Conversations at work

At work I try to stray away from conversations regarding politics, mostly because I'm in Georgia and people down here tend to not be of political stripes and I don't want to get canned for causing too much unnecessary thinking. But today I was approached by a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian who asked me about my leaving the Christian fold. This conversation evolved into a discussion on politics and made me wonder why seemingly smart people can reject simple logic.

As it happened, said worker mentioned something about celebrities needing to keep their mouths shut on political issues, something I can agree with sometimes, and progressed to why "we shouldn't negotiate with Ahmadinejad". He said Ahmadinejad shouldn't be negotiated with because he is a "madman" and is a bad guy in general.

If Ahmadinejad is a madman, a madman whose most recent sin was holding British seamen hostage for breaching Iran's territorial integrity, one must wonder what the equivalent Iranian views George W. Bush, whose government deposed a leader of a sovereign nation, albeit a leader who maintained the delicate balance of rival groups through brute worse. Whose government holds people who are not even soldiers of any particular nation or militia for years without charge, engages in practices upon those detainees that are worse than what the British sailors have claimed.

By the way, "moderate" President Khatami's government also held British sailors upon British incursion in Iranian waters. Strike two crazies up for the Iranians.

Or strike Ahmadinejad up to being politically pragmatic and snappy, knowing how to play the west like a fiddle.

Oh, and did I happen to mention that we happen to have a lot of troops in two other countries right now? Oh yeah! Afghanistan and Iraq.

138,000 troops in Iraq.

27,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Should we embark upon another grand excursion? Should we now depose an elected leader of a country? Paging President Allende! Paging President Allende!

I asked him why another military adventure would be such a terrific idea.

Liberty, he says. Liberty for the people!

Liberty.

And justice.

For all.

Whatever and ever Amen!

O! How people have such great ideals! I can't recall the number of times I've been assailed for being too idealistic by cats like my coworker. But, lest we forget, it's okay to be hyperidealistic when you're hypernationalistic.

:throws arms in air:

-rl

By the way...

Don't forget it.

Steve LaTourette (OH-14) does the right thing

My current Congressman, Steve LaTourette (R-14), was one of 8 Republican legislators in the House of Representatives to send President Bush a letter to ask for an end to the lunacy that has become our government's policy on Iraq. From the San Jose Mercury News

In the House, eight Republicans sent Bush a letter warning him that adding troops would make matters in Iraq worse. They said there was no evidence that more American forces could stop the sectarian violence, and that an increase would deepen Iraqi dependence on the United States, reduce the number of American troops poised to respond to other crises around the world and give al-Qaida more recruiting power.

The eight were Reps. Walter B. Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Ron Paul of Texas, Wayne Gilchrest and Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, John Duncan of Tennessee, Phil English of Pennsylvania and Steven LaTourette of Ohio.

From The Plain Dealer's Openers

Congressman Steve LaTourette, a Republican from Lake County, is among the Republican lawmakers against President Bush's proposal to send more troops to Iraq.

In a letter to be sent to Bush but still being circulated for congressional signatures this morning, in advance of Bush's prime-time address tonight, LaTourette and several other Republicans said:


"Dear Mr. President,

"We fully support your consideration of alternatives to the
current U.S. policy in Iraq and eagerly await your announcement of a new
U.S. strategy. We respectively urge you not to include an escalation or
"surge" of U.S. military forces as part of that new strategy."

But LaTourette is the only Ohioan to sign the letter. Other Ohio Republicans are not as certain. Ralph Regula says that he wants to give new U.S. military leaders in Iraq a chance to decide what's best. Those new leaders are Admiral William Fallon, leading the Central Command, and Lt. General David Petraeus, who will lead the forces in Iraq.

While there should be no rush to send more forces, Regula says, that does not mean he's against a surge. "I'm not against a surge. I'm not necessarily for sending 20,000 (troops) next week. I think the president's going to say that this is one of the options available to the two new commanders...once they get the lay of the land."



Look for other Republicans to pose a raft of questions: Where would the troops go? When? Would there be benchmarks to measure the performance of the mission? What will be demanded of Iraq's leadership?

Meantime, LaTourette leaves less room for ambivalence. The letter says:


"As members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have indicated in published reports, even a short-term escalation of the number of U.S. troops in Iraq could create larger problems in the long-term. It would increase Iraqi dependence on our forces, deplete our strategic reserve and force extended tours of duty for soldiers and Marines who are scheduled to return to their families. Hostile militias could respond by simply melting back into society until the surge is ended. The Pentagon has warned that an escalation of our troop levels in Iraq could lead to an increase in al-Qaeda attacks, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeals for foreign fighters to attack U.S. soldiers."


