Later today President Bush will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention in Kansas City, Mo. Excerpts of his speech have been released that remind listeners that if the troops leave Iraq, it will turn into a bloodbath there. It probably will. The problem with this rationale is that in terms of US national security it probably doesn't matter if Iraq turns into a bloodbath or not. Will the US be complicit in all the deaths that follow - absolutely. It's what happens when a superpower engages in imperialistic attempt at imposing democracy.
But that is the wrong question. What we should be asking is whether the US has a national security interest in how Iraq turns out? That answer is simply yes if that means Al-Qaeda would gain a base from which to launch more attacks against the US. But if it means that that Sunnis would slaughter Shiites and vice versa while both rejected Al-Qaeda then a messy 'end state' is one favorable to the US. Then we shouldn't give a damn how Iraq turns out, only that the outcome does not reflect a threat to US national security. Despite what the politicians would have you believe, we don't owe Iraq or its people a thing.
President Bush is absolutely right that after North Vietnam decimated the South Vietnamese government hundred of thousands of Vietnamese died. It is also true that in Cambodia Communist Khmer Rouge killed Cambodians at a rate that did not quite match Stalin's or Mao's but still resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
But the devil is in the details, and we know President's deal with the 'big picture' so he has no idea of the details. One of those 'details' is that the US had practically no combat forces in Vietnam when Saigon fell. The South Vietnamese government was doomed from the moment the offense began, not because it was incapable of fighting the North, but because they were only capable if the US lived up to promises it had made when it left. Congress broke those promises by passing legislation prohibiting supplies and US air power support in Vietnam. Congress of course took no responsibility for facilitating all this death, but ultimately they were complicit in every way for the fall of South Vietnam.
Yet, the bottom line from all that death and carnage in Vietnam and Cambodia remains that is didn't matter to the safety of the US. No VC were headed for Hawaii or California despite the rhetoric of LBJ and Nixon at the time. The sad truth for most of us Vietnam vets was that for all our sacrifice, it really "didn't mean nuthin."
Once again Congress is following a similar path. Should Iraq turn into an internecine bloodbath they will of course blame the administration. Like Pontious Pilate, Congress will wash their hands of any responsibility for what follows. Not a one will ask the real question that justifies the use of American blood and treasure in Iraq, "Does this affect the national security and safety of America?"
Instead we have seen a smokescreen of other rationales, with 'democracy' being the most egregious. Ironically, if not surprisingly, it is the United States, which claims that 'democracy' it is the solution to the quest for peace. Sadly if represents a modern American phenomena, a gross misunderstanding of 'democracy'. The reason for this claim is the doctrine of democratic peace, which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson and World War I, has been revived in recent years by George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors, and by now has become intellectual folklore even in liberal-libertarian circles. The theory claims:
There is only one reason to continue to spend American blood and treasure in Iraq. That is to insure the national security of the US. When politicians claim we fight in Iraq for democracy, for the Iraqis, or to prevent a slaughter of some Muslim sect, it is not good enough. None of those are valid reasons for our continued presence there. Until they make a compelling case that what we do in Iraq is for America, it will be little more than empty and ignorant rhetoric.
But that is the wrong question. What we should be asking is whether the US has a national security interest in how Iraq turns out? That answer is simply yes if that means Al-Qaeda would gain a base from which to launch more attacks against the US. But if it means that that Sunnis would slaughter Shiites and vice versa while both rejected Al-Qaeda then a messy 'end state' is one favorable to the US. Then we shouldn't give a damn how Iraq turns out, only that the outcome does not reflect a threat to US national security. Despite what the politicians would have you believe, we don't owe Iraq or its people a thing.
President Bush is absolutely right that after North Vietnam decimated the South Vietnamese government hundred of thousands of Vietnamese died. It is also true that in Cambodia Communist Khmer Rouge killed Cambodians at a rate that did not quite match Stalin's or Mao's but still resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
But the devil is in the details, and we know President's deal with the 'big picture' so he has no idea of the details. One of those 'details' is that the US had practically no combat forces in Vietnam when Saigon fell. The South Vietnamese government was doomed from the moment the offense began, not because it was incapable of fighting the North, but because they were only capable if the US lived up to promises it had made when it left. Congress broke those promises by passing legislation prohibiting supplies and US air power support in Vietnam. Congress of course took no responsibility for facilitating all this death, but ultimately they were complicit in every way for the fall of South Vietnam.
Yet, the bottom line from all that death and carnage in Vietnam and Cambodia remains that is didn't matter to the safety of the US. No VC were headed for Hawaii or California despite the rhetoric of LBJ and Nixon at the time. The sad truth for most of us Vietnam vets was that for all our sacrifice, it really "didn't mean nuthin."
