mschindler.com

The War Alternative(s)

100,000 people marched for peace in Washington D.C. today in non-violent protest against the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, which is summed up in a doctrine of American pre-emptive strike against any nation of a perceived threat. This use of force could most likely be used against Iraq, which Congress subsequently supported. Problem is, most U.S. citizens are more concerned with fixing our failing economy then attacking a nation that has yet to do us any harm.

Now, I’m not going to get on a soap box and say that Saddam is a nice guy and that he shouldn’t be held responsible for his actions. But the simple fact of the matter—the one that everyone seems to keep forgetting these days—is that war is not the only answer. In fact, it is the worst possible answer in this case. It all but guarantees more trouble for our country, God forbid something to the likes of 9/11. Instead of drumming up support for a war against Iraq, why isn’t George Dubya putting that Yale educated brain of his to work on a non-violent solution? I think he should consider one of my home grown alternatives instead:

1. End the ecomomic sanctions against Iraq, which only do its people harm. Think about it. If you were starved and poor, wouldn’t you be more likely to latch on to the rich defiant bully of your oppressor, rather than your oppressor, who you see as rich, arrogant, and a bully? These sanctions are short sighted. Iraqis need to be healthy and prosperous. Then they will want a natural coexistnace with the rest of the world and give their leader the boot.
2. Begin an immediate U.S. commission, specifically to work on the creation and use of alternative energies. If someone just did it, just had the courage to stand up and say, “We’re going to figure out how to stop using so goddamn much natural resources (and nuclear waste) by the year 20-so-and-so” couldn’t that change the world? Didn’t JFK do that when he took us to the moon? No one believed that was possible. We could do it for new energy too. And that could potentially make the entire world free from dealing with the likes of Hussein.
3. Begin using real leadership and appointing stronger diplomats. I saw a glimmer of real leadership in the President the few weeks after September 11. I’ll admit it. But all of this militarism is just no good. We want diplomacy, not conflict. I think the American people, conservatives included, are going to react negatively in the next election to this awful pipe-dream, which will spend countless military tax dollars and untold amounts of human life. I hope he saw the future watching today’s demonstrations, but I fear he’s too far in it to turn back now.

Ooooh, discourse. More, more, more…

You know me, always causing trouble. LOL

“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

- John Stuart Mill

We have given Saddam Hussein and other terrorists way more than their dozen chances (read the U.N. resolutions he has blatently ignored after agreeing to) and it is time to stop waiting for things to happen and protect ourselves using PROACTIVE means (need I remind you of Sept 11?). We are not doing the people of Iraq harm — Saddam is; I believe the people of Iraq are more victims of the propaganda of Saddam than the sanctions of the U.N.
While there might be some glimmer of hope that the people of Iraq would oust their leader, it remains to be seen whether they could do so against a strong and oppressive military regime headed by the ruthless dictator. It would be a hell of a long shot to count on the people of Iraq to successfully pull off a mutiny against Hussein, after they finally saw the light when relieved of the pressures of U.N. imposed sanctions.

Creating more bureaucracy to ponder our energy usage is probably not the answer either; look at the state of our current bureaucratic solutions (ie: welfare). Creating a building that houses hundreds, if not thousands, of bureaucrats for the next 50 or more years will only use more energy; we know none of them will turn off their monitors to save energy anyway!

On another note, I have yet to see an environmentalist give up their SUV let alone ride a bike to work or walk like so many other Americana do every day. It always makes me laugh when I see the most outspoken environmentalists driving the gas hogs; I do more for the environment driving my 50mpg motorcycle! This is just a thought, but maybe we should seize the SUVs of any person that believes that we need to cut back on our energy usage.

I do believe that President Bush is showing us true leadership. I didn’t vote for him and I don’t agree with everything he has to say, but he is a strong, moral and capable leader. The only travesty will be if he fails to act proactively (and with good reason) now and we all pay the price later.

-Dennis

Considering your views are so contrary to my own, it just wouldn’t be right for me not to rebuttal here.

I have to point out two things. First, your opening quote is exactly the kind of rhetoric that this administration is counting on to make another war against Iraq a reality. It basically says that anyone who doesn’t believe in proactively starting war is not acting patriotically or somehow immoral. I don’t know any other way to put it. That’s just a load of crap—plain and simple. I am not a pacifist. I believe that sometimes war is necessary. Take WWII. Sometimes it is painfully unnecessary. Take Vietnam. However, I don’t think it should ever be thought of as an absolute necessity to solving our problems. Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons, and I don’t see morality standing out at the top of the list. And someone who blindly follows their government down the path of war is acting unpatriotically, whether they know it or not.

The one other thing that really burned my breeches, although I disagreed with just about everything else you said (respectfully, of course), is the sheer lack of hope you’ve given to my presidential commission idea. It truly is a disappointment because that took me a full five minutes to come up with in the shower! Seriously, it’s not a matter of bureaucracy holding back such an idea. In a perfect world, there doesn’t have to be any bureaucratic red tape. Just tell the energy companies and car manufacturers to start exploring other options. The real reason to doubt such a thing ever happening by this president, or anyone in his administration, is that they’re totally okay with our dependency on oil.

When I say that the president needs to start using leadership, that’s exactly what I’m talking about—thinking long term for the benefit of everybody and listening and talking to others in the international community. I want him to start thinking outside of the military box and business as usual. I want him to figure out how to make our country, and the larger world it is a part of, a much better place. I would not expect less from any leader.