Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Actually Merc I read that Op-Ed piece in The Times....and agreed with it completely.Now your not going to want to hear this(hell I hate myself for saying it) but for way too long Bush made it easy for the jihadist's to get their message across.He talked and painted visions of the Crusades.
We do need to get out the message that we are not at war against Islam...and despite President Bush...we never were.
Mike,
I think it confuses many here, especially those that think they are attacking me by answering; "Bush (and/or the Republicans) did it first!", to any point I make concerning Obama or Congress; but I really don't have a dog in the fight. They are both dogs, and the deck has been stacked so that most people are 'kibble'. That people reference doesn't just apply to the US.
You're absolutely right, Bush made it a Crusade. I think he referred to it as such, and he was right from his perspective. To me, that's the problem, the perspective of world wide leadership isn't reflecting reality. They know who they talk with and they only talk with "leaders"; business leaders, political party leaders, special interest leaders; who by definition come with an agenda. Other than for photo-ops, there hasn't been a US President since Truman who came close to having an understanding of what it was like to live as a common citizen. That disconnect has become the root cause of the problem.
Having the luxury of traveling pretty extensively we've met people of all nationalities, creeds, and countries of origin. We haven't been to Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Israel; but meeting people from there and talking with them, we found no animosity toward 'Americans'. What we found was animosity, and to a greater extent confusion, regarding American policy.
This may seem off point, but consider the two old 'superpowers', Russia (USSR) and the USA. Reagan announced 'victory' of the cold war after the Berlin Wall fell. In retrospect it may have been Russia who was the 'victor'. What happened? Well, Russia lost it's image as a military power equal to the US. It lost some 'face' and reputation. However, it turns out the image was a fraud. We took a tour of a Russian submarine during one of our trips, it was staffed by ex-Russian navy. At the end of the tour, I said to one of the guides; "wow - it must have been very difficult to live at sea for a 180 day cruise under these conditions back in the 1950's." He laughed and said he was a Lieutenant on the sub in 1997! The point is, their ability, beyond 'MAD' was a facade.
However, once not having to live up to their 'rep', the new Russia didn't need to spend as many dollars on the military. They are still an economy with a big military industrial complex, but they cut their major expense - personnel. Now instead of sending troops, they sell, and send weapons. The US, the 'winners' of the cold war, still does it the old way sending people and create an ongoing expense.
If Russia had the infrastructure in place, they'd be a bigger world power now than they ever were. Without the massive military personal expense, they've cut a big chunk out of the expense side of the ledger. Without the scrutiny of the 'global warming' religious folks, they can increase domestic industrial production. Without the paranoid nuke folk, who really should be paranoid considering Chernobyl, they can build nuclear power plants. Without the environmentalists saying that a blind salamander is more critical then the benefits of a hydroelectric dam they can build them. Without needing Congressional approval to consider the migratory habits of the elk, they can drill and exploit their domestic oil/gas reserves. Meanwhile they are still producing weapons, selling them, sometimes giving them away. They don't deploy troops to fight, or police someone else's battle.
A simplistic view and it in no way should suggest that Russia under Putin runs a better society for its citizens than the USA, or other 'western' countries; but their relative success compared to the US must be accounted for somehow and I only point to what I feel are the reasons.
Back to the middle east....
To 'win' we need a policy that combines the pacifism of Gandhi with the pragmatic retribution of the Israeli Mossad. The most pacifist thing to do - leave. Eliminate the US as the 'common enemy' and our enemies lose the focal point pointed out in the NY Times Op-Ed piece. Take a look at why we are there in the first place. It isn't to benefit the citizens of the US, it benefits industries; oil, military contractors, as well as the political 'industry'.
Locals want one thing - to be left alone. Good bad or indifferent they'd rather rule themselves. They'd rather have their standards placed on their law. If their integrations are held in a room with an industrial shredder versus a lawyer, that's their choice. Whether they have a dictator or democracy it's their country. Whether they jail, or cut off hands and have public floggings define their justice, it's their justice. Whether they allow woman the ability to drive, circumcise them, or stone them for adultery - it's their standard of life. When/if enough of them what to change - change will come. There has never been a time in the history of the world when some conflict wasn't ongoing. Most wars have been 'civil', spilling over to regional only when some outside influence gets involved.
That brings us to the Massad policy of retribution. Technology, intelligence gathering, and the ability to deliver whatever it takes anywhere in the world withing a short time-frame should become our stated position of military response to any attack upon the USA. Not USA 'interests' which again get into the special interest category, but domestic USA.
It's time to now worry how, or if, the USA is loved or like in the world. It's time to like ourselves, and make sure the world, our friends and enemies, know retribution will be swift and exponential to any attack against the perpetrators and their facilitators. Of course, that's not an easy task, and some retribution may be misdirected, but I'd suggest that innocent casualties in this case would be less than the innocents being killed today in Iraq and Afghanistan, by our troops just trying to stay alive for their deployment having no idea of their mission with a commander and chief that does not have 'victory' or even 'honor' included in his speech announcing an escalation of military deployment.
We're in Afghanistan to facilitate the transition to Afghan rule. Well, the short cut to that goal would seem apparent - leave now. When that isn't the answer it confuses allies and enemies, along with people like me.
|
RE: Will you listen, then judge or is your mind made up? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread