Tag Archive for war at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'war'

On War Veterans and What Should be Remembered

Published by Colin November 12, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 45 Comments

Because this issue is tremendously sensitive for so many around the world (for a variety of reasons, I might add) I want to place a few fundamental points directly at the top. First of all, I have a rich tradition of veterans in my own family - my grandfather in the US was drafted and served in WWII. My father fought several years in the bloodiest era of the Ireland/UK conflict. My grandfather-in-law, whom I consider as my own flesh and blood, fought in three wars. My Grandfather in England was a conciousness objector during WWII - and probably bore many scars from this experience as well.

I have to note this at the start because, sadly, many readers struggle with separating abstract positions from specific persons (”how dare you say that about my grandfather who…” ). Secondly, they have difficulty separating tradition, ideology and propaganda from historical reality (”We were good and we were fighting evil…”).

The Premise
My only major assumption from which I am deriving my argument is that the State is not a morally neutral entity. Every single person, family or organisation that comes into contact with the state is either a victim or a collaborator with an entity that is wholly and entirely premised on theft, murder, lies and subjugation. If you have problems with this premise, then you might have problems with this piece. Please take the time to view these resources (1, 2, 3, 4) to give this argument a fair shake, as it will not be dealt with here.

Veterans are Primarily Victims
Veterans have similar ambiguity about their situation. Many are victims of the state - they were threatened with jail, fines even death unless they killed other men they otherwise would have no conflict with whatsoever. They were/are forced to commit crimes against others in order to prevent crimes being committed against them by the state. Many who sign up willingly are also victims - as these have been deceived by the state in order to engage in a cause that they might originally believe to be just, but only much later might realise was wrong.

Veterans, for the vast majority, are victims and should be remembered in the same way we remember those affected by murder, genocide and persecution. But we must also remember who did this to them - we must remember who is responsible for so many widows, fatherless children and a legacy of lost life - namely, the State.

It is one of the greatest ironies that it is the state which pushes for the celebration of veterans. The state wants us to remember “the sacrifice” of these men (as though most went to war willingly or without being deceived) and not the fact that many of these victims were in fact sacrificed.

There is No Moral Legitimacy in Aggressive War
I have reflected on this recently, as I have become good friends with a German my age here in England. We have remarked several times about how we would be on opposite sides of a conflict, quite possibly trying to kill each other if, by chance, we happened to be living in the 1940’s. I want only the best for my good friend - and how many men, who otherwise might be friends, whose wives would be friends, whose children would grow up together - wantonly killed one another under either the threat of aggression against them by their own nations or because their government led them to believe that their fight was one for the greater good.

There is no morality present in the philosophy of “the end justifies the means” - that by committing evil, we can bring about good. It is morally bankrupt. Morality is absolute and unchanging. It is not subject to men - it is above them. Any “morality” that can be bent, broken or adjusted based on the relative morals of society or by the designs and strategies of men is not morality whatsoever.

Soldiers Give Us Freedom?
Lastly, there is a tremendously erroneous idea propagated as part of this subject - that soldiers are somehow responsible for “our freedom.” In many instances, nothing is further from the truth.

The soldier, by his very nature, is contrary to freedom - his job exists to destroy property and life, as well as subjugate the freedom of individuals. Consider that if freedom comes from the military, then it is no better than mob-rule and might-makes-right. Is this a moral philosophy?

We do not gain our freedom from the military or as a gift of a benevolent state - as though our freedom were a welfare check or a gun. We obtain our freedom, as Thomas Jefferson eloquently wrote, from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Freedom is a gift from God, and choice and responsibility are given to men from His hand. Nature speaks of the greatness of God to do this and also testifies, in how He ordered it, to the fact of freedom as the inherent state of all men.

Aggressive war is a crime - a blasphemy against God’s order and purpose for men. This is what should be remembered. Offensive war (or pre-emptive, to use the new term) is sin and cannot bring about good, which only comes from God (James 1:17). In fact, the same passage reaffirms the moral objectivity of God and the absoluteness of his order: “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” If we dare to view wars and veterans in the same light, than we have to re-evaluate our support for wars, the way we remember veterans and the legitimacy and morality of our current authorities.

