October
15
2008
With the 2008 presidential election soon to reach its conclusion, I think it’s fun to look back on some of the most memorable quotes uttered by politicians aspiring to the nation’s highest office. Here are some of the great zingers and one-liners that stand out in my mind:
“This is a lot like ‘Law & Order’. It has a huge cast, the series seems to go on forever, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.”
The memorable quote was uttered by Mitt Romney during a Republican primary debate. It’s interesting to remember how everyone predicted an especially contentious and drawn-out Republican primary, only to see it come to an abrupt end after “Super Tuesday”.
“What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?”
Wow, this was a fun one! Hillary Clinton used this sarcastic rhetorical question to refute the sexist doubts that some people raised about her ability to deal with tough and “evil” leaders in the world. Most people listening to this remark immediately saw it as a reference to her unfaithful husband (and former president) Bill Clinton. She denied this explanation, but never offered a convincing substitute.
“Yes.”
This, of course, is the one-word response that Joe Biden – a politician famous for talking too much and saying ridiculous things – gave during a Democratic primary debate when the moderator, Brian Williams, asked him if he had the discipline to avoid committing such “faux pas” as president. It took everyone a moment to realize that Biden wasn’t going to say anything more than this, and this simple answer served as one of most ironic and funny moments in the election.
“…and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot…”
This is perhaps one of the most biting and innovative insults uttered by a politician during this campaign. Making reference to the fanfare of the Democratic convention (one of the largest and most energetic in recent history) Sarah Palin sought to compare Obama and his candidacy to the decorative columns on the stage where he gave his speech. It doesn’t take a genius to see that Palin was comparing these decorations – which look impressive, but have no substance – to Obama himself.
“John McCain says he’ll follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives.”
If Senator Obama didn’t come up with this line himself, he needs to pay a big bonus to the campaign staffer who did. Obama delivered this stunning rebuke during a debate with McCain to diminish the claim made by the latter of superior national security judgment, specifically when it comes to the War on Terror.
“(For a middle-class voter to vote for John McCain)…is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders…”
This is the final quote I wanted to highlight, and was uttered yesterday by the AFL-CIO secretary treasurer, Rich Trumpka, while introducing Democratic V.P. candidate, Joe Biden, at a rally in Ohio. Regardless of whether you agree with this remark or not, the imagery is laugh-out-loud funny.
These are some of the memorable quotes and zingers which have stayed in my mind during this election. Feel free to comment below on any others that have made an impression on you.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
October
6
2008
I’ve noted in a previous post how Senator McCain seemed to prevail against Barack Obama in the first presidential debate (albeit slightly). He did this by questioning Obama’s experience in dealing with important foreign policy issues. McCain also capitalized on his support for troop “surge” strategy, which seems to be vindicated by the recent progress that has been made in Iraq.
I think the Democrats need to tread very carefully here. Obama is correct to point out that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place, but McCain has a very strong rebuttal with his focus on the future. According to McCain, how we got into Iraq is far less relevant than how we get out – whether it be with victory or defeat (anyone who is familiar with the principle of “sunken costs” in economics will immediately understand the philosophy behind this position).
If Obama attempts to deny the success of the surge, he risks being seen as a defeatist who is all-to-eager to snatch failure from the jaws of victory. At the same time, acknowledging its success seems to play to McCain’s favor. The challenge Obama faces is trying to point out to the American people that if McCain was wrong about the invasion of Iraq in the first place – regardless of whether the surge has worked or not – he might make a similar mistake in the future. If Obama is going to make this distinction, without alienating those who are encouraged by the recent progress in Iraq, I would recommend he use the following as his rebuttal:
“It’s obvious that Senator McCain and I disagree strongly when it comes to foreign policy. John is correct when he says that I opposed the surge when it was first proposed. Let’s be very clear about something: my opposition had nothing to do with my confidence in our troops, or my confidence in our generals. Ultimately, I was concerned about the surge because of the man who was managing it from very the top – namely George W. Bush. The success of the surge has been a pleasant surprise in a war that has been disastrously managed by this administration from the beginning.”
