It's no secret—or should not be any secret—the Republicans and conservatives like war. Well, maybe that's not a way of phrasing it that they'd agree with. How about, they are more prone to favor the use of military force?
That is why we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a loss of over 4000 American lives—arguably in both cases for at best a very unclear purpose. Supposedly America is always trying to export "freedom"—meaning, presumably, its brand of democracy—to other countries, whether they want it or not. Iraq is not and is not going to be a democracy after the American model, and heaven only knows what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, where we cannot even free the country from the influence of war lords.
Anyway, those are wars that commenced, and that fact cannot be changed. I must acknowledge that the US has supposedly largely exited from Iraq, thanks to a Democratic president—whether or not we have left the country any better off. (For one thing, I'd like an update on whether the Iraqi people yet have reliable, 24-hour electrical service, or whether they feel secure outside of their homes.)
So really, there is only a point in talking about the future. Currently Republicans and other "hawks" (we don't hear that word much, anymore) want the US to attack Syria and Iran. President Obama evidently is not very keen on doing either one; but if a Republican gets elected president in November, we may indeed find ourselves in the midst of yet another war.
The US has an all-volunteer military services. I don't understand why young American men want to join the military and go and fight. Evidently they feel they are being patriotic and "serving their country"; but when America has not been clearly attacked by these countries; and when the connection between these wars and America's welfare is similarly not clear; I have to think they may be misguided. (Remember, George W. Bush sold us on the Iraq war by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction." Many other wars, such as the Vietnam War, were also based on lies.) Those in Iraq who were attacking American troops did not view Americans as their saviors but as foreign invaders.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Another War to Aggravate the U.S. Budget Deficit
After only a few days of U.S. involvement in Libya, it has already cost our country $225 million in Tomahawk missiles alone. Plus another mere $30 million for an F-15 fighter plane that crashed. If the U.N. more or less ordered the "no-fly zone" that the U.S. is helping to enforce, why doesn't the U.N. pay for it?
And I don't know, offhand, how much--many, many millions a day, I believe--it costs to maintain the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As you probably know, the U.S. federal budget is running a big deficit. And, with Republicans in control of one of chambers of Congress (the House), it is apparently politically impossible to raise taxes.
When, as has happened previously in wartime, the costs of war cause the country to spend more than it takes in in taxes, basically the government finances the war by printing money. At the very least this causes inflation. At worst--if some economists are correct--this deficit spending can destroy our economy.
But I would not want anyone to think that my objections to a war are simply, or even mainly, economic. A war always means some amount of civilian casualties; and I hate for my country to become a militaristic one, going to war anywhere and everywhere at the drop of a hat. There is already (to my mind) too much of a belief that our soldiers are heroes who are defending our country. They may deserve credit for bravery, or for their patriotism and willingness to serve what they see as a good; but I'm going to go so far as to say that it's a rather dubious proposition that they are defending our country--although I am sure they believe they are.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
And I don't know, offhand, how much--many, many millions a day, I believe--it costs to maintain the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As you probably know, the U.S. federal budget is running a big deficit. And, with Republicans in control of one of chambers of Congress (the House), it is apparently politically impossible to raise taxes.
When, as has happened previously in wartime, the costs of war cause the country to spend more than it takes in in taxes, basically the government finances the war by printing money. At the very least this causes inflation. At worst--if some economists are correct--this deficit spending can destroy our economy.
But I would not want anyone to think that my objections to a war are simply, or even mainly, economic. A war always means some amount of civilian casualties; and I hate for my country to become a militaristic one, going to war anywhere and everywhere at the drop of a hat. There is already (to my mind) too much of a belief that our soldiers are heroes who are defending our country. They may deserve credit for bravery, or for their patriotism and willingness to serve what they see as a good; but I'm going to go so far as to say that it's a rather dubious proposition that they are defending our country--although I am sure they believe they are.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Monday, March 21, 2011
U.S. Now Fighting on Yet Another Front
I'm not very happy about U.S. actions in Libya. Not that I don't want to see a dictator overthrown. But it's "We're going to kick this bad guy's butt!" once again--too reminiscent, to me, of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And, remind me, when were we able to get out of Iraq? Oh, still not?
And now we are fighting three wars. How many fronts did the Roman Empire have to fight on at the same time before it spread itself too thin, to where that helped spell the end of Rome?
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
And now we are fighting three wars. How many fronts did the Roman Empire have to fight on at the same time before it spread itself too thin, to where that helped spell the end of Rome?
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Monday, December 27, 2010
Strict Interpretation - When It Suits 'Em
Republicans and religious conservatives may advocate a strict interpretation--of the Constitution in the one case, and of the Bible in the other.
