On September 11, 2001, George Bush asked the question, "Why do they hate us?" Some people claim that Bush is an imbecile. I don't think he is, in part because I think he already knew the answer to his question. The way he answered the question, though, besides being obviously wrong, was a blatant attempt to keep most Americans from thinking about the real reason for the hatred.
While addressing graduating Air Force cadets in 2004, Bush telegraphed his knowingness of the real reason for foreign hatred of the United States:No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence.
Our foreign policy is entirely the reason that we were attacked. Hundreds of pundits and policy analysts had pointed this out, yet Bush could not be bothered by the warnings. He had his plans to remake the world in his image already drawn up.
It has become de rigeur to brand as a traitor anyone, not who sympathizes with bin Laden, but who simply asks America to look at the valid reasons that Osama bin Laden cataloged as impetus for the 9/11 attacks. In his recent book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, author Chalmers Johnson is not afraid to point out those reasons, as well as to explain why it is paramount that we as Americans listen. Bin Laden protested:
Osama bin Laden is not the only one who is outraged at American imperialist actions. Nor do the ranks of the aggrieved include only radical Muslims (or only Muslims for that matter). Millions of people of all races from several countries, including America, protested the United States' transparently flimsy 'logic' for attacking Iraq--a country that not only had no air force and virtually no massively destructive weapons to speak of, but which also had been decimated by over a decade of sanctions against delivery of such things as medicines, foodstuffs, and parts to rebuild their electric and culinary water systems that had been intentionally destroyed during Operation Desert Storm.
For a few fleeting moments after 9/11, the world was on our side. Most people around the world subscribed to the feeling that "We are All Americans". However, instead of reacting to 9/11 in a way that would retain the world's sympathy, we have reacted in myriad ways that should outrage the moral sense (and do outrage those who have not capitulated to the faux morality of American military might).
Admittedly, it's not all George Bush's fault. Hatred of American imperialism, usually because of our attempts to 'enlighten the little brown people,' has been brewing for about the past 100 years. Our imperialistic squashing of local initiative in such far-flung places as the Philippines, Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, and Cambodia have earned us the ire of those who wonder: if freedom is good enough for Americans, why is it not good enough for them?
If we don't listen to the rest of the world and start playing by the rules (such as the Geneva Conventions, a treaty, which, by having been ratified by the US Senate, is Constitutionally binding) our chickens will come home to roost.
In Nemesis (page 18), Johnson quotes James MadisonOf all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded.
In no instance where the US has intervened since 1947 on behalf of democracy has democracy been the actual result. However, a plethora of current and former dictators can thank American foreign policy for their continuance in dominance over their peoples.
Madison went on to say...war comprises and develops the germ of every other [enemy of liberty]. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The same malignant aspect...may be traced to the inequality of fortunes, and opportunities for fraud, ...and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals... No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Such loss of liberty has been the result in nearly every country in which we have intervened, and the same result is occurring here in America. So does George Bush know why they hate us? I think he does. At any rate, if he does, he's a liar and a megalomaniac. If he doesn't, he's a dunce.
Either way, George Bush is not fit to be president of the United States. I'm glad I never voted for him!
Frank Staheli served in the US Army National Guard for nearly 25 years, including 2 tours during Operation Iraqi Freedom (one in Iraq). He also writes for SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com. Please click on the links below for SUMP articles related to the subject of this article.
- Imperialism and Environmentalism: The Twin Pillars of American Suicide
- With Imperialists Like These, Who Needs Communists?
- Confronting the Radical Islamic Monster: Benazir Bhutto "Got" It
- Crafting the Iranian Enemy: Part 1
- Are We Really Fighting the War on Terror? Or Are We Carefully Capitulating to the Perfect Political Paradox?
29 comments:
Frank, you are commenting on behalf of the right?
Here is my opinion on your post, from what I understand, and I don't pretend to understand perfectly, so be patient with me and if you need to correct me please do. From what I understand you are saying what many liberals are saying, that we brought these attacks on our own heads and the world has a right to hate us and Bush is evil, and war is always evil no matter what the circumstance.
I think I will hold my comments til you respond, or clarify for me.
Summarize if possible, cause that is what I got.
Looks to me to be more of a Ron Paul point of view?
Stephanie,
You hit the nail on the head.
Jaronius,
I am not commenting from a position in the political aisle. I am commenting from what I believe is a position of truth.
