Here it comes again, look out! Back in the day, during the Vietnam war, those who wanted to stop the war took to the streets, with both peaceful and not-so-peaceful(read: "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today!")demonstrations. At that time, both Presidents Johnson and Nixon repeatedly admonished the demonstrators to cease and desist, because such protests gave the Communists the strength to fight on. I think that's true, because we know Ho Chi Minh was aware of the power of public opinion, having lived in France. At the same time, I always wondered what other alternatives there were if you really and truly believed the war had to stop? You could write letters, make phone calls, sure, but what did you do when these didn't work? You go into the streets and try to get the attention of your elected representatives. At least one American President acknowledged this when he told some visitors whose cause he backed privately, but could not support publicly, "Get out there and exert some pressure on me!"
Were you really supposed to just shut up and accept what you believed to be bad policy, not exercise your rights as an American citizen, just because it might hearten the enemy?
Now, today, Defense Secretary Gates declared that the Senate is "emboldening our enemies" in Iraq by passing a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge. I think he was channeling the ghosts of both Vietnam presidents in so doing. And these aren't even street protests! This is the Senate, exercising its constitutional responsiblity of advice and consent. Secretary Gates is out of line here.
I don't believe Presidents or any official people are correct in trying to silence protesters, or criticism. It is incumbent on them to avoid the kinds of ill-advised wars and conflicts that bring forth opposition, conflicts that are typically murky, drawn-out and costly. They are perfectly willing to concede the "genius of the people" when those "people" elect them. How about giving those geniuses a listen when they disagree?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
great point discussion and disageement are a corner stone of our democracy. but i wonder where do you go for support conviction and direction when some branches of our govenment are not in agreement on the direction or policy.is it a credit or blame game that gets played or is it needing over 535 people knowing all the same information for the sources in order to formulate policy. that was tried once in american history between 1865-1868 and it did not work well for all the people of america. i don't have an answer to how to get all on board
And then there is Bush stating that US Troops have the authority to do whatever it takes to subdue Iranian agents. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with that but don't you wonder if Iranian agents have been in Iraq all along. Why this decree by Bush now? I just get the feeling that the bushies as trying to antagonize Ahmadinejad and that dude is such a whack job to begin with, he doesn't need much provocation. I'm feeling real nervous now. There's a time to be a hawk and a time to be a dove and a time to strike a balance b/t the two.
I'm glad I'm not in congress. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to disengage from this!!
Yes, the question is what to do with this discord, these disagreements. I'm of two minds: one part of me says deploy to the outlying areas and/or just Anbar. We are not going to do anything to stop the sectarian violence for long, and foreign occupation is a red flag for quite a few people there, given that we are radioactive throughout the ME right now. But the thought of a mass bloodletting, especially since we kick-started the old conflict it by removing Saddam, makes me sick. The lesson for next time is, as always,to avoid breaking a fake state. They always fall apart of their own accord(Yugoslavia!), and it's bad enough when a superpower DOESN'T have its fingerprints all over the breakup.
Why this fanatical need to stay the course? I know that's the 64K question. Seems like this stubborness goes way beyond getting Saddam, democracy for Iraq and even oil. Only time will tell, huh?
i don't know that much about the crusades much less the third one but one guy over there "publicly" alquieda tape wanted bush to send all the toops there and a massacre would happen too our troops. i don't want a body count of 50,000 or more but if thats what they want maybe we should oblige. we could give a 24 hr notice so they realize the power of u.s. and maybe that would "show" them the true horrors of war like the holocaust and the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki which some in that area seem to doubt that it really happened. i don;t want to do that to some city but more troops isn't enough and withdrawl will only invite something else more horrific.
I don't worry so much about a "massacre," because the guys promising that are just cavemen with cell phone cameras--they don't have a mighty army or mighty weaponry. Their strength is in asymmetrical warfare like subway bombings. What i DO worry about is their experience in bogging down the Russians in Afghanistan...all you have to do is keep inflicting injury on an superpower/occupier to bleed it. The insurgents certainly have been inflicting injury on us. The occupier doesn't feel it can be driven out by a bunch of ragtags without a conventional army, it keeps taking casualties, keeps spending blood and treasure, and pretty soon things get ugly. We're in awfully deep, and either trying to referee or participate in about five different subconflicts amid the general civil war. So if it was anyone's intention to get us stuck in quicksand, well, they have succeeded.
Post a Comment