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream

Published by Colin September 8, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Would anyone born into an extreme society be aware of the exact nature of that society relative to history? For example, if there was a bubble thrown around Soviet Russia (in many ways there was) - wouldn’t the people of that society view ideas like free-will, free-markets and free-speech as extremes? The norm might be long lines for basic necessities, rampant crime, neighbours, friends and family disappearing and never returning.

In many ways, the centre of mainstream society can be measured by what ideas are considered extreme. We look back in hindsight at societies such as Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia as though these movements became mainstream by magic. We ignore the history and conditions which made certain ideas, leaders and philosophies popular. We see images like this and this (warning: graphic) and assume that this guy is soley to blame. We fail to realize that perhaps the most important explanation of these images is this one. We presume that extremism will come into our society announcing itself with nazi flags, poverty or honest people being locked up right away.

So many American Christians are terrified of such boogey men. Take fighting radical Islam - which is often compared in mainline conservatism to a war against “fascism“and Iraq is compared to World War II. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Islamic Law, radical Islamic repression, widespread Islamic Terrorism and Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic elements in government will never become a reality in the US.

Extremism Doesn’t Look Like Extremism
I suspect that Sinclair Lewis is a little closer to the mark: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This is not a statement to be ignored - it is backed by historical patterns that are repeated over and over again. Extremism rarely comes from outside a society, but it cultivated, embraced and implemented from within. Adolph Hitler wasn’t released on the world until he had secured power in his own society using tradition, religion and philosophy that Germans were familiar with. In other words, we must be more fearful of internal extremism gradually overtaking those historically accepted and mainstream “Americanisms” - the constitution, freedom, Christianity, security, prosperity, capitalism and “democracy.”

American Extremism will look like patriotism. It will be embraced by the dominant religious elements: Christianity in this case. It will be described as traditional American values such as free-enterprise, democracy and security.

Because extremism moves into the mainstream culture, language and political system - the best measure is historical context. For example, “liberal” is used today as a cuss-word against left-wing democrats. I accepted this as the historical definition until, when I was twenty, I visited a memorial to Meriwether Lewis and was shocked to see Thomas Jefferson use the term to describe Lewis:

Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction, … honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth…

I looked into it and found that the mainstream definition is relatively new, and in fact completely the opposite of what it had meant for hundreds of years. If it weren’t for the word “libertarian” - we might not have a word that summarises something close to the definition of liberal.

Case in Point: GOP Primary
But this has happened with so many things. Conservatives in the past eighteen months have been calling Ron Paul a radical and a fringe candidate. And he is - in that his positions aren’t mainstream in the slightest nor are they what is now called “conservative.” There is a radical gulf between Paul’s view and the conservative movement.

But that is what should scare us - and if conservatives would stop marching forward and question their orders for a moment, they might get a glimpse of where they are going. For example, “county first” was plastered all over McCain’s convention - is that phrase responsible? Is it biblical? Is it actually patriotic? Should that be the moral and political priority of conservatives and Christians? If that is an acceptable idea, is a rally worth $16 million in money taken from the country, celebrating one man, in one political faction a genuine articulation of that ideal?

How Extremist Leaders Win the Support of Otherwise Principled Men
What does it mean when those voices calling for objective morality and the rule of law are considered extreme in favour of embracing those solutions with “reasonable,” “common-sense” and short-term sacrifices to solve problems that were first created by such measures? Conservatives don’t like Paul because a purer form of traditionally conservative ideals comes out so different than the practices of what is now called conservatism. Conservatives would rather align themselves with men who share almost none of the deeper convictions, morals and ideals of their own movement, but who will still give lip service and token support to popular conservative causes (abortion, family, military). They will support unprincipled extremists who are promising that they will ignore their nature. This is foolishness - but a familiar path that humanity has taken in placing reckless, unprincipled men in power.
Continue reading ‘When Extremism Becomes Mainstream’

The Foolishness of Confronting Russia

Published by Colin August 12, 2008 in Current Events. 89 Comments

While I was racing around frantically last night to try and arrange the last minute details of my move to England, I was shocked to hear whatever conservative talk show host that was on the radio calling for the president to send US troops into Georgia to fight Russia. The host went on a long tirade about “protecting our national security interests” and how these missions must be handled delicately because of the gravity of the international relationships at stake.