The statement that "Bush is evil" is a bit simplistic, but in my opinion Bush has done a lot of things that someone who respects the Constitution would never have done.
I do NOT support the claim that war is evil no matter the circumstance. War is always justified in self-defense against an attacker. Saddam Hussein, however, did not attack the United States, nor did he have the ability to, which is part of what I was referring to in the article as "transparently flimsy logic".
If you put yourself in the shoes of Afghani and Iraqi civilians, you'll probably understand how menacing the United States is to them. When we kill 48 (mostly) women and children at a wedding party, that's why they hate us. When we use extra large bombs because Saddam might be in a very deep bunker, and a multitude of civilians are killed, that's why they hate us. When a family drives past a US convoy without pulling off to the side of the road, and a little girl is killed who is learning to write "My name is Abia" (I forget the real name, but I was there when it happened) in English, that's why they hate us.
The entire premise for attacking Iraq was that Saddam was abetting al Qaeda. Everyone who cared to study knew by late 2002 that that was not the case.
Frank - excellent post, and welcome aboard. I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the last bit:
So does George Bush know why they hate us? I think he does. At any rate, if he does, he's a liar and a megalomaniac. If he doesn't, he's a dunce.
Either way, George Bush is not fit to be president of the United States. I'm glad I never voted for him!
I'm proud to say I not only voted against him both times, but actively campaigned for both of his Democratic opponents. Of course, I'm guessing you don't think that's any better, but we can agree to disagree there. :)
We went to war on an outright lie, specifically the WMD nonsense. Bush's (and now McCain's) foreign policy scares me like very few things do. McCain's saber-rattling on the subject of the Georgia/Russia conflict brings to mind Cold War-era policies and Cold War-era thinking. The world is not so black-and-white as the neo-cons make it sound. Lost in all of this is the FACT that Georgia actually started the whole mess.
On another note, it cracks me up every time to hear McCain continue to rail against Obama's insistence that we sit down and negotiate with our enemies, when the vast majority (67%) of Americans agrees with Obama, according to a recent Gallup poll.
What is it exactly that our enemies want to negotiate over?
Does it matter? Why are we so afraid to talk to them? The way to make a friend out of an enemy is to find common ground and work out differences, not to invade their land, overthrow their government, and occupy the place for 20 years.
It does to me. Part of being a good negotiator is knowing exactly what it is that you want and what your next best alternative is, and trying to figure out what it is for the other side. You need to do your research before going into the negotiation. I'm interested to know what exactly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants from the U.S. He appears to want to wipe Israel off the map (or at least dissolve it - some interpretations of what he said are that Israel would "vanish from the pages of time") Is that negotiable?
He also said: And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.
Look, I'm not defending Bush or the U.S.'s policies in the middle east. But, I think it would be naive to ignore the posturing coming out of Iran and just "come to the table" to see what he wants.
Jaronius - how dare he! How dare a "conservative" say something that a "liberal" might agree with! Isn't the whole point to pit us against each other and for us to disagree on every available issue? What's the fun in holding common viewpoints based on something other than two-party politics? :)
Welcome to the blog, Frank. When Ron Paul said basically this exact thing in one of the debates, I almost jumped off the couch and kissed my television. I was so happy to hear someone say, publicly, in a national forum, what I had been thinking for a long time. I will always be grateful to him for sticking his neck out there and invoking the Holy Wrath of Rudy Giuliani and speaking his truth.
Stephanie wrote: Part of being a good negotiator is knowing exactly what it is that you want and what your next best alternative is, and trying to figure out what it is for the other side. You need to do your research before going into the negotiation.
Who said anything about going in blind? Of course we would do our homework before we would negotiate. I'm not advocating sending my kindergartner over to meet with Iran, we're talking about the President of the United States here. We're talking about negotiations without preconditions, not negotiations without seriousness or sanity.
And just because Ahmadinejad doesn't recognize Israel doesn't mean we can't have civil negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program, for instance. Not talking to your enemies because you disagree with them, even on fundamental issues, is absolutely silly.
Okay, BBD, then what exactly do you think they want to negotiate over? If it cracks you up so much that McCain disagrees with Obama, what is the part of the picture that McCain is missing?
Frank, you say, "Our foreign policy is entirely the reason that we were attacked."
The evidence is clear that U.S. policies for the past 60 years and particularly with GWB have ticked off Iran. So, if starting today, the U.S. left Iran alone (and stopped imperialist-type actions throughout the world), would Iran leave us alone? Does Iran have no other agenda?
