« Google Bombing and Quixtar | Main | DeVos Speaks - 60 Minutes and Amway »
May 25, 2005
An American Moment
By QBlog in Miscellaneous
I depart from the usual Quixtar-related rhetoric for a moment to refelct on a column by Keith Thompson titled "Leaving the left." I was struck by Thompson's clarity of thought, his honesty, his love for his country and most importantly, his courage to stand up for what he believes is right.
Here's an excerpt but I encourage you to read the entire column:
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.
I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
No matter what you're politics may be, Thompson makes some damn good points.
Comments
I think Thompson misses a few key points in his diatribe. Too often people from the other side pick the most extreme as a representative for all the opposition. I'm in the middle of the political aisle and lean more left to the point that some call me liberal. Gore Vidal certainly doesn't represent me any more then Ann Coulter represents all conservatives. Just because he made a statement and he's ultra-liberal does not mean every left-leaning person agrees. Same goes for an Ann Coulter and her statement about McCarthyism. I know several conservatives who vehimently disagree with her. Too often people from both sides forget politics is not measured in black and white, but on a continuum.
Also, as for "lamenting" the vote in Iraq, it's a case of the ends not necessarily justifying the means. What right did we have to invade Iraq in 2003? Because Saddam gassed people two decades prior? Because he invaded Kuwait 12 years prior? Because of 9/11, in which Iraq had no part? Because Iraq may have had WMD based on questionable intelligence that had to be manipulated (see Downing Street Memo)? Based on human rights violations? And if so, what about all the other countries with human rights' records as bad or worse then Iraq?
Any way you slice it, in my opinion, we had no good reason to go into Iraq when we did in 2003. 1991, yes, because Iraq invaded the soverign nation of Kuwait, but 2003, no. So while I applaud the vote in Iraq as a positive step, was it worth over 1,600 American soldiers? Was not Saddam a paper tiger?
In addition, the Bush administration's biggest Iraqi mistake was not understanding their history and culture. For generations, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis have been battling each other in Iraq. The only time they haven't been is when a strong-arm dictator has kept the peace through fear. Yet nobody in the Bush administration understood that once Saddam, the strong-arm dictator was removed, civil war was a likely outcome. Especially when you toss into the equation foreign nationals entering Iraq just to stir up trouble. I honestly think Bush thought we'd be welcomed with candy and flowers, and not suicide bombers, and it was an awful mistake on his part.
So, in the end, what does the Iraqi vote signify? A chance at democracy and self rule, which should be applauded. But was it worth the price? No. And is the future secure enough that the vote will actually have meaning? Historically speaking, again, no.
So, if you want to be simple and call me a demuring liberal decrying self rule and voting, go ahead. But I would to think the issue is a lot deeper then that, and we can all do better in avoiding name-calling.
When will President Bush and the noble, democracy-loving right wing move to install a representative democracy in Saudi Arabia?
How safe was Iraq for Iraqis in the years before we invaded? How likely was it to get blown up by a car bomb? How much oil was produced? How many hours of electricity each day did someone in Baghdad get? How many foreign terrorists were in Iraq? Was there a "green zone", outside of which the government dare not tread? How Muslim fundamentalist was the Iraqi government under Saddam? How justified was the war based on the given reasons of WMDs and imminent threat?
Oh, but there was an election...disregard the above completely.
dmm - very well put. Adding my two cents would only take away from the eloquence with which you summed up the issue.
"So, in the end, what does the Iraqi vote signify? A chance at democracy and self rule, which should be applauded. But was it worth the price? No. And is the future secure enough that the vote will actually have meaning? Historically speaking, again, no."
So it is safe to say that you were against both world wars too?
>>So it is safe to say that you were against both world wars too?
And how, pray tell, do you arrive at this conclusion, df?
World War I and World War II have little in common with the current war in Iraq. It is not that I'm anti-military or anti-war, as I believe our incursion into Afghanistan was completely warrented after 9/11. Too bad we split focus with Iraq instead of smoking out Osama Bin Laden, but that's another topic for discussion.
The ideal thing to do would be to bring all our service people home from all over the world.Put them at all our borders to protect us.Don't ship anything made in the US out of the country or let anything else come in.Just let the world do without us.We don't need all them they need us! Our economy would grow,jobs would pay better.Then we would hold all politicians responsible and not let them screw the American people like they have for years.
>>No matter what you're politics may be, Thompson makes some damn good points.
You certainly just showed us your politics, vivid red. The only way one would consider those points to be 'damn good' were if one agreed with them.
