Democrats argue Iraqis do not have a cultural heritage conducive to democratic government and that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein could have been contained. On the other hand, Republicans believe Saddam Hussein’s connections with terrorists made Hussein too dangerous and that we can reform Iraq as reformed both Japan and Germany. Even after four years of struggle, these arguments have continued. So a Democrat Congress plans to send President Bush a bill with a time table to withdraw from Iraq (here), and President Bush promises a veto.
Although there is much political posturing, our leaders rarely discuss the outcome in any detail. In truth, I suspect neither side knows what will happen if they win. Republicans pose the possibility that if we abandon Iraq, Iraq will become a terrorist haven, that the terrorists will follow us back to the United States. Democrats say it is our presence that is causing the problem — even going so far as to suggest that Iraq would have been better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in charge. What is the Truth?
The assertion that rankles this blogger is the possibility that Iraq would have been better off Saddam Hussein left in charge. How could anyone believe such a thing? What drives Democrats to believe such utter nonsense? Since people are different, I doubt there is one cause. So I suggest three: apathy, pacifism, and power politics. Further, I believe there is a fourth problem outside our control, the relative decline of American power.
Apathy
Apathy poses two threats. When people do not care, they do not participate. Yet our republican form of government depends upon volunteerism. Just going to the polls to vote requires that we volunteer our time. The second threat is the self centered nature of apathy. The apathetic only care when it affects them. Thus President Bush commitment to save Iraq becomes painful to the apathetic, he risks arousing their ire and opposition. Hence, we have fought the war in Iraq without significant increases in military spending.
Pacifism
Of necessity, the pacifist seizes upon a naive view of the human race. This view presupposes that we are all the same, that we all share the same wants, needs, and values — when, in fact, we do not. What the pacifist forgets is the ease with which our “fellow human beings” can dehumanize us. Thus the Nazis, for example, were able to slaughter twelve million, mostly unresisting, of their fellow human beings in concentration camps (here).
Within America, excerpts from the Bible (primarily the New Testament) provide the core ideological support for pacifism (here). Yet taken altogether, the Bible’s support for pacifism is, at best, ambiguous. When asked to name the greatest commandment, Christ responded that we are to love God and to love each other (here). When some of my fellow human beings want to commit genocide, why is it not an act of love to oppose their violence and teach them that what they are doing is wrong?
Power Politics
Senator Harry Reid priority concern over Iraq seems to be the following (here and here).
We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
Consider what great power must be like for men and women with big egos. You are the center of attention. People carefully listen to and record your every word. You receive hundreds of big and little perks.
The President, Senate, and the House regulate our society and control an astounding portion of our nation’s wealth. Just putting the Federal Budget together gives our nation’s leaders control of well over two trillion dollars. The opportunity to control such wealth and power draws ambitious men and women like honey draws bees.
The majority party controls the Federal Budget, and the majority party has the best opportunity to dole out political favors. With growth of the Federal Budget, the political rivalry between Democrats and Republicans has become ferocious. When every issue is viewed and used with respect to its political advantage, the interests of the nation suffer.
The Decline of American Power
Success breeds new problems. As the result of the peace enforced by American military and economic power, other nations besides the United States have prospered. Nations such as China (here and here) and India (here) are now growing rapidly in economic and military strength (see here too).
The growth in the power of other nations creates a dilemma for the United States. Although it would not be moral or to our advantage to stifle the growth of other nations, our place in the world will change. Our influence is rapidly diminishing, and rivals can foresee the time when our power will be inconsequential.
Even though Iran and Syria are relatively weak when compared with the United States, they now oppose us in Iraq. All they have to do is play upon our internal rivalries and appeal to the interests of other world powers. As times passes, this situation will only get worse.
Conclusion
It is the nature of great empires that the real battles take place in the capital. So it is with the battle over Iraq. Although the blood of men, women, and children is being spilled in the streets of Baghdad, the battle for Iraq will be won or lost in Washington DC.
What are the consequences for our children and grandchildren? Now we have the luxury of imperial power, but that power is rapidly fading. How many more years do we have before another capital in another part of the world becomes the center of power? How many more years do we have before blood is spilled in our streets and the battle for our freedom is decided in another land?
What the future holds for us is unknown, but now is the time the center of power is in our nation’s capital. We must act now to shape our future; we must act to ensure our children and grandchildren retain the freedoms we enjoy.
Bush Has Gone AWOL
by General William Odom
The following is a transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:
“Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.
“I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me.
“In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.
“Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.
“To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-
Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.
“Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.
“Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.
“The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.
“But it has served Iran’s interest by revenging Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran’s influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda’s interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.
“We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.
“A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.
“No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.
“It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq’s borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.
“The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.
“I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.
“This is retired General Odom. Thank you for listening.”
General Odom has served as Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. In his address, General Odom will discuss why he believes President Bush should sign the conference report on the Iraq Accountability Act.