“I think it’s important for my opponent to acknowledge that while the surge has been successful, it can’t completely undo the damage done by a war we never should have fought in the first place. Regardless of the outcome of Iraq, our children will inherit a tremendous debt of hundreds of billions of dollars. Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and I’m glad he’s gone – but he was one of the biggest enemies of Iran, another major threat to stability in the Middle East. Now that he’s gone, Iran has more influence than ever before. Make no mistake – Iran’s rising power is a direct result of the failed foreign policy of George W. Bush and John McCain.”
“John McCain likes to talk about how he supported the surge when it was unpopular. He deserves credit for taking a stand on difficult issue. I also took an unpopular stand when I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The question I would ask my fellow Americans is this, “Do you want a president who only has the ability to partially fix the mistakes he makes, or a president with the judgment to avoid making these types of catastrophic mistakes in the fist place?” That is the judgment that America needs, and that is what I hope to bring to this great country when I’m president.”
This rebuttal has a couple of things going for it. First, it acknowledges the success of the surge and our troops in Iraq. Obama doesn’t come off looking like a defeatist who is unhappy with the progress we’re making. At the time, it provides an excellent reason for someone to have voted against the surge: specifically, his confidence (or lack thereof) in President Bush. Obama can take a very painful stab at the President (and at John McCain as well) by reminding everyone of how badly the war was managed in the years leading up to the surge.
Most importantly, this rebuttal would knock the wind out of McCain’s strongest selling point on foreign policy. McCain has used his support of the surge, and the prospect of success in Iraq, to counter the overwhelming criticism of the way the war has been handled by a Republican administration. Nevertheless, we all remember the saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Or, more to the point, the judgment to avoid serious problems is better than the judgment to fix them.
Obviously, Senator Obama has a talented staff advising him and helping him develop his rebuttals for the remaining debates in this election. Those advisors would do well to take a similar approach to the one I’ve demonstrated above, or they may find their candidate struggling to battle the same concerns over and over again. After all, Senator McCain’s attacks seem to have served him well to this point, and kept the race close in climate that would otherwise clearly favor the Democrats. Unless compelled to do so, I don’t believe McCain will abandon his strategy anytime soon.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
October
1
2008
Well folks, we’re just a day away from the vice presidential debate. To be perfectly honest, I’m a lot more interested in this veep debate than I was in the first presidential debate. Sarah Palin has been on a see-saw of public opinion since John McCain declared her his running mate about a month ago. Thursday will show us whether his gamble has any chance of paying off.
At the risk of alienating many of the Democratic readers of this blog, I have to agree with the pundits who called the first debate in favor of John McCain. I do this reluctantly, given my distaste over the tremendous arrogance his campaign displayed by declaring him the winner before the debate even happened. But I have to call it like I see it. Barack Obama started the debate off strong, scoring some early hits on McCain by tying him with President Bush and the current economy. Nevertheless, near the end of the debate McCain launched a brutal assault against Obama with the assertion that the latter lacked the strength and experience to guide U.S. foreign policy. By failing to respond forcefully to these accusations, and appearing weak and timid, Obama reinforced the very perceptions McCain was seeking to instill in the minds of the American people. Ultimately, victory in these debates isn’t so much about who gets the facts right, but who creates the right perception of the facts.
Speaking of perception, it’s interesting to look back in time at the debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Al Gore criticized George Bush’s proposed economic policy, stating that it would create huge budget deficits. Bush responded with a wink-and-a-smile by accusing Gore of using “fuzzy math”. This rather unscientific rebuttal appealed to many Americans, and Bush effectively dodged Gore’s attack. Despite the fact that Gore’s predictions have been famously vindicated, Bush’s victory shows that “We the People” are suckers for a great punch-line.
While perception played to McCain in the first debate, it could come back to bite him with a vengeance in the V.P. debate. The importance of this debate could easily overshadow the first presidential debate, and the remaining presidential debates to follow. Many have noted the tremendous pressure on Sarah Palin given the simple truth that John McCain would be the oldest president in U.S. history. Those evaluating Palin correctly point out that she could easily wind up being president herself, and that she merits a higher level of scrutiny than what is normally given to a V.P. candidate.