Considering the invasion of the soveign nation was illegal to begin with, and the administration masterminded the grand plan with the Brits to lie about it for months in advance, it is difficult to take anyone seriously who has changed their political leanings further right. The torture, the fraud during the election, the part the extremist religious right is playing in the decisions of our lives, the continued lie...yep, that is attractive.
He makes points beyond the political which you may have missed:
1. Stand up for what you believe, even when your friends and peers disagree.
2. America can embrace a variety of opinions and doesn't have to run to the extremes.
3. Democracy is always preferable to totalitarianism.
In both WWI and WWII, the US established herself as the Policeman to the world -- like it or not -- against the threats of tyranny.
The US has been the one sacficing lives, resources and time to protecting democracy throughout the world.
We are facing the same potential threat to democracy now. You can argue all you want, but I think an attack on our soil and Saddam's muderous reign are BOTH threats to the democratic institution.
If the, "..opportunity for self rule and democracy" isn't worth it now, then you must feel that it wasn't worth the effort then either, right?
Right?
3. Democracy is always preferable to totalitarianism.
The Mayor's office totally agrees. We look forward to the return of democracy to these shores. I'm only one Mayor, so maybe the citizenry could help out by not being satisfied with the crap news about missing white women, or the tapioca pudding that passes for journalism, or really asking why a gay male hooker was running around the White House. Or maybe, just once, cracking a book other than "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and "Left Behind."
"I think an attack on our soil and Saddam's muderous reign are BOTH threats to the democratic institution."
Given that the attack on our soil was planned by family of one of the Bushes' business partners, and that Saddam's murderous reign was encouraged by people currently in the administration...
leave the Left alone in all this. It's easy to understand why they would be a little distrustful of the motives behind W's foreign policy.
Hmm Qblog,
I heard Rush talk about this very same thing 2 days ago.
Mayor Mcheese, the bush family did not cause 9/11. If you recall Clinton was having all kinds of problems in the white house in reguards to terrorist threats. They never responded to them, nor did they try and stop the terrorist threats in the US.
But the main point here is that we are free to choose which side to belong to- thats what makes this country great. There are men (and women) fighting for our freedom to be able to blog with a free thought and respond with free thoughts.
I highly suggest people attend memorial day services to support those men and women who are serving currently and those that have died and honor them as hero's.
Think about this too, the MSM thought that the war in Iraq was a dismal failure- BUT 8 million people came out to vote. I don't think thats a failure. Thats a sign of democracy. If you think of this war as anything but successful- you've been brainwashed by the MSM.
Actually, Michael, Clinton did a lot to fight terrorism. To say he did nothing is a gross miscalculation. Clinton held daily breifings about Bin Laden and other terrorists, and sent in cruise missles to go after him. And if you remember, the Republicans accused Clinton of "wagging the dog," everytime Clinton used the military. Go back and re-read some articles circa 1998 and see what I mean.
And DF, you are doing exactly what I made in my first point in my first post, painting with so broad a brush, there is no room for any details. Just because I believe trying to establish democracy through military action in Iraq wasn't worth the price, doesn't mean other military actions weren't warrented. To assume that is what I meant from my postings is to take a huge leap in logic, and is the symtom of the closed black and white world which I believe is very dangerous.
And if you want to talk about US military actions during the World Wars, WW I really wasn't about spreading democracy. It was ignited by some deep seated racial tensions and soon became a muscle flexing exercise between the traditional European powers. Woodrow Wilson was right to keep us out of the active fighting during his first term, even though we were secretly aiding the allies, supplying them with food and weapons. It wasn't until German U-boats started attacking American merchant ships along with the Zimmerman telegram that forced America to respond by jumping into the fray. Besides, the war had been such a stalemate at the Maginot line for years, had America not entered, they might still be fighting. And an Europe at war for very long was not in the best interest of America.
With WW II, Germany and Japan were a threat to democracy. And Roosevelt was right to get us into war as quickly as possible in order to stop Hitler. Remember, the air craft carriers at Pearl Harbor were all out to sea when the attack happened, and chances are, we had the radar technology to see the Japanese coming. Just as it was not in America's best interest to have an Europe at war for years, it certainly wasn't in our interest to have an Europe contolled by Hitler. Best guess is, after conquering Europe, Hitler would have turned his sights to Washington D.C. WW II was the biggest threat to our national security since 1812, and the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation were not in vain.
