Clash of the Titans
Everyone who is involved in the business of politics and social issues loves a good old fashioned, hot, passion-filled, throw-down, knock-down, drag-out ruthless debate. And it should go without saying that these things do get personal, but at the same time, the only way to come out uscathed is to not take this personally. Though, it is damn hard when people are questioning and attacking your beliefs and what you feel is right. Some people don't under that when you are attacking what a person believes, it's an attack on their identity as well and a person's identity is sacred. So as much as you shouldn't take it personally, it's hard not to.
But it's always fun.
And so when you have heavyweights in the field doing what they do best, doing what they love, I just had to take the time out of a busy campaign to take a look. Yesterday was the 3rd annual Clash of The Titans debate in the Lion's Den, also known as the Christian Coalition funded Regent University. This is the thir year that Pat Robertson and his 'good ol' boys' have put on a debate with giants in the world of politics, society and military and government. Previous Clashes have included the likes of Al Gore, Bob Dole, Ann Coulter and Alan Dershowitz. Two years ago, they debated whether or not the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority. Last year they debated what's on the line in the 2004 election. This year, the debate was on whether or not the president's strategy in Iraq has been effect and is it worth the effort. In the left corner was former CNN host of Crossfire and former Clinton aid Paul Begala and Former general of NATO forces in eastern Europe and presidential candidate General Wesley Clark. In the right corner was former Speaker of the House and real architech behind Republican power, Newt Gengrich and former White House counter-terrorism lead and aid to Ronald Reagan, Oliver North.
What I would like to do is just highlight a few things the contenders said throughout the debate that really caught my attention that I would like to present to you and to just give some of my thoughts and impressions on what I heard. I tried not to be bias and just notate those I agree with, but of course I had to have those I disagree with, just to let you know how wrong they are and how right I am. So without further adieu...
"We are victims of our own experiences and beliefs."
General Wesley Clark said this in a response to an military question posed to him. And I just wanted to note how true this is. We are in a sense victims to our own knowledge or lack of knowledge. We are put at risk for our ignorance on what we don't know, which can hurt us as the saying goes. This lack of knowledge is a powerful thing that can be used against you, but it comprises who we are and it's something we cannot change.
"Twenty-two revisions of the war plan"
That's insane. I know plans change. I myself am fond of saying a plan ain't nothing but a list of things that don't get done, but you think you'd have something set it stone. To have twenty-two revisions and to say things like "stay the course", then it makes you sound really foolish or severely lacking knowledge.
"If it looked like it involved billions of dollars, thousands of troops and years to complete, it wouldn't have been supported."
Which is the exact case we are in now. Knowing that a war would cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion, that many, many families would be torn apart with relatives leaving for months and months on end and some coming back with drastically altered lives or not coming back at all and that we would be involved in this for a very, very long, Vietnam-long time, then that would have meant maybe 10% of the population would have support it and that's being conservative(in more ways than one). So that could be the only conceiveable reason why a consise plan was never released, discussed or followed through. I'm afraid that what we've done is just created another Israel in Iraq. We think that just because they'll have democracy it will go away? Well, look at Israel, they have one. You think that things will get better over time? Take a look at Israel. You think it won't cost us as much in the long run? Take a gander at Israel. It is still costing us. If we were to cut their foreign aid, they would be in a bit of trouble. Most of our foreign aid goes to them and for what? So they can protect themselves and that is EXACTLY what we will be doing in Iraq 60 years from now.
[Defend the homeland, fight the insurgency and asmiliate any reason someone would have to join.]