I would argue that the pressure on Palin goes beyond concerns that many have about McCain’s age and health. I think Palin’s performance will also be a direct reflection on McCain’s judgment – more so than any other V.P. candidate in recent history. This unique circumstance stems from the conditions under which Palin was selected as McCain’s running mate. Generally speaking, presidential candidates choose their running mates from a list of obvious suspects. The media has plenty of time to give us the skinny on each potential selection. When the choice is finally made America is interested, but hardly surprised.
Not so with Palin. She came out of nowhere. Without so much as a hint that she could be a serious contender for the #2 spot on the Republican ticket her selection sent shockwaves throughout the political arena. By straying from the “safe” list of candidates, McCain immediately took hold of the national consciousness. America is rightly asking whether Palin’s selection was the result of careful (albeit secret) consideration on the part of John McCain, or a political stunt designed to steal some of the celebrity spotlight (as well as disaffected Hillary supporters) from Barack Obama.
Opinions are mixed. Independents and political moderates have been put on something of a roller coaster when it comes to Sarah Palin. Personally, when I first heard the announcement my reaction was, “Sarah who?” The shocking choice smacked of a desperate cry for attention on the part John McCain. Nevertheless, her speech during the Republican convention presented us with a strong, confident V.P. candidate whose charisma might just carry the Arizona senator to the White House. I began to think McCain’s decision wasn’t so strange after all – until Palin began giving interviews. Her inability to effectively answer basic foreign and domestic policy questions gave rise to serious doubts about her ability to intelligently discuss the most pressing issues of our day without the help of a teleprompter. Attempts by the McCain campaign to shelter Palin from the media haven’t helped much either.
Whether McCain’s decision to put Palin on the ticket is ultimately percieved as the product of unique insight and wisdom, or a desperate bid for campaign victory, will largely come into focus Thursday night. While many are already dismissing Palin based on her recent interview performance, I wouldn’t be so quick to write her off. The McCain campaign is sure to be working furiously to prepare her for this vital performance. It should also be noted that the setting of a debate appears to be more conducive to Palin than a regular television interview; by its very nature, Palin will have more opportunities to go on the offensive and rely on her penchant for razor-sharp barbs against Obama. Add to that the fact that Biden is likely to tread lightly to avoid the appearance of sexism, and the odds against Palin seem to diminish. If she can avoid being caught off-guard by an important question – and inadvertently channel the ghost of Admiral Stockdale in the process – she just might be alright. If not, it will take an act of God to get John McCain into the White House.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
September
30
2008
Like most Americans, I’m pretty upset about the state of the economy right now. As somebody who’s tried to responsibly invest his money in IRA’s and 401k’s, the recent damage on Wall Street has rippled all the way across the country to my own front door. In the wake of Congress’ inability to pass the controversial “bailout” legislation, the Dow Jones Industrial average plummeted by more than 700 points yesterday – the biggest dip in its history. Whether the House of Representatives’ failure to pass the bailout is good or bad in the long-run is a discussion I’ll leave to economic minds far more qualified than my own; nevertheless, I think it’s safe to say that in the short-run it’s nothing short of disastrous.
It’s not uncommon during times of stress and crisis to look for someone we can hold accountable. Many have laid the blame for our current economic woes on President Bush; others blame Alan Greenspan. Still others blame the special interests which pushed for deregulation. In the end, it seems that there is plenty of blame to go around. The same is true for Congress’ failure to pass the Wall Street $700 billion bailout. John McCain didn’t help things much when he “suspended” his campaign to go fix Washington and single-handedly broker a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, thus turning a serious national issue into a cheap political stunt. But if I had to apportion a majority of blame for this failed legislation, I would have to lay it at squarely the feet of none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
I am absolutely appalled by Ms. Pelosi’s conduct in the wake of this economic turmoil. She has demonstrated nothing short of an absolute deficit of leadership and character during this pivotal moment in history, and my opinion of her is forever tarnished as a result. Now before every Democrat reading this article cries “foul ball!” and eviscerates me in the comments section below, please take a moment to consider what I have to say. Shortly before the vote was taken in the House of Representatives on this bill, when tensions between Republicans and Democrats were already high, Ms. Pelosi felt inclined to give a speech before the entire House blaming President Bush and the Republican Party for the fiscal woes of the country. This diatribe likely pushed many undecided Republicans to vote against the legislation, as a vote for it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.