With Iraq, Saddam in 2002 was a paper tiger. The intelligence we had that he had WMD was questionable at best, and was manipulated to look like Saddam was more of a threat then he was in reality. In 1991, when Saddam invaded a soverign Kuwait, we had more reason to go to war with him, and perhaps it was a mistake not to carry onto Baghdad then. But in 2002, our reasons for going to war were weak and disingenous at best. Again, I don't think the small chance at democracy in Iraq was worth the price.
I understand that it was at least two years before the USA came to the aid of their British brothers from across the ocean.
Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. The USA entered the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Yeah but every body knew that Hitler actually has weapons.
"Mayor Mcheese, the bush family did not cause 9/11. If you recall Clinton was having all kinds of problems in the white house in reguards to terrorist threats. They never responded to them, nor did they try and stop the terrorist threats in the US."
I think you meant to say that Bush was "having all kinds of problems in the White house in reguards to terrorist threats." It was the Bush administration that never responded to them.
If you recall, Bush received a brief on August 6, 2001, that stated:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
And yet, it was the Bush Administration that did nothing. It is illogical for George Bush supporters to vote for a man who on one hand says, "They haven't led, we will," and then, when that same president is in power on one of the darkest day in American history, point the finger at Bill Clinton.
I'm curious about this Mr. Keith Thompson:
Did Mr. Thompson support Unions, or the working man? Or did he support Wal-Mart in its march against the common rural businessman? (was he an economic liberal, or an economic conservative?)
DMM,
I beg to differ with you on your points about democracy not being "woth it".
Dude, 8 MILLION people came out to vote for the first time in their lives! Thats not worth it?? What would have made it worth it in 1991 versus now?
Besides to say this war isnt "worth it" is so degrading to every soldier who is fighting and who have lost their lives just so you can have the freedom to say "its not worth it."
DMM no matter how much you think its not worth it, I want you to take the time with some other soldiers this weekend and honor them anyways.
dmm weren't you a soldier as I recall? If you were, then I Salute you. THANK YOU.
Mike> Besides to say this war isnt "worth it" is so degrading to every soldier who is fighting and who have lost their lives just so you can have the freedom to say "its not worth it."
Imran> That freedom was in no threat.
Yea! Just as there was no threat that Hitler could ever try to take over the world (Germany was weak after WWI) - but it happened and he almost succeeded.
Just as there was no chance a country like Japan could ever hit a US Naval base.
Just as there was no way hijackers could ever take over 4 planes and crash them into the Pentagon, and WTC! But that happened too! If you'd have told me on 9/10, I'd have said, "no way dude, we're pretty safe here".
So when I hear people say "Saddam was a paper tiger, he didn't have any WMD - I say, "BS, better safe than sorry"! You don't wait til they show up on radar to say, looks like he had one!
We believed he was trying to develop WMD, and may have had them already & he didn't cooperate with UN inspectors. Not to mention he was a f#*ing tryrant, murdering thousands of his own people!
I heard a 'Kate message from a soldier in Iraq, and he said when they were in Baghdad repairing bridges saddam's people had blown up, an older Iraqi man came up to him and in broken English told him, "we thank you for what you are doing, only you are 30 years too late!"
Say whatever you want! Saddam needed to be gone from power! Now we need support from the rest of the world to help assure a structured government in Iraq.
Why aren't we fighting ALL tyrants. Cause we can't take on the world by ourselves. One thing at a time. Not to mention if we went to help every country with a dictator, then you liberals would just yell, "look, Bush is war crazy, he's invading another country!!"
Imran said "that freedom was never in danger" - as long as there are tyrants in this world, that freedom is Always in danger!
Was never a soldier, and no, I do not believe I'm denigrating those fighting the battle. To take a line from sports, I don't hate the players, I hate the game.
Yes 8 million people voting is a wonderful thing, but if the leaders elected can't keep the peace and build a government where the rights of the minority is as protected as the majority, does it mean anything? To force democracy by military action is always a difficult proposition. There is always an imperialistic backlash as any country seen as an invader using military might for control will gain enemies from the locals. We are the imperialistic invading army. Throw in the fact that the three major groups in Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites) have been in-fighting for generations, and Iraq was an even worse place to try and impose democracy. Toss in foreign nationals bent on seeing America fail, and you got a recipe for a quagmire.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more locals see us as outsiding invaders, and want us to leave. But if we leave, what's to stop Iraq from collapsing into civil war? We are the peacekeepers and civilization builders. If we leave, it leaves a big void. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't. It was a mistake going in without a plan to "win the peace," and anyone with any knowledge of the history and culture of Iraq could have predicted that there was a very good chance that once Saddam left, the country would be on the verge of civil war and we would be stuck between Iraq and a hard place.