Obama and McCain have a lot in common with regard to their position on Iran. Both agree that Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. (taken from Obama's website)
Obama's solution is diplomacy first, including If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. Is that what Iran wants? Is that why Iran is threatening Israel and supporting terror? To get into the WTO and to gain normal diplomatic relations with the U.S.?
After that, Obama's step #2 sounds like McCain's step #1: If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress. (again taken from Obama's website)
That is as far as Obama takes it, and if you believe that diplomatic relations and economic incentives are what Iran is after, then Obama's plan seems like a good one.
But, what if Iran really does want to threaten Israel? What does that mean? Does that mean the U.S. should get involved? Obama admits that Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust. Do they want to repeat something like it? I know Ron Paul thinks that Israel can defend itself and would be better off if the U.S. exited the picture. McCain says The United States and Israel are the most natural of allies and that alliance will stand forever. John McCain will honor America's promise of "never again" against any enemy.
I guess that I can see Obama's point: try diplomacy first. And I can see McCain's point: diplomacy might not work because if they really want to annhilate Israel or us, diplomacy won't solve the problem.
Copying from your post on Benazir Bhutto, you said, The radical Islamist monster must be confronted and stopped. Do you think Iran is part of the Islamist monster? If so, how do you propose they are stopped?
McCain's statement of, "The United States and Israel are the most natural of allies and that alliance will stand forever" is a pretty strong statement. Forever??? Does that mean their alliance is unconditional? Like the US will defend Israel in the event that Israel is the aggressor? I know that the Israelis have been subject to horrible terrorism, but their hands are far from squeaky-clean in the conflict.
I wonder if McCain is planning an eternal alliance with Georgia as well, simply because it happens to be a former Soviet Republic and therefore will ALWAYS need help to stand up to the old-USSR because it is ALWAYS the aggressor.
Talk about doing your homework, I think that McCain, Condi, and the whole gang skipped class on the day that a very pertinent part of the Georgian-Russian crisis was taught. I guess it doesn't really matter now though, because they've already picked their teams.
Earlier in the campaigns, some liked to make Neville Chamberlain the poster-boy for diplomacy and they were comparing Obama with him. Like "what a fool Chamberlain was to have dialogue and negotiate with a maniac like Hitler." Ahmadinejad could turn out to be just such a maniac, I don't doubt that, and war just may be inevitable someday, just as it was with Hitler. But why discount Chamberlain's efforts? The fact that he couldn't stop Hitler through diplomacy and dialogue means that no one will be able to stop Ahmadinejad?
I don't look at Neville Chamberlain's efforts as a complete failure. Why? Because without him, the war may have started even sooner and that would have led to even more deaths and destruction. I think the same with Iraq if the US had, at the very least, waited until the UN inspectors finished their job. Hans Blix said that the US grew too impatient and I agree. If he and his inspectors had been given more time, Bush may have been satisfied that there were no WMD's and now he wouldn't look like a warmonger in the eyes of most of the world.
But maybe he suspected Hans Blix was going to tell him what he didn't want to hear and he didn't want to wait around for that.
FD, (Bush and Iraq aside), isn't one of the prevailing thoughts in the U.S. that if the U.S. had gotten involved earlier in the conflict with Hitler, it would have prevented lives from being lost? He was killing so many people, and the other world powers were basically doing nothing about it. Isn't that one of the lessons we are supposed to remember from the Holocaust?
I am sooooo with you.
here's the deal, a child's future is formed by the time he /she is 3. Those mo'fo's over there are born to hate and kill us.
Defense is not evil.
John McCain is The Man.
No doubt the US getting involved helped the Allies defeat Hitler in the end and yes, if they had gotten involved earlier than many lives probably would have been saved - and lost. Hard to say. The toll of lives may not have been much different, but the war may have ended sooner, which could have resulted in less lives being lost -- certainly Jewish lives at least. But I wouldn't say that the other world powers were doing basically "nothing" about it. I think they did the best they could! British and Canadian forces fought hard, both with huge losses, not to mention Russia. Soviet losses were enormous -- the most of any country I believe. Somewhere between 25 and 30 million. I would say that was "something."
Stephanie,
I get what you were talking about now. You're right, the Allies made some huge mistakes near the beginning of WWII, known as "der Sitzkrieg."
You can read about it
here on Wikipedia.
So the war probably could have ended much sooner if the Allies hadn't stalled the way they did.