This was Gingrich's answer to the way he'd fight the war on terrorism. It's a sound plan on paper, but how you go about executing that plan is most important. He pointed to Homeland Security to defending the homeland, which is what I thought was the job of the CIA, FBI, Coast Guard and more specifically the National Security chief. I mean, National Security... Homeland Security? Isn't that essentially the same damn thing? And to have an Intelligence Czar as well? I thought the Republican Party was against making more government, which is exactly what they've been doing in the last several years. He then pointed to our efforts in Iraq in fighting insurgency, but you have realize we aren't fighting 'insurgency' anymore. Insurgency means to surge from within. I don't think it's any secret anymore that the elements we fight aren't simply Iraqi's version of the Weekend Warrior. This is like an Arabic Woodstock and they are coming all over to be a part of it. And with that in mind, you can't simply fight them like a rebellion or a uprising. You have to fight them like foreign invaders and we aren't doing that. We aren't doing much to take the fight to them, which is part of the problem. Then comes eliminating any reason someone would have to want to join. This is probably the most tricky part of the equation. Newt and the conservative persuassion has pointed to democracy as being a good way to eliminate the reason for joining terrorist, which is odd because democracy is the very reason they are fighting. They don't want democracy. They fight against democracy everyday and don't think what the biggest and brightest example of democracy(United States) is exactly a pillar of democratic leadership. So we can't just assume democracy is the answer.
"If we needed oil, we would have invaded Venezuela."
This does present a good point. Venezuela does have oil, a lot of oil in fact. They don't have a standing army and their leadership is weak. To top it off, they aren't exactly nice people, as cited a reason for invading Iraq by the president. But just because it is so, doesn't disqualify oil being a reason or at least on the mind of those who framed this effort of war. For one, as much of a joke Begala was giving, we aren't going to attack Venezuela. It would be cutting down trees for firewood in your own backyard. Aside from that, Iraq was a relevant excuse. The U.S. was just attacked by Middle Easterners and making a connection and emotional tuggings would be easier to make with Iraq in mind. First of all, the underlying principle of United States foreign policy is to ensure free trade for all nation. That's the main reason why our involvement in World War II. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq did not trade, especially with the United States. Which kinda sucks because we are rich and what do rich people usually do? Want to buy the unobtainable. And so we liberate Iraq so they are free to trade whatever they desire without Saddam being a poo-poo head. Now that they can trade, what's the one thing they have an abundance to trade? Oil? Who has the most money to buy who will buy at the highest price? The United States. A clear gain is obvious and to say it's not an reason is foolish. It's money. Money is ALWAYS a reason to do anything.
"One ready battallion in two years."
Many have clamored for us to leave Iraq. Unfortunately this won't be done until Iraq can fend for itself, if that ever happens. That's part of the reason why we don't have a solid plan because who knows how long it can take to train a full army? But if you follow the timeframe we are currently at, training a single battallion after two years, then we are going to be there well after all of us are dead. But this is paramount. They need their own army and not ours. We can't stay there forever and continue to get ourselves killed. They need to get themselves killed because they have the most at stake. But to have one batallion in three years is a failure. We shouldn't have told the old army to go home in the first place. Half of them were there because Saddam said so. If you told the other have they were fighting for their own damn futures and put something on the line, maybe then they'd have more to lose, but as it is now, they don't. I'm just afraid, however many battallions they have, the moment we pick up and leave that nation, it is going to fall apart.
Between 1945 and 1948, Germany, Italy and Japan were rebuilt by their own armies."
I had a friend of mine. She often wanted to compare our efforts today to our war effort of 60 years ago in World War II. Not just the way we fought, but the reaction at home as well. Now that's all fine and dandy, but warfare and especially the United States has radically changed in 60 years. Hell there is hardly one thing that we do today that is done the same way 60 yeas ago. For one, 60 years ago we didn't have things like black people active in the political system 60 years ago. 60 years ago Islamic fundamentalism wasn't to this extreme and on the same token, Americanization wasn't as rabid as it is today. So, it's hard to have things the way they were 60 years ago. A testiment to that would be the nations we fought against 60 years ago and their reaction post World War II. Yes, these nations benefitted greatly from the Marshall Plan, but it didn't take effect until the late 40s. And post-war Germany, Italy and Japan didn't just sit on it's ass and let us do all the work. And why did they not have the same problem with Imperialist, Nazis and facist still constantly attacking U.S. forces after the war ended? Probably because they were there to handle their own business. The Emperor of Japan was still Emperor when they surrendered. We did not send the whole German army home only to recruit from scratch all over again. Why? That's a waste of resources. Just reorganizing what you already have on hand instead of starting from the beginning.
