, into a cause that appears worth dying for to many times their
original number, in the Third World. Stupidity compounded by slogans is
still stupidity.
The consequences of all of this, is that we are losing friends we have had
for generations, as more and more of even the rest of the Christian world is
turned off by the vapid arrogant rhetoric of McCain and the other
politicians of his ilk. We are also well on the way to National bankruptcy.
Part of the fall in the value of the Dollar, over the past six years, can be
directly tied to the confusion in understanding the difference between
reasonable objectives in Iraq, and the absurd wish list of Quixotic
theorists. (We pass over the fact that the resources being employed to
rebuild Iraq are those which might have been deployed to protect our
borders, and rebuild American bridges!)
Ron Paul, at least, understands these factors; understands the reality.
While we disagree with Ron on his opposition to the First Gulf
War--believing that we had a legitimate Constitutional purpose in rescuing
Kuwait--I applaud his fearless willingness to challenge McCain and other
demagogues on the issues, we have discussed above. He also, clearly,
understands monetary issues and policy, far better than any other candidate
in the current race. Most important of all, he actually honors his oath of
office--a tragic rarity in today's Washington. Some of those running this
year, do not appear to even understand the concept!
For additional discussion:
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/decision.htm
William Flax
[Attorney At Law; Goldwater & Reagan Republican]
Cincinnati, Ohio
.
|