It boggles my mind, when the economy is tanking and the currency is being debased to pay for our military expenditures, that some would be so quick to commit more blood and treasure to yet another conflict in some far-away land to fight some other global threat.

Is this what conservative foreign policy has been reduced to – sending troops at the bat of an eye on the basis of a vague ideal such as “national security interests?” This is recklessness.

Believe me, if I ever believed that the security of my family or my property were at risk, I would be the first to show up at the recruitment office with my guns in hand. I would gladly defend my home and even my neighbours from an imminent threat. But the idea of sending US troops over to start a war with in Georgia against Russia would definitely be the blow that absolutely cripples this country.

I presume that most conservatives do not share the views of the radio personality I heard last night. John McCain is arguing for a US military surrogate (NATO) to do the dirty work. McCain suggests using diplomacy “force Russia to withdraw from Georgia.” Last time I checked, diplomacy was about giving and taking, negotiating and making voluntary proposals. “Force” however, ultimately means threats and coercion which must be backed by aggression. McCain is clearly engaging in double-speak.

Yet another war would be disastrous for the US. Our economy is swirling around the toilet and our important relations around the world are dissolving. We need to wake up and start plugging holes or this ship is going to sink.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part III

Published by Colin July 17, 2008 in General. 19 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?

Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!

As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.

However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.

Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.

This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.

Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.

It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.

This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:

…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).

A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).

A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.

McCain and Obama both Clueless on Patriotism

Published by Colin July 7, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 4 Comments

I never read Parade Magazine in the Sunday paper for the same reason I don’t read something like People or Time - in short, it’s total crap. I am generally not interested in celebrity gossip, oversimplified political analysis or to know how much people make. However, I couldn’t help but see Barack Obama and John McCain on the cover with the question “What is Patriotism?” below.

Upon turning to the articles that each of them “wrote” (most likely someone wrote these letter for them), I was not surprised to see identical rhetoric from both of them. Essentially - patriotism is submission to the state and the total suppression of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John McCain
The lead answer for McCain was: patriotism is “putting the country first.” Specifically, this means:

…it is the sacrifices of so many Americans, at home and abroad, in times of peace and times of war, that give meaning to all of us. We are blessed to be Americans, and blessed that so many of us have so often believed in a cause far greater than self-interest, far greater than ourselves.

McCain looks immediately to the military, war and militarism to sell his point. Americans need to support the American Empire because it is killing foreigners in their own countries which keeps us free and “give meaning to all of us.” Actually, McCain is right on this account. It was Randolph Bourne, after four years of this principle put into action in World War I (ironically, the “war to end all wars”) who wrote that “war is the health of the state.” McCain’s potential presidency, the careers of politicians and the constant expansion of government power in the name of never-ending emergencies or crises is sustained by drumming up and redirecting the fear of Americans from their own government towards some external threat - be it Iran, global warming or gas prices.

If the revolutionaries had this view, they would have gladly yielded to the British Empire and submitted to the taxes, trade restrictions and suppression of liberty (mild compared to the modern US Government). They would have fought for Britain in more foreign wars, personally submitted to its king and docily handed over their wages and wealth with a smile because they “put the country first.”