[The fight should be won ideologically.]
Not solely militaristically. To defeat terrorism, you cannot win it by military victory. Terrorism is an idea, a movement. You'd just as well win a war on jealousy(kudos to David Cross). Those who use the ideals of terror to force others to bend to their will just won't go away by shooting it. It will just spread. What if you had someone who didn't get involved in none of this stuff, but they had a brother or best friend who was knee deep in jihadism and he just got blown to bits by an American missle. He's gonna be pretty teed off and might just want some revenge. What does that solve? Nothing. So what if you took a different approach and convinced the guy to convince his brother or bestfriend that what they are doing isn't going to be successful and there are better ways, more sane and less violent ways to get people to bend to your will. No one dies and you have someone doing the leg work with you. It's a better idea. Whenever someone asks me, "Shogunn, how would you win the war on terrorism." My simple answer would be to not give them a reason to terrorize. Not some idiotic 'take the fight to them' or 'stay the course' or some thing else irrational. You should always use your mind it's less painful... or should be.
"Democracy won't be enough."
What would it take for more of the right to admit to this. And of all people it's Newt Gingrich who said it. No it won't be enough. Hell who says it is even part of the answer? Was democracy enough back in 1860 when the federal government clashed with state power? Was democracy enough in 1960 when black people could vote, but could not under duress or disqualification? And again, is it enough in Israel where a car blows up, a mall is attacked or people are kicked out of their homes after years and years of righteous living? Duh! Democracy isn't enough. It isn't nearly enough. You need a lot more than democracy to change. Democracy only governs the way people rule. It does not legislate the way people think.
* * *
And so there you have it. Score one more for the good guys. Actually there were no clear winners in this debate. There hardly is a clear winner in any debate, unless there is no debate and one side is not doing the debating by avoiding questions or not fully explaning themselves. But where can you fully explain yourself when someone across from you is absolutely sure they are right and you are completely wrong? I know...
The Smoking Gunn
But it's always fun.
And so when you have heavyweights in the field doing what they do best, doing what they love, I just had to take the time out of a busy campaign to take a look. Yesterday was the 3rd annual Clash of The Titans debate in the Lion's Den, also known as the Christian Coalition funded Regent University. This is the thir year that Pat Robertson and his 'good ol' boys' have put on a debate with giants in the world of politics, society and military and government. Previous Clashes have included the likes of Al Gore, Bob Dole, Ann Coulter and Alan Dershowitz. Two years ago, they debated whether or not the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority. Last year they debated what's on the line in the 2004 election. This year, the debate was on whether or not the president's strategy in Iraq has been effect and is it worth the effort. In the left corner was former CNN host of Crossfire and former Clinton aid Paul Begala and Former general of NATO forces in eastern Europe and presidential candidate General Wesley Clark. In the right corner was former Speaker of the House and real architech behind Republican power, Newt Gengrich and former White House counter-terrorism lead and aid to Ronald Reagan, Oliver North.
What I would like to do is just highlight a few things the contenders said throughout the debate that really caught my attention that I would like to present to you and to just give some of my thoughts and impressions on what I heard. I tried not to be bias and just notate those I agree with, but of course I had to have those I disagree with, just to let you know how wrong they are and how right I am. So without further adieu...
"We are victims of our own experiences and beliefs."
General Wesley Clark said this in a response to an military question posed to him. And I just wanted to note how true this is. We are in a sense victims to our own knowledge or lack of knowledge. We are put at risk for our ignorance on what we don't know, which can hurt us as the saying goes. This lack of knowledge is a powerful thing that can be used against you, but it comprises who we are and it's something we cannot change.