I'm just not sure it's the same case with Iran or Iraq.
Okay, you're right. The U.S. basically did nothing until after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the U.S. did not enter war with Germany and Italy until they declared war on us several days later. So, the U.S. entered WWII as a means of self-defense.
But, looking back, isn't the prevailing thought that we should have involved ourselves earlier - that we should have attempted to stop the spread of aggression by Hitler? Isn't that one of the lessons we are supposed to remember? That part of the genocide could have been prevented?
I'm not sure it's the same case with Iran or Iraq either, but I also don't think the possibility should be whitewashed. Just because invading Iraq appears to be a mistake doesn't mean that Iran poses no threat. I know that McCain is aware of potential danger - I am not so sure with Obama. That doesn't mean that I want McCain to attack Iran because he suspects something like Bush attacked Iraq - just that I appreciate his awareness.
Stephanie, the likely end result of the Iraq war will be the consolidation of a Shiite pro-Iranian government (ruling over a nation that might be marginally democratic but will also be as corrupt as Hussein's Iraq, and more repressive of women).
Under Hussein, Iraq was Iran's enemy. Thanks to the sacrifices of our troops, Iraq will be Iran's ally.
In the 1980s, under Reagan, the strategy was basically to keep Iraq and Iran at each other's throats. That's why we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war of that decade: so that both countries would be weakened, so busy bleeding each other that they (especially Iran) would pose less of a threat to us and our allies. This is why there exists that famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. We supported him so that he could be our proxy in fighting Iran. So what if he occasionally used chemical weapons against his own people? The Reagan foreign policy was "realist," and such things could be overlooked.
For whatever reason, Bush decided to change the Reagan realist approach with his own neoconservative approach, and many of the old Reagan crowd have been arguing for some time now that Bush made a terrible, terrible strategic error that has weakened us diplomatically and economically, and strengthened Iran (as well as Russia--both countries are definitely enjoying the petrodollars we send them courtesy of our $4 per gallon gasoline).
And what does McCain think? He supports Bush. "Support the troops! Trust me, I was a POW! Obama lacks experience! He's a celebrity! He eats arugula!" Beyond that McCain doesn't say. It's hard to tell if he even understands the difference between the Reagan policy and the Bush policy, much less explain why he thinks the latter, against all the evidence, to be superior. He has, however, revealed evidence that he doesn't know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. Obama at least understands that much. So does Joe Biden. And Sarah Palin? Oy. She appears to be a woman so utterly lacking in intellectual curiosity, even about matters fundamental to her soldier-son's welfare and her own role as a citizen, that she cannot even be allowed to answer reporters' questions until she's had a crash course in foreign policy. What a sick joke McCain has played on us all.
--David
Stephanie,
I am glad you agree that our foreign policy for the last 60 years has been a problem. I would go farther by saying that (1) World War I was something the US had no business being involved in, and (2) the burdensome reparations that the Allies placed on Germany at Versailles after WWI allowed for the rise of Hitler.
Iran is perhaps part of the radical Islamist monster, but we (and the Brits, mostly because of oil) had a major hand in the current situation there today. The Iranian leadership is perhaps crazy, but the people for the most part aren't. A major effect of attempted negotiations with Iran will be to get the Iranian people to realize that we haven't completely given ourselves over to becoming the Imperialist Monster.
Frank, your comment reminded me of an article I read: Ahmadinejobless. It appears that Ahmadinejad and Bush have quite a bit in common, which is really rather scary.
Wow, Frank - not much to add - except to say thank you - thank you for being conservative and voicing that - I think that Every American needs to hear that - and the conservatives hearing it from conservatives is especially nice. It is actually quite scary to sit and think about how much the WORLD hates us - not just Iraq - not just the middle east - but the world - I have spent alot of time overseas in the last few years - in countries that we would largely consider allies - and whenever US foreign policy comes up in discussion with citizens of these countries, they get on the warpath - I mean, there is an anti-US drum being beaten - and it is being beaten not by some international consipiricy to bring us down, and not by radicals and liberals, but by the citizens of the free world. Unless we get some CHANGE QUICK, we are in for some scary times. I, for one, don't want to have the world as my enemy.
Frank,
Thanks for clearing the air for me.
I forgot how long it takes to catch up with all the comments after being gone for only a few days. You guys are animals.