As for fighting tyrants, Tony, again, who gave us the job as the world's police. It's one thing to end wars against aggressive countries that already attacked other soveirgn nations, but it's another to pre-emtive strike based on intelligence reports and a sense of security.
The policy of pre-emtive striking is a slippery slope. Who is next. Iran? North Korea? Syria? Libya? Do we just attack everyone who is against us until they all fall? Then don't we become the imperialistic empire we ourselves rebelled against to gain our freedom? When would it end?
In addition, had we deployed this pre-emtive strike strategy against our enemy in the 60's through the 90's, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because the Soviet Union was a nuclear power. According from what I get from you, Tony, it would have been better to attack the USSR because they definatly had WMD aimed at us and it would be better to take them out before their missiles appear on our radar. Of course, doing so against the USSR would have been suicide, and would have started WWIII.
So, we pick on the small country of Iraq, that had been pretty well neutered during the dozen years between the first Gulf War and the second. Sure Saddam played games with the weapons inspectors, but during the 12 years of inspections, a lot was obviously done to rid Saddam of WMD. But that's not what Bush and company wanted to hear. Read the Downing Street Memo, http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ and also ask yourself why the Bush administration did not allow Hans Blix and his team to finish his last round of inspections before we invaded.
In the end, I do thank the soldiers for their sacrifice and hard work. I have several military friends as I live in a big military town and my house less then a mile away from base. Still doesn't mean I think they should be in Iraq, and to all my friends, I say stay down, do your job, and get home safely.
Damn Us!
Running around imposing Democracy on poor folks like the Imperialists of old.
Just who do we think we are? You'd think we would have learned our lessons with France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Philippines....not to mention our more nefarious, behind the scenes actions regarding Poland, et. al.
Have a short look at the news following the occupation of Germany – “Quagmire� (did they have that work back then?), “Mistake�, “Can’t be done.� History does in fact repeat itself.
Keep this up, dmm, and I will have no recourse but to call you a “demuring liberal decrying self rule and voting.�
Hey porkchopjim, how did our imperialistic efforts in Vietnam work out? And do you think our efforts and situation in Iraq mirrors more what happened in World War II and Germany, or just over a generation ago in Vietnam? Also funny you mention our effort in South Korea, what about the North? To me, they were/are a much bigger threat today then Saddam was a few years ago. Why haven't we invaded them yet?
Vietnam, - not so good. But, we didn't stay, did we? How'd that work out for them? Who was it that said along the lines of "…12 years of bombing and war, and it took the benevolent arrival of the communists to drive hundreds of thousands into the sea, fleeing…�
North Korea – we didn’t stay there, either. Threat? Never heard that before. How many troops do we continually have staged there, protecting the North from imperialistic designs by the South?
I see Iraq much more like Germany than Vietnam – despite what is feed to us daily. We have an odd manner of “Imperialistic� behavior when we attack, rebuild, and then give back. Pick another word.
Accusations of ‘black and white, good and evil’ get flung around as simplistic, but dare we have different approaches to different threats (‘nuance’, is it) – across several administrations, none the less – and it’s hypocritical? This is the kind of burn that the author of the article had.
And, when determining the greatest threat to the US becomes a town meeting event, I’m sure they’ll let us know.
DMM -
I'm surprised at you DMM, who wants people to check the facts about Amquix before becoming involved, but are unwilling to check the facts outside of Michael Moore and his narrow agenda.
I think your reaction speaks volumes as to why Keith Thompson is leaving the left.
You can dig you head in the sand all you want and pretend that threats to the US and it's people don't exist, but the results will be events like 9/11 or worse.
I'm sure that you would have lined up behind the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, on 30 September, 1938, with his Hitler signed paper in hand exclaiming "peace for our time." He thought, if the British would appease and stay out of Hitler's business, that there would be no war, and everyone could, "get a nice quiet sleep."
Jeez people, have I ever said I was a pacifist? Or that I never condone military action and I would prefer Chamberlain-esque faux peace agreements? No. Please re-read what I've written.
Military action was correct and necessary in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us, and deserved to either be blown to pieces or spend a nice Cuban vacation for several years. I also said Roosevelt was correct in trying everything to get us invovled in World War II. Hitler was a true threat to the world and for democracy.
Iraq in 2002, on the other hand, wasn't a threat. We had to trump up our intelligence to make Saddam look like he was (again read the Downing Street memo), but the reality was, he was a paper tiger. It took us weeks to drive to Baghdad and send Saddam crawling into a hole like a mouse. Not a single WMD has been found in Iraq, nor was one ever used against US troops! Repeat, Saddam wasn't a big threat in 2002.
