© 1994 - 2009
Against the Grain

NO ONE in his right mind is saying "let's not defend ourselves." Anyone who presents the either/or alternative of doing what we're doing now or surrendering to them is presenting a false dilemma.

The question to be honestly debated is this: HOW should our country respond to threats and attacks?

Going over to Iraq or Afghanistan and pretending they're like Western Europe or Japan was after WWII is suicidal. It's not like that over there for one thing. For another, we don't have the money to do what we did in Western Europe--in part because WE'RE STILL IN JAPAN AND GERMANY just to name two out of 170 or so countries our military is stationed in. Most of these countries have plenty of money to defend themselves and, if they don't, SCREW 'EM! IT'S NOT OUR JOB!

Bush was right when he stood under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. He just didn't know when to quit and neither does Obama.

The legal way to wage war EFFECTIVELY in the Mideast (or elsewhere) is to:

1. PROPERLY DECLARE WAR AS CALLED FOR IN THE US CONSTITUTION (but not done since 1941). Put the responsibility back on the cowards in Congress and make them put their political careers at risk.

2. BRING BACK THE CONCEPT OF A "PUNITIVE" WAR. The basic role of law is to punish injustice in the overall effort to discourage (by example) future injustice. The Constitution does not authorize our central government to "rebuild" foreign countries with beneficence derived from taxpayer pockets.

We invaded two different sovereign countries at a relatively low cost in numbers of lives and dollars spent. Our forces toppled dictators and destroyed their military and their infrastructures. After that WE OWE THEM NOTHING!

We don't have to be their friends. We also don't have to stay there and offer their terrorists an endless supply of targets.

Limit the objectives of wars to the traditional ones that we can REALISTICALLY accomplish and freakin' MIRACLES CAN HAPPEN! Right now, no one can tell us what the objective is other than some nebulous goals of "stability" and "democracy"--but not how much of either in any firm, definable quantities. According to the excuses being made now about why we can't just pick up and leave, we will NEVER be able to leave those countries.

The thing I sense most from military members and other supporters of endless, preemptive wars is that they're worried we'll lose face and look weak and then be subject to more attacks due to that widespread perception. Gee, if we can't accomplish in eight years what previous generations accomplished in about half that time, do we not look weak now?

We really need to admit--something Lindsey Graham among others refuses to do--that we're really in a very difficult and needless occupation doing police work and charity instead of primarily killing people and breaking things which is what a military is for.

One can support the military all they want but in the end the military is NOT in charge. I'm a veteran and I admire the patriotism of the members of the military and their doing their proscribed duties in a professional and often heroic manner. However, it is up to US, "We the People," to determine how many of them are risked and what appropriate objectives they pursue in their patriotic and professional roles.

It is much more efficient in terms of dollars and lives to re-invade a country if the people there allow their governments to attack us again than to occupy them forever. An overwhelming, incredibly destructive "tit" for their "tat" will make their aggression counter-productive if we leave them to rot afterward.

Right now, we're playing right into their hands by keeping our conflict at a level that they can participate in and use to recruit. Seriously, we'd have to kill just about every last one of them to stop their resistance from continually recruiting new members and waging violence against our forces there. In fact, were the situation theoretically reversed, I'd hope that we'd have people here that dedicated and willing to fight the invaders to the bitter end.

As for the popular refrain of "fighting them over there instead of over here," ask the relatives of those thousands of soldiers lost if those soldiers' lives are worth any less than those lost on 9/11. Soldiers die in war. That's a given fact. The fact that they as individuals are willing to risk their lives makes them even MORE valuable to a society in many ways. However, they do enter the service understanding the potential of injuries and deaths that will occur.

At some point, a victory is considered Pyrrhic if pursuing the objective of protecting and saving lives evolves into a mechanism do destroy two or three times the original number of lives with no additional, verifiable defensive benefit. Military occupations that help to bankrupt our country to the point that we can't effectively defend ourselves when and where it is truly justified are also counter productive.

Even a huge loss of life might be worth it if we could absolutely guarantee that we would forever end all such attacks but, as we've seen, in realistic terms, that's not going to ever happen. It is a favorite tactic of politicians to declare that these lives were not lost in vain due to the fact that they've saved so many lives in the future but that's not a verifiable statement. It also seems absurd when you look at the frequency of wars in the histories of our country and others to think that just a few thousand more soldiers lives lost (and untold tens of thousands of injuries) after the military objectives have been obtained will forever make a difference in preventing future wars.

On the other hand, a country's WILLINGNESS to fight effectively, efficiently, and legally with limited, achievable goals (vs. pie-in-the-sky ideals of spreading democracy at the point of a gun) WOULD make a difference--if we stop meddling in foreign, sovereign countries' affairs. If we respond to attacks against us with drastic, deadly, and overwhelming losses for our enemies, we will create a respect for us that even the most barbaric of terrorist minds can understand.

If they can only hurt themselves very badly and in no way gain any ground, there will be very little incentive for them to attack us. That's not projecting Western values on to them. It's merely applying logic that the most extreme of Muslim terrorists is not immune to. Instead, our presidents and members of Congress, in their pursuit of money and power, have made the terrorists into a political tar baby pulling us further and further in where they can then constantly attack us as we're bound down by our own actions. They seek to give us the death of a thousand cuts and we're walking right into their barber shop.

We are obviously doing the members of the military no favors by Marshall-planning every country we invade and, to the benefit of corporations and their political representatives, Vietmanizing every war. Lindsey Graham and other corporate whores WANT TO KEEP THINGS AT A SLOW BOIL. They miss the Cold War due to its continuing excuse to make a lot of spending, favors, and other corruption an emergency or priority that never ends.

If we were to wrap things up over there, Lindsey Graham and others would lose a LOT of power and income. They are keeping it at a lower intensity with occasional, expensive and deadly "surges" with no real intent to finish anything--just more opportunities for political grandstanding, huge spending, and hundreds or thousands of OUR soldiers killed.

You can whine about the "innocent" people there who will suffer but it's about time we hold them to the same standards we have here: the people are ultimately responsible for everything their country does. If we don't prevent our country from carrying out a wrong by whatever means necessary, then we will suffer. The same principle should apply to them. We should not target them but we have to remember that we're not some giant charity/welfare organization despite the socialists leading our country now.

Take a close look at those leaders. THERE IS NOTHING magical about them yet too many voters treat them like movie stars and worship them as if they were gods.

The proper salute for a corrupt politician should be spitting on them, not making excuses and fawning all over them. HOUND THEM, DISTRUST THEM, DESPISE THEM FIRST AND FOREMOST and then MAKE THEM EARN YOUR RESPECT--if they're capable.

They're all human beings and not even the best by far that we have here--most of them being corrupted by money and power. Yet we turn over more and more power and money to them and don't even make them obey the US Constitution on even the most fundamental of cases--like waging war.

Politicians don't have magical supplies of money, either. They can't create anything out of thin air even though they try.

They are NOT our keepers. We should be THEIR keepers however. These wars are excuses to manipulate and use us to their advantage. It's time to break the cycle of abuse and stand up to them and their criminal actions here and abroad. The first thing to do is to kick them out of office.

wtc