Once again Congress is following a similar path. Should Iraq turn into an internecine bloodbath they will of course blame the administration. Like Pontious Pilate, Congress will wash their hands of any responsibility for what follows. Not a one will ask the real question that justifies the use of American blood and treasure in Iraq, "Does this affect the national security and safety of America?"
Instead we have seen a smokescreen of other rationales, with 'democracy' being the most egregious. Ironically, if not surprisingly, it is the United States, which claims that 'democracy' it is the solution to the quest for peace. Sadly if represents a modern American phenomena, a gross misunderstanding of 'democracy'. The reason for this claim is the doctrine of democratic peace, which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson and World War I, has been revived in recent years by George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors, and by now has become intellectual folklore even in liberal-libertarian circles. The theory claims:
- Democracies do not go to war against each other.
- Hence, in order to create lasting peace, the entire world must be made democratic.
- Today, many states are not democratic and resist internal — democratic — reform.
- Hence, war must be waged on those states in order to convert them to democracy and thus create lasting peace.
There is only one reason to continue to spend American blood and treasure in Iraq. That is to insure the national security of the US. When politicians claim we fight in Iraq for democracy, for the Iraqis, or to prevent a slaughter of some Muslim sect, it is not good enough. None of those are valid reasons for our continued presence there. Until they make a compelling case that what we do in Iraq is for America, it will be little more than empty and ignorant rhetoric.
5 comments:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Bush's comments beggar belief. It was the US-intervention in Cambodia and the ensuing destruction of Sihanouk's precarious but peaceful regime that let to the Pol Pot "killing fields". Bush is purposely trying to confuse the American public about what happened and where. Vietnam did NOT collapse after the US withdrawal, it did NOT send millions into the countryside for "re-education" and it did NOT create misery for millions. It did unite the country and in the process it got rid of the South's connections with the US. Vietnam got on with the job of forming and rebuilding a unified nation after generations of foreign = western interference and the terrible destruction wrought by this intervention.
The only valid parallel with Vietnam unfortunately will be another US-withdrawal, in disgrace and failure. The US will again leave behind the graves of hundreds of thousands of innocent dead, it will leave behind a nation destroyed both physically and politically, and it will again have achieved nothing, except this time it will be seen by its friends (and of course by its enemies, of which there will be many more now)as a blundering and incompetent colossus, who is armed beyond reason and who is out of control.
Bush is the symptom of an arrogant and visionless System, which holds the American electorate in utter contempt. By the standards set up in the Nuremberg trials in 1947 Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Co. and of course his European lapdogs Blair & co. are war criminals, pure and simple.
It is my fervent belief that the American public will wake up and will one day call a halt to this criminal abuse of of the Nation's authority, good faith and idealism.
Hopefully it will do soon before it is silenced by the System's increasingly cancerous endeavors to stifle any opposition and indeed any form of what's left of this democracy.
R. Sibbel
Rathkeale
Ireland
R. Sibbel's comments are interesting and like President Bush provide another alternative view of what happened. I appreciate the comments even though they are not historically accurate.
South Vietnam did lose to the North in 1975 after all but a very few US forces had left country in 1973. The new regime forced thousands of South Vietnamese to be 'reeducated' which was fatal for many. More thousands fled South Vietnam after Saigon fell fearing for their lives and what a life under communistic democracy would be like.
Sibbel & I also disagree on the root causes that led to the killing fields in Cambodia. He needs to look at Thailand and ask himself why if the US was so much active there than in Cambodia, did Thailand not suffer a similar fate?
He seems to believe the people in Vietnam were better off after the war because Western influence was ended. I have too many Vietnamese friends who would disagree vehemently with that idea. However, it is a popular idea in the 'intellectual' circles of Europe that are still trying to apologize for their centuries of colonialism. It is the new version of "post white-man burden syndrome" in Europe.
But Sibbel's comments miss the point of my post which is simply the US has no obligation to anyone else and Iraqis slaughtering others there is an insufficient reason to shed more US blood there. [If it were for the oil ... then I might reconsider the idea.]
Altruism has no place in US government geopolitics. Likewise, the US has no right to pursue interventionist polices throughout the world unless they serve the purpose of enhancing the national security of the US. Imperialism by nations is also something that is anti-man and anti-freedom. Those countries that do that doom themselves over time - usually by breaking the moral basis of their society and eventually their economy.
An appropriate US foreign policy would promote free trade and open markets. That means the central government would do no things such as foreign aid. There would be no government hand-outs for AIDs/Malaria/Hunger in Africa. It means we don't worry about genocide in Darfur, Zimbabwe, or human misery elsewhere on the planet. It means we don't worry about the loss of individual rights in Russia any more than we do the EU - recognizing that people in those poor places have a responsibility to selves to raise themselves up out of their misery.
Charity belongs in the private sector, not the public sector. It is an improper use of the coercive power of government for a central government to give what they have not earned.