That's not to say Saddam wasn't an evil dictator. He was brutal. But if we are to attack another country's soviergnty based on human rights records, where's the troops in the Sudan or China? Not to mention, let's first fix human rights problems at home first. I'd rather see every American sleep in a comfortable bed well fed before we go risking American lives invading other soveign nations. To me, the military should be used when our national security is endangered, and again, Saddam in 2002 was no threat to us.
The only potential benefit of attacking Iraq in 2002 was the democracy domino theory. Topple a dictator like Saddam and replace it with a successful democracy, and the theory is other Middle Eastern countries would follow suit. The result would be a more stable Middle East, and therefore a more secure US, and the world. But again, re-read what I said about Iraq's history of racial strife and what I thought would and did happen once Saddam was removed. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, and there is a good chance only another strong-arm, militaristic dictator type will be able to bring peace back to the country (if the US leaves). And if he's anti-US, we would have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Now Kim Jong II in North Korea is a real threat. He has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. He's also a ruthless dictator and a megalomaniac. He's Saddam with the firepower, and he's also very anti-American. Yet, we haven't attacked. I guess it's not on Bush's long term agenda and he's not looking for any excuse to do so like he did to topple Saddam.
Last, I've done tons of research and reading on this subject. I'm a student of history as well as someone who enjoys engaging in political debate. I predicted that winning a war in Iraq would be easy, but winning the peace would be as difficult as it was in Vietnam. In the end, we would be no more secure after invading Saddam then we were before, and it would stretch our military too thin, and take focus off of fighting the real enemy, which are militant Islamicists and Al Qaeda.
One more statist blog entry like this and I'm outta here. I can't believe a blog about Amway is defending warfare - what the hell does this have to do with Amway ? Get a grip and keep to the topics you know.
So you guys are saying that US wen Iraq to install democracy and help the people in need? Whose guy saddam actually was? Wasn't elected ... like Mr. Bush. An elected president represents more of his country than a dictator. E.g. An Iraqi can not be judged based on the actions of Saddam, while an American can on some level. No?
Do you 'right' guys really think US never overthrow a democracy to install dictatorship, never carpet bombed and didn't contribute to world hunger?
overthrow a democracy to install dictatorship:
Aristide's democratic government in Haiti
And
http://www.iraqtimeline.com/kangas.html
contribution to world hunger:
http://tinyurl.com/cek73
carpet bombing
http://tinyurl.com/cdn44
Dmm> Al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us
Imran> Did Taliban? And can u please give a proof that Al Qaeda did? Thanks!
The hi-jackers of the planes that flew on 9/11 were mostly Saudis that were known members of Al Qaeda. There is also proof of plans from Osama Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda. Unless you are conspiracy theorists, Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11.
As for the Taliban, they were in league with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Taliban gave Bin Laden safe haven in return for monetary support. The Taliban also came to Al Qaeda's aid and fought in league with Al Qaeda when we invaded Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is more then just Afghanistan as Al Zarqawi is also a member, but in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda equals the taliban.
DMM> The Taliban gave Bin Laden safe haven in return for monetary support.
Imran> A lot of ciriminals seek political refuge in US, Canada etc. from other countries. Including China etc. Talibaan gave Bin Laden political refuge, US gave many folks political refuge.
What is the difference that make talibaan more 'sinister'? Using the same logic, wouldn't an attack on US for giving political refuge to some XYZ is as justifiable as an attack on Talibaan?
Dmm> but in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda equals the taliban.
Imran> Not true. I'll give u more links on the board. I had to dig up some Pakistani newspapers. I have english version of those. There were many differences between Al-Qaeeda and Talibaan. And Alqaeeda was not the main reason Talibaan was considered an enemy.
Hey Imran, if the US government is harboring a terrorist that masterminded a plot to fly airplanes into tall buildings that killed over 3,000 people, whatever country those buildings were in has the right to invade the US.
We rightfully went after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Taliban could have helped us, but instead they defended Bin Laden. That made them fair game in my book.
I thought that was awesome. Qblog, have you ever heard of the CD from Bob McEwan, called "Boston to Baghdad"? It was a talk he gave at last year's Free Enterprise Day. His thought process is very similar to Thompson's. I think you would like that too.
Some info on his Congressional service can be found at http://www.bobmcewenforcongress.com/index.php/p/28/t/Biography
Posted by: Tony | May 25, 2005 5:20 PM