Is Ms. Pelosi wrong in her accusations against President Bush and the Republican Party? Not really. I think her view is overly simplistic, and ignores the reality that some of the roots of this catastrophe actually extend back to the Clinton years. Nevertheless, Republicans have been in power the vast majority of time this crisis has been brewing. It was the Bush administration that appointed many of the failed leaders who have presided over this economic disaster. The fiscal behavior of the Republican Party over last eight years should shame any true Conservative. But make no mistake – regardless of whether her remarks were correct or incorrect, Ms. Pelosi was unequivocally wrong to use her position, and her podium, to try and score additional points against the opposition when bipartisan cooperation was essential to resolve the crisis.
To be fair, Speaker Pelosi is not the only one who is guilty of throwing mud during this meltdown. But I hold her most responsible for the simple fact that she’s the one at the top. She is the leader of the House of Representatives, a position so important she is actually second in line for the presidency (after the V.P.). While Democrats have a right to be furious at President Bush and the Republican Party for the abuse they’ve suffered these past eight years - and expressions of anger and blame are understandable – a true leader must rise above these inclinations and act in the best interests of the country. John McCain was wrong to try and insert his campaign into the issue and commandeer any credit for a resolution that may have occurred; but Speaker Pelosi made the unconscionable choice to actually go on the offensive. When steady, calm, and responsible leadership was required, Nancy Pelosi submitted to the common human desire for vengeance. She put the proverbial “pound-of-flesh” ahead of her duty to America.
Many Democrats have countered that Speaker Pelosi’s speech is no excuse for the behavior of Republicans who voted against the bailout. They argue that Republican congressmen who put their own egos ahead of the country’s interest don’t deserve their jobs – and they’re correct. So what? America has largely passed judgment on the Republicans for their recent poor leadership. The G.O.P. suffered a tremendous blow when it lost control of Congress in 2006, and if recent polls are any indicator they will suffer further congressional losses in a few months. They may even lose the White House. Yet, despite the Democratic takeover of Congress, the approval ratings for Congress continue to be lower than those for President Bush (I shudder to think of what they probably are right now). During interviews, Speaker Pelosi has responded to this fact by stating that polls still show Americans prefer Democratic control of Congress to Republican control. But all this really means is that people are very, very unhappy with Republicans right now. Unless the Democratic Party can get its act together and show some real leadership, it will find itself back at “square one” in a few years when the country decides that the Republican Party has paid due penance for its transgressions.
The post 9/11 world presented a unique opportunity for the Republican Party. As national security (an issue which has typically favored Republicans) became the preeminent concern for most Americans, the G.O.P. was well positioned to forge a legacy and cement its control over Washington for years – perhaps decades – to come. Nevertheless, they squandered this opportunity and are reeling in the aftermath of corruption, scandal and incompetence. Ironically, as much as Democrats may loathe President Bush, his shocking ineptitude has presented them with a similar opportunity. The Democrats are better positioned than they have ever been to carve out a lasting legacy in Washington; if they squander it, they will have only themselves – and House Speaker Pelosi - to blame for it.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
August
31
2008
“You deserve the best.” I frequently hear this flattering declaration when watching television commercials for everything from automobiles to shaving gel. Yet another familiar phrase, “Don’t you deserve more?” As I watch these advertisements a disturbing thought enters my mind: how does the voice inside my magical picture box know that I actually deserve anything? Why do I deserve the best? Does the simple fact that I exist – that I can effectively consume oxygen – somehow endow my life with tremendous value and merit?
All our lives we grow up learning about the rights and privileges of living in a free and democratic society. It’s not uncommon to hear people vehemently defend their rights to everything from free speech to gun ownership. Yet, why do we deserve to have these things? It’s a strange question to ask in a society where these privileges are taken for granted; merely asking the question feels profane. But the question remains. Why do I deserve more, and frankly, why do I deserve what I already have?
Few activities are more difficult – or more perilous – then attempting to quantify the value of a human life. The EPA recently stirred up quite a bit of controversy by dropping the “value of a statistical life” by almost $1 million (they appraise the current value at $6.1 million). Though no perfect answer to this question may exist, it is nonetheless fascinating to ponder. What value does my mere existence possess, and thus, what rights can I legitimately claim to deserve regardless of any other action I may take?
Many disparage our society as being split between “haves” and “have-nots”. Money (or a lack thereof) frequently determines which privileges and luxuries a person enjoys. These divisions do exist; nevertheless, there are many rights that U.S. citizens (and those from other democratic nations) universally enjoy. It is so easy to get caught up in the things which another has, which we do not have, we sometimes forget about all of the amazing privileges we possess. How easily we forget about essential rights, such as the right to vote. These privileges are given to all, regardless of personal merit.
Let’s talk for just a moment about the right to vote. As we near the next presidential election, we are being hit with a barrage of propaganda encouraging us to perform our patriotic duty by stepping into a booth in November and casting a ballot. This simple act is heralded as both patriotic and noble. Nevertheless, is there anything truly special about pulling a lever? I believe that patriotism cannot be assumed by a simple voluntary muscle contraction, but is demonstrated instead by an individual’s willingness to carefully study the pressing issues of our day – to consider all sides of the political debate – and form opinions that are well educated. A thoughtful vote is patriotic and noble; a vote cast in ignorance is anything but. Sadly, many feel they deserve this tremendous privilege simply because they choose to exercise it (circular reasoning?).
As I’ve debated these questions within my own head, I’ve reached the disturbing conclusion that most of our rights have nothing to do with merit. Many live lives of honor and service, enriching society; others exist merely to consume and exploit it. Despite this disparity our society affords both groups many common privileges. Is this fair? Not really; nevertheless, it is a necessary evil born from the inability for any person or group to perfectly assign certain fundamental rights through merit-based discrimination. Case-in-point: who could possibly be trusted with the power to decide which citizens do or don’t have the right to vote? Indeed, some of the darkest chapters in our country’s history involve attempts by some people to do exactly that. The same can be said for free speech. The power to assign such privileges is simply too great, and the consequences for its abuse too disastrous, to even entertain it.
An obvious exception to this is our criminal justice system. Judges will frequently rescind the rights and privileges of those who violate the public interest. Nevertheless, even these decisions can be extremely controversial. As the exception which proves the rule, the difficulty judges face in revoking the privileges of dangerous criminals only confirms the monumental fallacy of attempting to make this same determination under less severe circumstances.
My final thought on this issue can be explained thusly: just because a person possesses something does not mean that he/she necessarily deserves it. The fact that my citizenship endows me with certain rights says nothing of my character, self-worth, or overall contribution to society. I can think of no greater pursuit in life than attempting to make ourselves worthy of the many gifts and privileges we’ve been afforded. Doing so will provide us with a greater sense of honor and meaning, and perhaps we’ll even make an honest person out of the flattering voice we hear on the television.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
July
17
2008
All right, America, it’s time to have a very serious talk about our energy problems. As much as we may want to blame the President, OPEC, “Big Oil” or any other number of nefarious entities for driving up our prices at the pump, we truly have only ourselves to blame. The biggest reason fuel prices are rising so dramatically is that supply is not increasing (and may be decreasing) while demand is rising sharply. With rapidly progressive economies in India and China, there just isn’t as much oil to go around as there used to be. Unless we find a way to change this equation, high fuel prices are here to stay.
It’s little wonder that in this turbulent political climate, where both political parties are ferociously battling for control of the nation’s highest office, this issue is near the top of the political agenda. Politicians have proposed measures from “gas tax holidays”; to approval for offshore drilling; to a renewed focus (whatever that means) on alternative energy research – all in an effort to win the endorsement of the American people. Yet most of these ideas are either fundamentally flawed (specifically the idea of a gas tax holiday), or will require years to implement.
Most difficult problems in life require substantial sacrifice to resolve. As a general rule, there is no “easy out”. Nevertheless, there is a solution to this crisis which is remarkably simple and requires very little in the way of substantial sacrifice. Sound too good to be true? Well…maybe it is. Though simple, this solution would require us to break one of our most basic addictions – speed. The best way for us to immediately bring gas prices down, and send a message to the oil producing nations of the world, is to lower our national speed limits.