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
U.S. Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan
Before the Vietnam War ended, some 56,000 American soldiers had been killed, to say nothing of a perhaps-unknown number—but hundreds of thousands--of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. Plus enormous suffering and property damage—loss of families' homes and environmental devastation.
And what was gained in return for all this loss? If anyone can still recall, or even care, 30 or 40 years later, the purpose of the Vietnam War was supposed to be to keep South Viet Nam from being taken over by the communists of North Vietnam. And what happened in the end, after all that loss? No one seems to like to think about it, but Vietnam was reunified. In other words, the North Vietnamese did in fact take over the South, the very thing the war was supposed to prevent. So, to put it very plainly and even harshly, the war was for nothing. But no one wants to dwell on the fact that many American lives were sacrificed for, in the end, no purpose.
During the Bush years I kept thinking of parallels between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war. In both wars, Congress and the American Public had been manipulated by the White House and the Defense Department into supporting the war by means of false and distorted information. It became clear that the danger to America from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" was trumped up. (And Colin Powell, who was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has said he regretted the speech he gave to the U.N. about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" because he was unwittingly basing it on incorrect information.) Plus, another reason the Government used to try to sell the war, the link between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda, was also very dubious.
So the original rationale for the war was very questionable. Yet once Hussein was toppled, we had to keep Iraq from descending into a religious civil war. Thus we are still there, after—what is it now, eight years? And we no longer even hear the statistics on how many Americans have been killed in Iraq. Last I heard, it was over 4,000, but that was quite a while ago.
And there's Afghanistan. How many Americans could immediately and clearly tell me why we are fighting in Afghanistan? Waging a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan might have a little more direct connection to the security of the U.S. than was the case with invading Iraq. But again, consider this: The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat and the U.S. succeeded them. It's too similar to the U.S. taking over in Vietnam after the French withdrew in defeat. It's a very sad fact that the lessons of history are not learned.
Living in an area which is in some ways rather conservative—it's pretty much believers in "God and Country"—I see a lot of bumper stickers saying "Support Our Troops." Since I was opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, some people would say to me, Well, you can support the troops even if you don't support the war.
I have a problem with that logic. I'd say Yes, I agree—if the troops were all there involuntarily. Then they'd just be poor pawns, as was the case in the Vietnam War. However, remember that we do not presently have a draft. Every Army soldier, National Guardsman, Marine in Iraq is a volunteer. Many of these men enlisted because they felt their country called, and they should respond. That's putting the best construction on it—rather than saying, for example, that their belief that they were defending their country was based on incorrect information they had been fed by the Government.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
And what was gained in return for all this loss? If anyone can still recall, or even care, 30 or 40 years later, the purpose of the Vietnam War was supposed to be to keep South Viet Nam from being taken over by the communists of North Vietnam. And what happened in the end, after all that loss? No one seems to like to think about it, but Vietnam was reunified. In other words, the North Vietnamese did in fact take over the South, the very thing the war was supposed to prevent. So, to put it very plainly and even harshly, the war was for nothing. But no one wants to dwell on the fact that many American lives were sacrificed for, in the end, no purpose.
During the Bush years I kept thinking of parallels between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war. In both wars, Congress and the American Public had been manipulated by the White House and the Defense Department into supporting the war by means of false and distorted information. It became clear that the danger to America from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" was trumped up. (And Colin Powell, who was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has said he regretted the speech he gave to the U.N. about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" because he was unwittingly basing it on incorrect information.) Plus, another reason the Government used to try to sell the war, the link between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda, was also very dubious.
So the original rationale for the war was very questionable. Yet once Hussein was toppled, we had to keep Iraq from descending into a religious civil war. Thus we are still there, after—what is it now, eight years? And we no longer even hear the statistics on how many Americans have been killed in Iraq. Last I heard, it was over 4,000, but that was quite a while ago.
And there's Afghanistan. How many Americans could immediately and clearly tell me why we are fighting in Afghanistan? Waging a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan might have a little more direct connection to the security of the U.S. than was the case with invading Iraq. But again, consider this: The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat and the U.S. succeeded them. It's too similar to the U.S. taking over in Vietnam after the French withdrew in defeat. It's a very sad fact that the lessons of history are not learned.
Living in an area which is in some ways rather conservative—it's pretty much believers in "God and Country"—I see a lot of bumper stickers saying "Support Our Troops." Since I was opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, some people would say to me, Well, you can support the troops even if you don't support the war.
I have a problem with that logic. I'd say Yes, I agree—if the troops were all there involuntarily. Then they'd just be poor pawns, as was the case in the Vietnam War. However, remember that we do not presently have a draft. Every Army soldier, National Guardsman, Marine in Iraq is a volunteer. Many of these men enlisted because they felt their country called, and they should respond. That's putting the best construction on it—rather than saying, for example, that their belief that they were defending their country was based on incorrect information they had been fed by the Government.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