Barack Obama
Obama’s short answer was not so terrifying as McCain: “Faith in one another as Americans.” But it doesn’t take long for Obama to start praising war and welfare as the health of the state:

…true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good. For those who have fought on the battlefield under the Stars and Stripes—for the young veterans I meet at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or those like John McCain who endured physical torment while serving our nation—no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands inspire me…

When politicians say “sacrifice” it means us, not them. In times of “sacrifice” the government itself is increased and benefited while individuals are trampled upon, stolen from and killed. In other words, patriotism means that more individuals readily give up their lives, liberty and property with diminishing resistance.

For Obama, who would use the power of the state to dramatically interfere with economic liberty, this is especially true. So that insurance companies can have a state-enforced monopoly, American’s should sacrifice their their little-remaining rights to choice and freedom in healthcare. Perhaps we should also sacrifice to the special interests that both Obama and McCain would give our tax money to in the name of “fighting global warming.”

What Patriotism Is

I have never heard a more inspiring message of patriotism than one given on the house floor last year. A short excerpt barely does it justice:

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state…

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax…

Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Ron Paul outlines patriotism in a nutshell: it is unwavering resistance to collectivism and an authoritarian state.

McCain and Obama clearly would move the government in a more authoritarian direction. They are both anti-patriots, who triumph the suppression of individual rights and expansion of power (and the inevitable resulting abuse) of the state.

Links: McCain’s Gaffe, Oil Strategy and God is Green?

Published by Colin May 9, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

We recently talked about some counterfeit gospels. Maybe we should have put “green-ism” or “environmentalism” in there as well. From Jew:

God is Green. Really? The apostles must have forgotten to record Jesus’ teachings on environmentalism, because I don’t see it in the Bible. Oh well. What can we expect from a website that says “What makes you feel love and forgiveness? If you can find these, you have found God.”

Fixing The Oil Problem
Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming has outlined a plan to temporarily relieve gas prices. Well, it’s not so much a “plan” as a command to the government to stop taking oil from others who need it so it can sit in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Barrasso’s bill, S. 2927, instructs the federal government to stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 per gallon, and the price of diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 per gallon.

“Everyday the government is pulling tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil off the market that could otherwise be used by truckers, airlines, and our neighbors,” Barrasso added.

In other words, it’s that same old story that always follows government intervention: unintended consequences. The very problem that the SPR was created to fix (oil embargoes from the middle east causing high prices/shortages), it has now caused: high prices and shortages.

Barrasso is just making economic sense of a stupid policy. What do we expect when the US government itself is demanding massive amounts of oil - especially to just store in unused tanks “just in case.”

McCain Admits What We’ve All Known: Blood For Oil
Speaking of oil, John McCain got grilled last week after admitting in his speeches something that even Obama and Clinton would shy away from saying:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Once again, we have unintended consequences playing out. We go into Iraq to secure natural resources we ~~need~~ want (which happen to belong to someone else) and find that our intervention has created so much instability and chaos that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up over 400% of what it was pre-invasion. Go figure.

One Final Goodie from Bush & Co.

Published by Don Emmerich April 30, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 79 Comments

Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.

Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.

Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”

The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.

So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.

First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.

But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,

It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.

I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)

Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.

Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.

It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.

From Vietnam to Iraq: Learning from Our Mistakes

Published by Colin November 28, 2007 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 65 Comments

In the fall of 2004, as I was getting closer to finishing my undergraduate education, I began to breathe easier knowing that I’d soon be leaving the constant barrage of “left-wing propaganda” at the University of Oregon. Like many current college-aged conservatives - I was holding on for dear life to the mainline conservative mantras in the hope that I would pull through my college experience without succumbing to the mind-washing ideologies surrounding me.

No conservative agenda was more attacked than the War in Iraq, and naturally, I defended that war all the more fiercely. But that began to change when I took a seemingly unrelated class on the history of Vietnam. Reading former Communist Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang’s book A Vietcong Memoir allowed me to look at a conflict similar to Iraq without being concerned about the current political debate.