I can’t believe I’m actually advocating this; after all, this is coming from a guy who enjoys cruising in his sports sedan at about 80 mph on the freeway (remarkably, I’ve only been ticketed twice in my life). Let me state unequivocally that I would hate – even loathe – being forced to drive at a measly 50 or 55 mph. Nevertheless, I hate this nation’s dependence on foreign oil, as well as the damage sustained by our economy due to skyrocketing fuel prices, even more.
Lowering the speed limit will almost instantaneously drop fuel prices. Most vehicles are designed to get their best gas mileage at 50 to 55 mph, and fuel efficiency drops off sharply beyond that. By lowering highway and freeway speed limits from 65 to 55 or even 50 (yikes), Americans could continue to drive as much as they are now but gas consumption would go down considerably. As the demand for gas decreases, so will the price. Thus, we’ll be paying less for gas and using less of it at the same time!
But wait! There’s another significant benefit to lowering the speed limit: safety. Studies have proven that fewer accidents occur at speeds between 50 and 60 mph than 60 mph and above. Beyond saving lives, however, reducing the total number accidents will allow us to ease up on safety regulations for automobiles. Don’t misunderstand – I’m not advocating that we abandon safety standards. Nevertheless, the safer you want an automobile to be, the bigger and heavier you have to make it. This tends to wreak havoc on a vehicle’s fuel efficiency. Lower safety standards equal lighter cars, such as those found in Europe and Japan. In America, we tend to think that a car that gets 30 mpg has great fuel efficiency – but in parts of the world where are vehicles are smaller and lighter, it’s not uncommon to see efficiencies as high as 40 to 50 mpg!
Those who oppose lower speed limits will argue that anyone who wants to reap the fuel savings of driving 50 or 55 mph on the freeway is welcome to drive in the right lane. Nevertheless, for this plan to have any significant impact on overall fuel prices everyone must participate. It’s time for us to send a message to the world that we will not be held hostage by foreign oil. Significantly decreasing our fuel consumption is the only way to immediately achieve this.
When we think of the greatest generations in this country’s history, one common thread binds them all – sacrifice. We reverence those morning souls who made painful and difficult choices so that we could enjoy abundance and prosperity in the afternoon. Ultimately, our decisions now regarding oil consumption will reverberate for generations to come. Though difficult for us, a continuing dependence on foreign oil will likely have disastrous consequences for our posterity. How will our children remember us if we squander their future in part because we couldn’t cut back a little on our speed? Personally, I’d rather not know.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
July
9
2008
I recently read an article on MSNBC about a startling new development in Iraq. Apparently, Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is calling for a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops. This announcement is diametrically opposed to the Bush Administration’s consistent refusal to deploy such a timetable. While my own personal foreign policy views tend to lean to the right, I am deeply concerned about the costs to blood and treasure that we have sustained through our involvement in Iraq. With the Iraqi government itself rejecting the need for an unconditional U.S. military commitment we can no longer justify the absence of a clear exit strategy for our forces in that country.
One of the most popular justifications for our continued presence in Iraq, and the failure to set any timetables for withdrawal, is the fear that insurgents will simply “lay low” until we leave and then inflict mass chaos upon the country afterward. This excuse attempts to simplify a much more complicated reality on the ground. First, I don’t believe that insurgents will ever truly “lay low”; violence may periodically subside, but radical elements are driven by hate and will continue to take shots at us whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Second, the fear that our departure will result in a surge of violence may be correct, but it is also the unavoidable crucible which must be taken up by any new government.
Civilization is an artificial construct imposed upon the harsh realities of nature or “the jungle”. In nature, the strong hold dominion over the weak, and violence is a perfectly acceptable means of acquisition. When a group of people collectively attempts to rise above this barbaric existence and resolve disputes through adherence to commonly accepted law, civilization is born. Nevertheless, there will always be elements within the new society that take exception with the ideals and principles of the majority. Often, these elements will resort to the tactics of the jungle – violence and terror – to resist the will of the collective. Such rebellions can only be repressed by the use of these same tactics by society itself. Ultimately, the true test of any civilization’s longevity is its ability to enforce law and discipline – by violence if necessary – among its citizenry.