I don't know if your desire, Frank is to remain non-committed, or unaffiliated, but does conservativism align itself most of the time with what you consider is your position...or maybe better put, do you find that conservatives most usually agree with you, or do liberals? If you don't want to make that generalization, I can understand.
Just trying to feel you out.
Wizzle,
Look, I am sure you can appreciate that I was just hoping to hear someone representing how I feel about things. It seems like every liberal blogger you guys have tend to agree on most issues and can rally around the banner,(maybe you guys only have to take the contraversial side of things to be true to your position, so it is more defined,...just kidding, don't lynch me, just having fun at others expense.)
So, it would be nice to hear from someone that I can agree with, but maybe that is the problem with conservatism, my definition is obviously different from yours and Ricks, and possibly from some other "conservative." My core principle in my mind, defining my conservativism, generally speaking, is more government will always cause more problems, states should have more power than the federal gov't, capitalism so far has been the best course to ensure freedom, and we need to uphold the constitution and declaration of independence in order to preserve our country's freedom. Some have called it foundationism. Hence the Conserve part of conservative. The majority of problems we have developed today are result of too much government.
Stephanie seems to close, I think Amy may have been closer, I don't know Frank well enough, I have yet to disagree with Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, except where they assume to know others motives, and that is my biggest complaint about liberals. How can anyone presume to know Bushes motives, (Bush to me seems to be not so conservative, but more than Mcain.)
I hear left and right why he is so bad because he knew that or this before did this or that, but to know perfectly why, you would have to know the details of every situation around every decision made.
I am sure no one is gonna understand where I am coming from on this...so to generalize: to judge a person based on their motives, is to me entirely flawed. I am trying really hard to trump myself on this issue, though when I listen to Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelousi, or Biden, or Kennedy, it is really hard to not assume they are trying to destroy freedom, or they don't give a hoot about the "little guy."
I like best the approach of learning from the past, like Frank's blog indicated. Realizing what problems we may have caused, and trying to do better. At the same time thought I thought it was over-analytical and over-assuming of social processes, who can assume to know cause and effect so perfectly to draw so many conclusions, based on events we as individuals may not be involved in.
"Stephanie seems to close", should read Stephanie seems to be close, (to my definition of conservatism, that is.)
Bush to me seems to be not so conservative
Many of Bush's policies aren't very conservative. His fiscal policy forgets the "small government" argument altogether - it's not tax-and-spend, it's spend-and-don't-tax. Clinton's fiscal policy was more conservative that Bush's. Dubya's administration has also been very authoritarian, seizing power for the Executive branch in ways we have never seen before. If you define conservatism as the desire to conserve small government and limited federal authority, he hasn't been conservative at all.
Which is why Bush is so disliked. He's not liked by liberals for the ways he is conservative, and he's not liked by conservatives for the ways he is liberal. You can't please two (task) masters. McCain is running a smart campaign right now in distancing himself from Bush. What do you Obama supporters think of the current poll numbers? It looks like McCain's VP pick gave him a pretty good post-convention bounce. I think that overall, people want change. They just aren't sure if they want Obama's kind of change.
Believe me Dave, I have never felt so misrepresented as I have by supposed conservative voices in Washington, I doubt there are even a small handful. Bush particularly has been a betrayer, however, at times I feel that I have seen evidence of some conservative values at times.
Lately, it seems that Bush has tried to pick up the fiscal responsibilty card, but obviously wasn't taken seriously.
Many republicans claim to exhibit conservative values, but always seem to fall short. Washington must be some sort of vortex that feeds off values of any kind, cause everytime politicians get there they seem to forget who sent em there.
Be interesting to see what happens to Palin in Washington, if she can walk the talk, and if she gets there.
Jaronius,
I suppose by "conventional wisdom" I would be called a conservative. It makes it even easier to be called conservative if (as has already been discussed on this thread) George Bush is NOT considered a conservative.
But I've never really liked the term conservative since the time that the Soviet politburo was called such after they tried to thwart Gorbachev and the fall of Communism.
Therefore, I prefer to be called a Constitutionalist.
I disagree with Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et al. on a "regular" basis, particularly for their America-can-do-no-wrong point of view, when clearly our government has done a lot of wrong.
**Regular Basis--I am a Glenn Beck insider, I listen to Rush when I run errands in the middle of the day, and it's a blue moon before I listen to Hannity, but nearly all of the times that I hear him he bugs me. Probably because he was such a loon when Rocky Anderson cleaned his clock in the U of U debate 18 months ago.
Post a Comment