About Me

Name: Soldier Dad
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Understanding v. Appeasement

Posted by Soldier Dad on Friday, July 28, 2006 10:58:22 AM
One of the difficulties in the war on terror, whether it is being waged by the United States or Israel, is determining who is really responsible for the conflict.  Most reasonable people understand that the blame for escalation should be placed squarely upon the shoulders of those people who pick up weapons to kill and enslave the innocent in the name of an ideology of hate.  But what about the arguments from the other side, that they are responding to perceived affronts and injuries at the hands of the West?

When confronted by such arguments, most Americans get understandably irritated.  We may do things they don't like, but this does not absolve anyone of the full responsibility for their actions.  It is one thing to think American soldiers in Saudi Arabia are an insult to Islam, but quite another to launch a suicide attack against those soldiers.  Similarly, there is a vast difference between wishing the Muslims controlled Jerusalem and actually launching rockets into Israeli civilian towns.  At the moment that someone makes that essential transition from disgruntled to destructive, that individual bears the sole responsibility for his actions.

But it gets us nowhere to ignore those of our actions that our on someone else's list of grievances.  Acknowledging that American military presence or cultural predominance is a thorn in our enemy's side does not equal appeasement or capitulation.  American policies should never be changed unless changing them is in our long-term interests.  But if we don't understand what is irritating our adversaries, we'll never learn how to neutralize them.  So the next time Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the next terrorist group du jour presents their argument against the West, it would do us some good to pay attention.  Understanding the enemy is the first step toward defeating him.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Overly Dramatic over al-Maliki

Posted by Soldier Dad on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:52:41 PM
 Iraq has now had several elections in which the people of that country selected their leaders.  I'm sure we all remember these - as if we could forget something that featured massive news coverage of people running around showing the first stages of Smurf Fever, blue fingers and all.  And the thing about elections, particularly since the Democrats got all snippy a few decades ago about American involvement in foreign politics, is that they reflect the wishes of the nation that votes, not the United States.  Granted, some American policymakers seem to need a reminder on this one, especially when they are shocked and outraged that the Palestinians elect Hamas or the Lebanese vote for Hezbollah.  But when it comes right down to it, we respect the wishes of a foreign public.

So why can't some Democrats resist the opportunity for unnecessary theatrics by refusing to attend Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's address to a joint session of Congress?  If they're really so eager to see a fully sovereign Iraq as they claim, surely they should respect the man who represents that vision.  American Congressmen are not his constituents and as the free leader of a democratic country on the other side of the world (albeit a country that would erupt into flames without American soldiers on the street corners), he has a right to determine his own platform and his nation's policies.

So he won't condemn Hezbollah.  Did we really think this man, with close ties to Iraq's own Shi'ite leaders, would do anything else?  He seeks democracy, peace, and stability.  But he's a politician and probably seeks a second term in office too.  And let's be honest - those Democrats who were conspicuously absent at today's speech probably don't really want to condemn Hezbollah, either.  These are good old cease-fire-at-all-costs types.  But they have constituents, too, and they also face re-election.  Surely they wouldn't hold someone else to a standard they can't meet?  Oh, wait, never mind...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Human Rights & Double Standards

Posted by Soldier Dad on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:24:39 PM
Maybe we brought all this on ourselves by being so, well, good for so long.  Maybe we should have seen it coming.  And by "we", of course, I don't just mean Americans but the entire civilized world.  But however you interpret the "we", the point still rings true.

What's the problem?  Human rights and how despicable and mean we, the community of nations that do not cut off human limbs, that adhere to constitutions, that stand up for the victim and the criminal, that see the innate divine spirit in every human heart, just how mean we can be.  Have any doubts?  Read Human Rights Watch's reports on the Middle East conflict orAmerican detention centers.  They acknowledge that the Other Guys are bad, but irritatingly insist on telling us just how bad we are as well.  So many Americans, and now Israelis, find themselves in the unfortunate position of defending their own behavior by pointing to how much worse someone else's is.