What does this mean for Iraq? We could win the battle against the insurgents – reduce the violence in Iraq to almost nothing – and yet, when we leave, there will almost certainly be a violent challenge to the new government. Various interests will test the Iraqi leadership to see if it can fill the power vacuum we leave behind. Nevertheless, until the Iraqi government demonstrates its ability to enforce law and order without foreign assistance many within that country will refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. As others have noted, the time will come when we must take the training wheels off Iraq. It will be messy, it will be violent, and it might fail. Few new governments have had the luxury of guaranteed success; indeed, the proud heritage of many nations is their triumph over seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Why should Iraq be any different?
We are reaching a critical period in U.S. foreign policy where we must make some difficult choices – as well as some terrible sacrifices – if we are to confront the most pressing challenges of our time. Many have noted that failure in Iraq would have disastrous consequences – I agree. But can we afford to be held hostage by this single concern to the exclusion of threats posed by rogue powers such as Iran and North Korea? Can we afford to ignore the threat to South American stability posed by Venezuela? At present, our military is spread so thin we cannot even contain a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Beyond these immediate concerns, our compromised military strength will bleed our leverage with emerging powers such as Russia and China. We need to intelligently quantify what additional effort will be required for “success” in Iraq, and determine whether we can afford to pay that price while simultaneously dealing with other equally serious concerns.
To advocate a timetable for withdrawal does not mean that one favors immediate military abandonment of Iraq. Even if such a thing were logistically possible, it would ignore the remarkable progress which has recently been made in brining stability to the country. Ironically, it is this very progress which has likely given the Iraqi leadership the confidence to suggest an end to U.S. military assistance. Regardless of whether we agree with the wisdom of this request, we cannot expect the Iraqi people to recognize the sovereignty of their own government if we are not willing to recognize it ourselves. Responsible foreign policy demands that our military commitment in Iraq cannot, and should not continue to be indefinite. President Bush must acknowledge the will of the Iraqis, as well as the majority of the American people, and deploy a timetable for troop withdrawal. Such a timetable is essential both for Iraqi progress and U.S. foreign policy success.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
July
1
2008
The most terrifying revelation any person can experience is the reality of his/her own existence. The realization that, out of all the conscious entities that are not “me”, there is one that is. This singular epiphany compels one to recognize how easily he/she might not have existed, and thus the startling magnitude of the gift we call “life”. This truth can only be described as frighteningly wonderful as it endows each moment of our lives with overwhelming importance. Any who are touched by this knowledge are condemned to live in a state of blissful agony – relishing every experience, yet mourning each wasted moment. To know true joy and happiness we must expose ourselves to pain and regret. Few indeed are willing to quit their complacency and embrace this truth. Ultimately, like Hamlet, each of us must decide, “To be, or not to be.”
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
June
26
2008
I read a very interesting article in Newsweek yesterday, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is concerned about events in Iraq. This article gives a hypothetical position that Barack Obama could take on our involvement in Iraq, and the speech he could use to explain it. This article represents some of the most fair and rational analysis I’ve read about the war, and parallels many of my personal opinions on this issue. Check it out by clicking on the link below:
Generally speaking, I’ve been very impressed by the articles written by this author, Fareed Zakaria. Mr. Zakaria shows a grasp of the issues that transcends the typical black-and white, right v. left diatribes spewed by ideologues like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. As someone who finds himself stranded on an island between these two extremes it’s refreshing to read opinions that are bold, yet intelligent and rational. I believe that conversation like this is essential if we are to overcome the challenges, both foreign and domestic, which face our nation.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
June
19
2008
Here’s an interesting video of a discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about an attack ad being run by Moveon.org against John McCain. When election season begins to heat up it always seems that our children are being held hostage by the very possibility that one politician or another might get elected. I have to agree with the pundits that this particular advertisement overreaches – the emotional impact swallowed up by a feeling of “camp”. Take a look and decide for yourself.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
Translator
By N2H