And it concludes, "Mr. President, we applaud your re-assessment of U.S. strategy in Iraq. However, we urge you to reject any recommendation for either a short or long term increase in the number of U.S. troops. We are persuaded by all available evidence that an escalation of U.S. troop levels is not the way forward in Iraq."

UPDATE: The letter has now been sent to the White House, but only eight congressmen, all Republicans, signed it. Along with Walter Jones of North Carolina, who spearheaded it, the signers were John Duncan of Tennessee, Wayne Gilchrist and Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Ron Paul of Texas, Howard Coble of North Carolina and LaTourette.

In a statement, LaTourette said, "Like many Americans, I desperately want America to succeed in Iraq and I would welcome a fresh approach. This isn't a fresh approach. This is more of the same."

As much as I am not a fan of Rep. LaTourette, I have to say that what he did was the right thing. He deserves that.

If only it wouldn't fall on deaf ears...

-rl

The burdens of freedom

That phrase seems like it should be an oxymoron, but given what context it was in, it seems fitting to be the title of this post. President Bush offered a prime-time offer to a prime-time nation tonight.

20,000 more troops in Iraq to be "embedded with Iraqi forces." 5 brigades are to go to Baghdad alone.

20,000 more troops to get us deeper into a morass. 20,000 more troops to endure a burden of freedom that the American public didn't ask for, but was sold on through false pretenses and outright lies.

He offered good ideas for the Iraqi end of the bargain: the Iraqi government is to appoint a military commander and two deputies. These commanders are to oversee 18 military police units, most of which are to be dedicated to the area around the capital. These units are to be run from local police stations and I think that this is a good idea... it seems like a grassroots effort of sorts. Gain the trust of your fellow countrymen by staying local. However, depending upon sectarian loyalties, it may actually exacerbate the problem.

Bush threw out a statistic that makes sense, but I didn't really realize until he said it: 80% of sectarian violence occurs within thirty miles of Baghdad.

"Millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence."

You said it, Mr. President.

"A democratic Iraq will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."

This is the logical fallacy that irritates me the most. A democratic Iraq will fight terrorism. What is democracy? Democracy is government by the will of the people. What if a democracy wills to allow terrorists? No, what Bush means is that a government friendly to American policy will "fight terrorists." And so long as that government is friendly towards US policy, Bush (and probably succeeding administrations) will label it as a democracy.

Such are the burdens of freedom.

-rl

A vicious dictator meets his end at a gallows

If you've been under a rock for the last 18 hours and this is the first you're reading, which is unlikely, please be aware: we no longer live in a world in which we can blame our ills on Saddam Hussein. The perennial bogeyman was hanged at around 10:00PM US East Coast, just before sunrise in Iraq.

That's one bogeyman down and countless intangible terrorists to go.

And that Bin Laden guy with his dialysis machine.

Cicero at Donklephant has this to say:

On the way to his execution, Saddam Hussein said, “Iraq without me is nothing.”

I am glad the Saddam era is over. But I wouldn’t say I am relieved. I wonder if his last words are prescient. The nation called Iraq is slipping into civil war. Indeed, is Iraq a nation? Is its national continuity impossible without the bindings of a brutal autocrat? Much relies on the answer to this question.

Link to the page.

That is a deep question to ask at this juncture and it's a question that should have been asked at the outset of this wild goose chase called the "Iraq War" and not nearly four years into the mess. It certainly something that I have literally spend hours considering: can the amalgamation of Iraq be a viable political entity without a strongman? I hope so, in addition to being a big-D Democrat, I am also a little-D democrat: I believe people as a whole group can come to rational decisions. People should pick up Rousseau and reread The Social Contract. Maybe it's my sadly optimistic view of human nature that people can come to their common senses if they are educated objectively and resolve their differences without having to come to blows. We must bear in mind that most of Iraq isn't fighting, but it is rather active members of sects and factions.

I heard some jackass on FNC (Fox News Channel) yesterday declare that compromise was a "uniquely American principle". What?

That's just not true, now is it? Treaties are compromises, deals that are brokered to end fighting instead of aiming for full capitulation. Treaties have been made throughout the ages, well before the establishment of the United States.

Well, there you have it. One bogeyman is gone.

-rsl