Let's get one thing clear: no injustice can be accepted on our part, just because someone else committed a worse one.  This is a morally fallacious argument that does a dishonor to our noble history and high standards.  But let's set one more thing straight - we are better when it comes to human rights, better than Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Yemen, China, Russia, Iran, and a laundry list of other countries.  We don't want to be let off the hook and we know our shortcomings should be pointed out when and where they occur.  But just because we set our sights higher and demand better out of ourselves, it is not OK for us to face twice the punishment for half the crime.  Whether inaccurate and misleading portrayals of Western "injustices" are deliberate or the unconscious result of deep-rooted feelings of guilt, they are still false, inappropriate, and damaging to the causes of truth and the very basis of international human rights.  Come on folks - intellectual honesty may be hard to come by, but I think you can do better than this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's So Bad about John Bolton?

Posted by Soldier Dad on Monday, July 24, 2006 11:00:49 AM
What's so scary about this man?
 




So maybe his moustache is slightly unnerving, but otherwise he seem OK.  Yet John Bolton is still able to strike fear into the hearts of weak-kneed internationalists the world over.  Even Americans, clearly his target demographic, have been known known to break down in tears over the prospect of him representing the United States to the UN.  According to such people, Bolton is essentially a menace to peace, security, truth, justice, the American way, innocent young children, future global stability, sustainable resources, and sweet, adorable puppies and kittens.

But as John Bolton's recess appointment to the United Nations winds down and he faces Senate confirmation, it is clear that he is really only a danger to the complacent bureaucrats that keep the place afloat.  The UN is not going away, no matter how much wishful thinking some of us engage in, and it is apparently not going to get any more responsible, at least while Kofi Annan is at the helm of "reform" efforts.  So how do you deal with a resistent, rebellious, and redundant bureaucracy?  You certainly don't send some go-with-the-flow, simpering people pleaser.  An unwieldy bureaucracy demands someone with unyielding principles.  So bravo, Bolton.  Surely handling the Senate has to be easier than handling the Security Council.  Best of luck - and be sure to keep Kleenex handy.  You never know when a Senator might need them
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Problem with Lebanon

Posted by Soldier Dad on Friday, July 21, 2006 12:52:54 PM
Since the current conflict in the Middle East is ostensibly between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon appears to be getting the short end of a lot of sticks.  Its territory has been hijacked by a quasi-autonomous terrorist group that answers primarily to foreign governments.  Now it's getting pummeled by an angry Israeli military, suffering heavy damage to many targets that have little to do with Hezbollah and experiencing numerous civilian casualties.

But the problem is that Lebanon is no innocent bystander in this instance.  It had two viable choices when the war began.  It could have sided with Israel, sending what portions of its military that would be willing to go (i.e., not the part still loyal to Syria) to help pin Hezbollah between a military on its front and its back.  Or it could have openly sided with Hezbollah, expressed the outrage of an invaded country, and fought back against Israeli incursions.

Yet it did neither.  Perhaps it is trying to hide behind a facade of incompetence - perhaps that incompetence is real - but it is offering de facto support to Hezbollah by refusing to fight it.  Lebanon may not have wanted a war, but it got one and by refusing to take sides, it may as well be standing shoulder to shoulder with the fundamentalist aims of a terrorist group.  Lebanon may have begun as a victim, but is now a major part of the problem.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somalia's Rowdy Border

Posted by Soldier Dad on Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:29:22 AM
The most popular border in the world these days, at least in terms of international diplomatic attention, is definitely that between Israel and Lebanon.  But it is not the only point of conflict and is not even the only one in which Islamists are flexing their muscles.  Weeks after an Islamist coalition seized power in the fractious, war-stricken Somalia and began executing citizens summarily for such heinous crimes as watching the World Cup, there are reports of Ethiopian soldiers crossing the border, allegedly to support the UN-approved and completely powerless transitional government in the town of Baidoa.

