Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Will new Iraqi government be like ours? Let's hope not

Not only do we not know how Iraq will turn out after our invasion, we also have no idea what kind of country we are trying to build there. Simply announcing that it will be a "democracy" doesn't make sense, given that it is President Bush doing the defining of what democracy is.

He and his neocons share a deep distrust of government: ours not theirs. They have a hatred of taxes, yet an abiding love of our military, depending as it does wholly on taxes. Does this mean the Iraqi tax structure will heavily favor the haves over the have-nots? It will be a democracy, after all. Will their infrastructure assets, their financial systems, their water and gas, their power facilities be privatized so the worthy will prosper, as we do, through the unfettered marketplace?

In other words, will the radical, anti-government, pro-secrecy, anti-tax, pro-privatization, anti-woman, pro-death penalty, anti-science, pro-religion ideologues who are now running our country work to make Iraq into something the people of Iraq will grow to trust and admire and learn to hold dear as much as our current leaders distrust and hate our own government?

Imagine the occupation of America

Re: Joint Chiefs chair: U.S. troop levels in Iraq could rise if attacks continue, Dec. 26.

It's hard to imagine what the Joint Chiefs are thinking when they assume that sending more troops to Iraq will control the insurgents there.

For argument's sake, let's assume the situation were reversed. Let's hypothesize that President Bush got impatient with the democratic process and got together with Donald Rumsfeld and pulled off a military coup that left him dictator. Then, most democratic countries are alarmed by all this. Mexico, however, is concerned enough that they send troops in to occupy the United States and oust its new dictator.

Well, many Americans might be very unhappy to be under the rule of a dictator. But that doesn't mean that they would welcome armed Mexican troops walking around on their streets. Most, I think, would consider it an American problem and resent foreign intervention. Many would take up arms and resist the foreign intrusion. It might well be considered the patriotic thing to do.

We need a new strategy in Iraq

We will need a new strategy in 2006 to succeed in Iraq. I suggest we pull out of the cities and pull back to the borders. Seal the borders to keep the terrorists from coming into Iraq and let the Iraqi tribes work this out. Our troops are the targets of the Iraqi resistance and this adds fuel to the fire. Our military has done its job of deposing Saddam Hussein but we cannot govern for the Iraqis and we should not let our troops be caught in the cross-fire.

This president's decision to go to war with Iraq was not based on the reasons we were told but with the hope if we could bring about regime change in Iraq, we could transform the Middle East. This was a big gamble with our national security and we need to somehow find a way to succeed. We cannot undo this huge mistake and must find ways for a respectable mission accomplished. It is now time for the Iraqis to govern their country and whether they choose unity or civil war, this is not for us to choose.

A dangerous combination

One of the tactics sometimes used in debates is to confuse the issue by raising the level of abstraction. In his Dec. 20 column Defining the limits of presidential power, George Will raises this polemic device to the level of an art form.

After admitting that President Bush contravened a statute's clear language by authorizing domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, he then goes on to describe a number of abstract historical, political and legal arguments that might be used to justify Bush's otherwise illegal actions. He then concludes that Bush's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. This has the appearance of a defense attorney pleading for a minimal sentence for his obviously guilty client.

Most of these esoteric arguments would be lost on a president who doesn't bother to read newspapers. President Bush's decision to use illegal surveillance on U.S. citizens is more likely the result of a mind-set reflected in his post-election remarks to the effect that he had won political capital and that he intended to spend it.

President Bush's willful ignorance, coupled with an insistence on loyalty that shields him from any form of criticism (constructive or otherwise), his willingness to use power in any way that suits him and, worst of all, his self-righteousness constitute a dangerous mixture. Just how dangerous should be the subject of an independent commission. Its findings should then be used by Congress to determine what legislative or other action is appropriate to avoid such ill-considered mistakes in the future.

Democrats are the real threat

I am sick and tired of watching Democrats and the New York Times leak information that hurts our fight on terrorism and endangers our soldiers, and then report that they support them. I don't care if President Bush spies on me if he is safeguarding my family!

Sandy Berger stuffs sensitive documents in his pants and they say nothing. The Democrats are running lock-step with the New York Times in underming our troops and our president and are so consumed with their thirst for power they don't care about America at all. We are fighting an enemy that will kill us all without a blink of an eye and the Democrats worry about offending them.

The real danger is a party that cares more about power than it does this country.

We have to be the good guys

In America, land of the free, home of the brave, we can't allow the federal government unfettered spying. Too many people have died to defend our rights, and any attempt to take them away is wrong. If there is another terrorist attack (and many say there will be), millions in New York and other cities could be killed. Millions also would be injured, cities would be destroyed and the economy would be wrecked. But that's a small price to pay for freedom.

We must never, at any time or under any circumstances, sacrifice our liberties in exchange for our security. It is better to have our bodies seared in a blaze of fire and to be under the yoke of foreign enemies who hate us and scorn our way of life than to be subjected to the snooping of government officials. Give me liberty or give me death. It is vital that America maintain the moral high ground. If our society is destroyed by those who have vowed to destroy it, at least history will show that we were the good guys.

[Last modified December 30, 2005, 01:23:02]