Military force would be used only for the defense of US interests which are limited once you leave the shores of the US. That means we don't prop up some tin hatted dictator because he counter-balances someone we don't like. But it also means we use preemptive war when we must on other nations. We decimate anyone who threatens our way of life, our security, and our homeland. And we take such courses of action only when we have exhausted all other means of altering the circumstances.
It means we DON't fight wars to make the "world safe for democracy" or to 'end all wars.' It means we don't have colonies, we don't impose political systems, or leaders on other nations.
Conversely, protection of the US is the responsibility of the US central government. Only it can and should perform that role.
Unfortunately, since the time of Wilson, or as some suggest the rise of "Pax Americana" and manifest destiny, the US has been unable to delineate the proper roles and responsibilities of government.
I love Eire. But their form of government is typical of those democracies who suppress individual liberty for the common good. They have been blessed by leadership in past years that put in place some enlightened economic polices that has created a Celtic tiger economy. But it also joined the EU and now is but a vassal of bureaucrats of Belgium. It is a perfect example of how humans can willfully submit to enslavement by the state and how they should chide gently those who do not chose to follow their dismal future.
His view that President Bush is arrogant and irresponsible is his right to hold. I don't like Bush much, but his greatest fault is not that he has been irresponsible, but that his greatest fear is doing too much in contrast to who he followed who did too little to protect America. He have even seemed to now have begun to worry that people don't like us. Who cares? They need only fear us if they threaten us.
"Does this affect the national security and safety of America?"
You asked exactly the right question and the correct answer is "No". Of course there will be a bloodbath in Iraq after we leave. There's one going on right now. Why should it stop when we leave? We have troops fighting with several different factions in a civil war and it's not uncommon for Iraqi troops and police to turn their guns on American troops, Who are we supposed to be winning against; the Iraqi government (members of whom are supplying weapons and munitions to be used against U.S, forces in Iraq.
And about the bloodbath after we're gone, that will take care of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They're very small in number, have terrorized both Shia and Sunni and a goodly number of them are foreigners. The only reason they are still around Iraq at all is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal.
I've got one smartass comment for you about the paragraph below:
"The problem with all this is democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else. Perhaps it is due to our failed educational system that politicians today can look us in the eye and claim democracy is a worthy goal, while ignoring that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all were leaders in a country ruled by that despotic system of government."
Nearly everything you wrote above is wrong, not opinion, just fact. Democracy is a system of governance, or a philosophy of government, if you will. Communism is an economic system, or an economic theory. What you are doing is comparing apples to giraffes.
It is accurate and correct to compare communism to capitalism, socialism and mixed economies. As it is accurate to compare democracy to monarchy, republicanism, dictatorship, oligarchy or plutocracy.
Granted, the single party in most communist states call themselves the Communist Party. But take China for instance. It no longer is a communist country. It has an economic system many economists and political scientists call state capitalism and many just capitalist. It's not communist, but it is an authoritarian dictatorship.
Here's the definition of democracy from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Below is the definition of communism:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
com·mu·nism (kŏm'yə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
[French communisme, from commun, common, from Old French, from Latin commūnis; see commune
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Everything that you mentioned happened in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon, but the Vietnamese have never lived under any type of democracy. Not under the communists, not under Thieu, nor Diem, nor the French, nor the Japanese. Yes, they call it the "People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam" It's kind of like the old Holy Roman Empire. It wasn't holy. It wasn't Roman and it wasn't an empire.
"The problem with all this is democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else."
I've never heard anyone make a statement like you made above. That is way out on the fringe or shows some serious ignorance.
If you can find someone on faculty at the Army War College, The Naval Post-Graduate School, West Point or Annapolis who will back you up on those two sentences, I would love to hear from them.
Just out of curiosity, were you an officer?
Mr. Mills I really appreciate your comments. You are right the dictionary provides those definitions. Note the definition of democracy you provide. Specifically the definition after the colon in 1b.
Then note the definition of communism and you may see why I defined one as a 'soft variant' of the other.
Ever wonder why our founding fathers founded a republic vice democracy? It was because they feared democracy. Democracy is an anti-freedom concept. Suggest you check out what John Adams had to say about it.
There are four books you need to read, all by Ayn Rand. They are all in paperback and not expensive.
1. Philosophy - Who Needs It
2. For The New Intellectual
3. The Virtue of Selfishness
4. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
After you read them you will understand, I think, what I meant.
I have taught at a major New England University. I would not expect classical liberal views like mine at the War College or the service academies. Political theory there is not very broad. Philosophy there tends to worship folks like Kant, Hegel and Plato. That is why when Ayn Rand addressed the senior class at West Point in 1974 with the subject of book #1 above, she opened a lot of minds to the limitations of their education. Most of us who go through those places tend to go in as modern liberals and come out confused. But few of us make it out as classic liberals as Hayek and von Mises wrote about.
Post a Comment