There is no love lost between Ethiopia and Somalia, as the two countries represent two divergent historic cultural traditions in the Horn of Africa.  Ethiopia's traditional Christian majority has been diminishing in recent years and the growing Muslim power represents a threat to conservative forces.  This has exacerbated tensions with the majority Muslim population in Somalia.  While the possibility of Somali unrest spilling into Ethiopia was frightening, Ethiopia's leaders now face a potentially more disturbing danger in an Islamist government that would likely support the growing Ethiopian Muslim community.

The world can and should remain focused on the Middle East at the present time, but if we forget about East Africa, the future could become bleak indeed.  In addition to the humanitarian crisis of a conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, the world would face economic disruption and massive security concerns if the regional lawlessness spread into the local waterways and essential choke points.  If only it was as safe as it is easy to focus only on one area of the world, we would be OK.  Time to keep our fingers crossed that we're as good at multitasking as everyone hopes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shifting Alliances in the Middle East

Posted by Soldier Dad on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:57:34 PM
One of the (many) luxuries of being able to watch a conflict from afar is the opportunity to play armchair strategist.  For the people facing an ongoing barrage of explosives in the Middle East, there are much more important things to think about, like not ending up on the wrong end of a Katyusha rocket.  But here in the United States, we can reflect on the Big Issues, like how this war will impact our household budget and the effect it could have on the November elections, while we leave the small stuff, like survival of family and friends, to somebody else.

And so there is a growing mountain of commentary on the Middle East conflict, as everybody has an opinion and the Internet gives all of them the opportunity to make it heard, if only to the 3 sleepless adolescents who stumble onto their blog in the middle of the night.  And one of those strange things about the American response to Israel is that it is making for some pretty unusual allies.

First there are the liberals who find themselves in a rare moment of agreement with President Bush.  Bill Maher marvels at the sensation of being on the same side of any debate with Bush and applauds his refusal to make any moral equivalence between Israel and the non-state terrorist thugs on all of its borders.  Then there are the old-fashioned isolationist conservatives like Pat Buchanan who argue right alongside the bastions of "progressivism" that Israel's response is an unjust, illegal, and immoral assault upon Lebanese civilians and their democratically-elected government.

And we cannot forget all those other liberals who are not swayed into the hawkish camp by the sight of Israel under seige.  Always looking out for the little guy, they're now standing by the solidly chauvinistic, relentlessly repressive, and undoubtedly anti-choice Hezbollah.  Oh, well, wait a minute.  Western liberals and non-Western totalitarian types on the same side?  Maybe that's not such a strange combination after all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by Soldier Dad on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:55:00 PM
Certain words and phrases just drive me nuts.  Much like an innumerable number of pop songs, what begins as catchy quickly becomes overdone.  "Mainstream media" is one of those phrases.  If I never heard it again, much less typed it, my life would be OK.

But to stop talking about it, it would have to stop pulling the same tired old tricks.  Just today, an AP story on Iraq reminded the country that the media just can't be trusted to check its bias at the door.  I know journalists, like all humans, have their beliefs and I know those cannot always be avoided and I know that a whole lot of what the media does is really OK and done in good faith.  But when someone writes a story about the insurgency in Iraq and titles it - without any suggestion or implication that this is analysis, rather than news - "Violence in Iraq spinning out of control", they're really dropping the ball.

Things in Iraq are not great.  Conflict between Shiites and Sunnis is escalating and some of the attacks are breathtaking in their audacity and brutality.  But I am fairly certain that Mr. Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer, is not qualified to determine whether the violence is "spinning out of control".  And unless somebody can be bothered to put "analysis" on what clearly fits that description, the Associated Press is probably not qualified to be trusted.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Back on (Slightly More) Familiar Territory

Posted by Soldier Dad on Monday, July 17, 2006 1:18:28 PM
One of the strange aspects of the current conflict in the Middle East is that while this is not the standard Arab-Israeli war of the past and is instead a conflict between Israel and non-state actors laboring under the deadly ideology of Islamofascism, it may just help focus world attention on the importance of sovereign states on the war on terror.  Since 9/11, the United States has been grappling with the difficulties of fighting a war against an enemy that does not have a capital, a government, or a flag.  But as the world is learning more clearly every day, states do have a role to play.