"Twenty-two revisions of the war plan"
That's insane. I know plans change. I myself am fond of saying a plan ain't nothing but a list of things that don't get done, but you think you'd have something set it stone. To have twenty-two revisions and to say things like "stay the course", then it makes you sound really foolish or severely lacking knowledge.
"If it looked like it involved billions of dollars, thousands of troops and years to complete, it wouldn't have been supported."
Which is the exact case we are in now. Knowing that a war would cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion, that many, many families would be torn apart with relatives leaving for months and months on end and some coming back with drastically altered lives or not coming back at all and that we would be involved in this for a very, very long, Vietnam-long time, then that would have meant maybe 10% of the population would have support it and that's being conservative(in more ways than one). So that could be the only conceiveable reason why a consise plan was never released, discussed or followed through. I'm afraid that what we've done is just created another Israel in Iraq. We think that just because they'll have democracy it will go away? Well, look at Israel, they have one. You think that things will get better over time? Take a look at Israel. You think it won't cost us as much in the long run? Take a gander at Israel. It is still costing us. If we were to cut their foreign aid, they would be in a bit of trouble. Most of our foreign aid goes to them and for what? So they can protect themselves and that is EXACTLY what we will be doing in Iraq 60 years from now.
[Defend the homeland, fight the insurgency and asmiliate any reason someone would have to join.]
This was Gingrich's answer to the way he'd fight the war on terrorism. It's a sound plan on paper, but how you go about executing that plan is most important. He pointed to Homeland Security to defending the homeland, which is what I thought was the job of the CIA, FBI, Coast Guard and more specifically the National Security chief. I mean, National Security... Homeland Security? Isn't that essentially the same damn thing? And to have an Intelligence Czar as well? I thought the Republican Party was against making more government, which is exactly what they've been doing in the last several years. He then pointed to our efforts in Iraq in fighting insurgency, but you have realize we aren't fighting 'insurgency' anymore. Insurgency means to surge from within. I don't think it's any secret anymore that the elements we fight aren't simply Iraqi's version of the Weekend Warrior. This is like an Arabic Woodstock and they are coming all over to be a part of it. And with that in mind, you can't simply fight them like a rebellion or a uprising. You have to fight them like foreign invaders and we aren't doing that. We aren't doing much to take the fight to them, which is part of the problem. Then comes eliminating any reason someone would have to want to join. This is probably the most tricky part of the equation. Newt and the conservative persuassion has pointed to democracy as being a good way to eliminate the reason for joining terrorist, which is odd because democracy is the very reason they are fighting. They don't want democracy. They fight against democracy everyday and don't think what the biggest and brightest example of democracy(United States) is exactly a pillar of democratic leadership. So we can't just assume democracy is the answer.
"If we needed oil, we would have invaded Venezuela."
This does present a good point. Venezuela does have oil, a lot of oil in fact. They don't have a standing army and their leadership is weak. To top it off, they aren't exactly nice people, as cited a reason for invading Iraq by the president. But just because it is so, doesn't disqualify oil being a reason or at least on the mind of those who framed this effort of war. For one, as much of a joke Begala was giving, we aren't going to attack Venezuela. It would be cutting down trees for firewood in your own backyard. Aside from that, Iraq was a relevant excuse. The U.S. was just attacked by Middle Easterners and making a connection and emotional tuggings would be easier to make with Iraq in mind. First of all, the underlying principle of United States foreign policy is to ensure free trade for all nation. That's the main reason why our involvement in World War II. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq did not trade, especially with the United States. Which kinda sucks because we are rich and what do rich people usually do? Want to buy the unobtainable. And so we liberate Iraq so they are free to trade whatever they desire without Saddam being a poo-poo head. Now that they can trade, what's the one thing they have an abundance to trade? Oil? Who has the most money to buy who will buy at the highest price? The United States. A clear gain is obvious and to say it's not an reason is foolish. It's money. Money is ALWAYS a reason to do anything.
"One ready battallion in two years."