An Overview of Ideology in Vietnam
For Americans on the outside looking in, the politics around the Vietnam War were commonly drawn up in the oversimplistic terms of American might versus the global Communist revolution. Yet for those within South Vietnam’s nationalist struggle for independence, like Truong, the War and the time period surrounding it meant something completely different. Starting from his first encounter with Ho Chi Minh until his eventual exile a few years after the War, Truong and many like him in the various organizations he helped pioneer and participate in, saw independence as the ends of a struggle that employed various means.

He did not want to see Vietnam be the subject of a colonial power (such as France), occupying country (such as the United states) or global ideology (such as Communism). Truong was above all, a nationalist who wanted to see an end to foreign occupation, influence and manipulation in the South as well as a strong, liberal, free and democratic government structure to eventually be unified with the North through peaceful means.

How Violence Becomes the Answer
Why was an otherwise peaceful, democratically-minded individual like Truong drawn to ally himself with such radical and violent communist groups? After all, Truong was not a communist, nor was he sympathetic with their ideology, methods or goals - however, he hated seeing his country occupied. He wanted to be free - left alone by the powers of the world so that he, and his countrymen, could make for themselves a society that reflected their values and culture.

But the US, the latest in a line of occupying powers, was not leaving anytime soon. Moreover, they subverted these noble ideals as illegitimate regime after regime was set up by US agencies. For people like Truong, it was clear that the US was not going to be bargained with and that war was the only alternative left open to them in order to secure freedom. The communists were the most prepared for war and they had plenty of funding from China to make things painful for the US in the South.

The Iraq Parallels
In a war against occupiers, people who would otherwise be enemies (communists and nationalists in this case) are drawn into tight alliances. In many ways, we are seeing the same thing in Iraq - there is strong support for democracy oriented movements in the middle-east. Iraq was burgeoning with such a movement before the US-led invasion, hence the easy sell to the public by US officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example:

I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

But liberation soon turned into another long occupation in their land and those who originally welcomed us are ready for us to go and let them pick up the mess. But we aren’t leaving, and our leaders and future leaders are pledging years of occupation. Naturally, at some point, after seeing his family and friends traumatized by the violence surrounding him, the typical peace-minded Iraqi is going to give up on waiting and instead join with terrorists and insurgents. Though he is probably a moderate Muslim and hates the terrorists, he hates the US (and the occupation it represents) more and would rather ally with radical terrorists and try to do something about it than sit back as his life is destroyed as collateral.

In fact, we should consider that imitation is the best form of flattery. Many of the insurgents, rather than hating US ideals, are demonstrating the universality of freedom and liberty. They love those ideals which founded the US - and they are fighting an occupying power just as our founders did some two centuries ago.

Consider the state motto of New Hampshire, “live free or die” - it is a noble phrase, and yet in many ways, it is the rally cry of those moderate Iraqis who have joined with their enemies (and ours) to fight the US.

Iran and the US: The Shared Goal

Published by Colin September 13, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Aside from the US war in Iraq, the next most pressing foreign policy question is the developing conflict with Iran. Many on both the right and left have put forth proposals outlining everything from sanctions to a preemptive nuclear strike. What makes Iran so dangerous?

They are clearly a radical fragment of the global Islamic movement

they are developing nuclear technology, which, according to most analysts, could be ported to weapons in as soon as ten years
they actively fund and support insurgents fighting against the US in Iraq (more so than any other state, they are “the other side” in the War on Terror)
They have declared that Israel should be removed from statehood, by force if necessary

Primarily due to these reasons, many Americans are naturally a little worried about Iran. At the very least, they are hostile towards the idea of Iran continuing on their present course. American officials (including the candidates for president in both parties) are presenting the country with the idea that the worst case scenario is a very realistic possibility. In fact, just yesterday, it was announced that plans to bomb Iran are now in the works.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever… The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat.

From the Other Side
However, in the eyes of Iranians, the US is not exactly seen as their buddy. Not including direct US meddling in Iran since the 50’s, the typical Iranian is going to fear the US for the following reasons:

They are engaging in a global “War on Terror”, which up to this point has only been against member of their religion and in their geography
They have nuclear weapons and some of their leaders and potential leaders have threatened to use them
They have actively supported Iran’s enemies in the region and even rebuilt entire nations in their area. They actively fund hostile regimes, even supplying them with weapons and training
They took Islamic land by force and created a belligerent Jewish state right in their midst

It not surprising that many Iranians, who were on the verge of toppling their own extremist regime (with a pro-diplomacy, pro-capitalist one), have now decided that, while they hate their own government, the US and it’s policy are much more dangerous to their way of life. Likewise in the US, where congress and the president have approval ratings at historic lows - people are clearly more afraid of terrorists than of the US government.

The Shared Goal
Both governments, ironically, have a common interest - fighting each other. If the US government is able to preserve the spectre of a global Islamic terrorist threat, then, despite the infringement of liberties associated with the “sacrifice” for war, the current status quo will survive and even prosper. If the Iranian regime can convince it’s people that the US is out to both directly and indirectly fight against their religion and nation-build in their region, then the people will not turn on them.

Naturally, the only requirement of these governments is not to change policy, but to balance an escalation of conflict with the quenching of dissent. This is not by way of a conspiracy or a unified agenda, but just like any issue which transfers into votes (gas prices, abortion, homosexual marriage), it is naturally in each politician’s best interest to drum up problems that government needs to fix. The perception of an aggressive Iran is as good as gold in an election year.

For example, after announcing his candidacy for President, former Sentor Fred Thompson has declared:

…if we look weak and divided in this country, we’re going to pay a heavy price for it in the future. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb, and they’re not going to go away. They’re here now, they’re armed and dangerous, and they’re trying to get weapons of mass destruction… Iran is becoming more and more obvious, a major, major problem for the United States of America. They are killing our people… they’ve got 3,000 centrifuges now and basically reprocessing that uranium enough to get fissile material within the next few years and most experts think well on their way to making a nuclear weapon and, of course, they’ve threatened Israel… I don’t know how much more stark the situation can be. They perceive us as being weak. They perceive us as being divided, and they think they can get away with anything.

The same is true for the Iranian leaders, only their situation is much more dire, as they were near radical change towards moderation. Everyone has heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats and strong language, yet even a cursory look into the economic and military condition of Iran shows that they have no muscle to back this up. However, this desperation has bred the same kind of dissent quenching language. Take Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in March:

The only way to oppose and react to such aggression and coarseness is to preserve our national unity… [The Americans] are determined to divide us. That’s why all the political parties must stand together under the banner of the imam... Under the pretext of sectarian feelings, religious inclinations and gild orientations, the enemies are bent on destroying unity of the Iranian nation or fan religious differences in the world of Islam and draw a wedge between the Iranian nation and the rest of the Islamic community by inciting war between Shiites and Sunnis …In God’s assistance, all people of every sect or religion will expedite their hopeful move towards their bright future, at the same time all Muslim nations will demonstrate their unity by promoting Islamic solidarity and fraternity.

The Hype Factor
Like most complicated issues (it’s not really complicated, but too complicated for talking points) this common interest has been generally missed in the smaller (and more emotional) issues like nuclear technology and anti-Israel statements. However, the essence of the debate was most recently captured on the Factor when Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly squared off on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpkOg4q-3c

O’Reilly has a vested interest in a conflict (or at least the hype thereof) because it gives him something to rant about. Dr. Paul’s “history lesson” which “may or may not be true” (so let’s exchange talking points all day on it) is boring and calms people down when they should be fired up. Otherwise they are not terrified of the major catastrophe brewing in the Middle East (unless America is over there kicking butt).

The reality is that just as the current unpopular leadership of Iran and the US share a common goal, the citizens of these countries will be the ones who pay for any conflict in taxes and with their lives. As in every war, the leaders of both countries will demonize the other side while simultaneously speaking of the necessary sacrifice involved to “win” the conflict. While it may be in the leadership’s best interest to promote conflict, it is obviously in everyone else’s interest to seek peace.

Zeal For Truth