Many have clamored for us to leave Iraq. Unfortunately this won't be done until Iraq can fend for itself, if that ever happens. That's part of the reason why we don't have a solid plan because who knows how long it can take to train a full army? But if you follow the timeframe we are currently at, training a single battallion after two years, then we are going to be there well after all of us are dead. But this is paramount. They need their own army and not ours. We can't stay there forever and continue to get ourselves killed. They need to get themselves killed because they have the most at stake. But to have one batallion in three years is a failure. We shouldn't have told the old army to go home in the first place. Half of them were there because Saddam said so. If you told the other have they were fighting for their own damn futures and put something on the line, maybe then they'd have more to lose, but as it is now, they don't. I'm just afraid, however many battallions they have, the moment we pick up and leave that nation, it is going to fall apart.
Between 1945 and 1948, Germany, Italy and Japan were rebuilt by their own armies."
I had a friend of mine. She often wanted to compare our efforts today to our war effort of 60 years ago in World War II. Not just the way we fought, but the reaction at home as well. Now that's all fine and dandy, but warfare and especially the United States has radically changed in 60 years. Hell there is hardly one thing that we do today that is done the same way 60 yeas ago. For one, 60 years ago we didn't have things like black people active in the political system 60 years ago. 60 years ago Islamic fundamentalism wasn't to this extreme and on the same token, Americanization wasn't as rabid as it is today. So, it's hard to have things the way they were 60 years ago. A testiment to that would be the nations we fought against 60 years ago and their reaction post World War II. Yes, these nations benefitted greatly from the Marshall Plan, but it didn't take effect until the late 40s. And post-war Germany, Italy and Japan didn't just sit on it's ass and let us do all the work. And why did they not have the same problem with Imperialist, Nazis and facist still constantly attacking U.S. forces after the war ended? Probably because they were there to handle their own business. The Emperor of Japan was still Emperor when they surrendered. We did not send the whole German army home only to recruit from scratch all over again. Why? That's a waste of resources. Just reorganizing what you already have on hand instead of starting from the beginning.
[The fight should be won ideologically.]
Not solely militaristically. To defeat terrorism, you cannot win it by military victory. Terrorism is an idea, a movement. You'd just as well win a war on jealousy(kudos to David Cross). Those who use the ideals of terror to force others to bend to their will just won't go away by shooting it. It will just spread. What if you had someone who didn't get involved in none of this stuff, but they had a brother or best friend who was knee deep in jihadism and he just got blown to bits by an American missle. He's gonna be pretty teed off and might just want some revenge. What does that solve? Nothing. So what if you took a different approach and convinced the guy to convince his brother or bestfriend that what they are doing isn't going to be successful and there are better ways, more sane and less violent ways to get people to bend to your will. No one dies and you have someone doing the leg work with you. It's a better idea. Whenever someone asks me, "Shogunn, how would you win the war on terrorism." My simple answer would be to not give them a reason to terrorize. Not some idiotic 'take the fight to them' or 'stay the course' or some thing else irrational. You should always use your mind it's less painful... or should be.
"Democracy won't be enough."
What would it take for more of the right to admit to this. And of all people it's Newt Gingrich who said it. No it won't be enough. Hell who says it is even part of the answer? Was democracy enough back in 1860 when the federal government clashed with state power? Was democracy enough in 1960 when black people could vote, but could not under duress or disqualification? And again, is it enough in Israel where a car blows up, a mall is attacked or people are kicked out of their homes after years and years of righteous living? Duh! Democracy isn't enough. It isn't nearly enough. You need a lot more than democracy to change. Democracy only governs the way people rule. It does not legislate the way people think.
* * *
And so there you have it. Score one more for the good guys. Actually there were no clear winners in this debate. There hardly is a clear winner in any debate, unless there is no debate and one side is not doing the debating by avoiding questions or not fully explaning themselves. But where can you fully explain yourself when someone across from you is absolutely sure they are right and you are completely wrong? I know...
The Smoking Gunn
posted by Shogunn at 4:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home