Israel might be fighting Hezbollah, but everyone knows that the real enemies are Syria and Iran.  Hezbollah is merely a tool of two sovereign governments in which Lebanese militants get the finances and equipment they need in exchange for toeing the correct ideological line.  The problem of Hezbollah will never go away, no matter how many Lebanese targets Israel bombs, until Syria and Iran reenter the community of responsible nations.  This is not to say that Israel should, or even could, fight these two giants of radical Islam, but denying their preeminent role gets us nowhere. 

It is true that only ideas, not firepower, can fight other ideas and that the destruction of the thuggish Syrian and Iranian regimes will not end the scourge of Islamist terrorism.  But it would be a massive blow to the financial and organizational forces that facilitate its deadly aims.  A war with Syria and/or Iran, fought either by the United States or Israel, would be difficult and require sacrifices by all citizens so substantial that the will to fight may simply not be there.  However, the American people and the world must understand that unless the source of Islamist terrorism is destroyed, it will continue to spread its tentacles throughout the seemingly safe and free nations of the world.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Understanding Israel's New War

Posted by Soldier Dad on Friday, July 14, 2006 9:33:49 AM
Like many people, my initial reaction to Israel's military response to its kidnapped soldiers was skeptical.  If the United States responded similarly every time a soldier was kidnapped in Iraq, there would be very little of the country left.  There is a legitimate argument to be made, and one that civilized nations have made for centuries, for the value of proportionality and by any objective test, targetting civilian infrastructure like power plants, roads, airports, etc., with the substantial wrath of the IDF, opening the door to a humanitarian disaster and considerable collateral damage, is a disproportional response for the abduction of one or two soldiers.

But any fair-minded evaluation of the situation has to confront the fact that none of this is really about kidnapped soldiers.  It is an understandable response to the years of assault and persecution that the nation of Israel has had to bear.  Israel's historical record is certainly not spotless and shows the scars of misjudgments from time to time.  Yet it has endured the near-constant barrage of missiles launched from the very territory that it surrendered a year ago.  It has long lived with the constant threat, and often the very tangible reminder, of the deadly ideology that sits on all its doorsteps.  And it cannot take a single step in the international community without facing the condemnation that accompanies relative power and that frequently shows signs of despicable prejudice.

The unfortunate Israeli soldiers who, if still alive, are in the hands of their archenemies were merely the proximate and not the absolute causes of this war.  The real causes stretch back decades and span international borders deep to the heart of Iran.  It is a war, like all wars, that must be handled with care and President Bush is right to urge restraint.  Israel has the high ground in this conflict, but undue escalation could undermine that advantage in a hurry.  But its grievances are valid and its injuries real.  Appeasement might be the popular solution worldwide, but no one knows better than Israel how deadly its repercussions can truly be.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by Soldier Dad on Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:45:26 AM
Sure, President Bush and the rest of the world's leaders have a lot on their minds this week, what with North Korea's missile tantrum, Iran's continuing irascibility, escalating violence in Afghanistan, continuing violence in Iraq, violence building toward war in Israel and Lebanon, the G-8 summit, and the long roster of events that keep each government busy with what's happening domestically.

All of these things are pressing, potentially deadly concerns, but while we focus on those, we allow an equally dangerous situation to grow more stable and and secure every day.  Two weeks ago, Somalia's lengthy and devastating civil war finally appeared to end with the establishment of an Islamist government that shares very much with the Taliban in its early days. 

This means not just oppression for the Somali people, but a major geopolitical threat for the United States.  An Islamist Somalia can not only be a haven for terrorists, but can have a potential impact on international shipping through its location across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, another repressive haven of anti-American extremism. 

It's always easiest to deal with threats before they gain the additional legitimacy that only time and power can bring and the window of opportunity for neutralizing Somalia's new government is disappearing quickly.  The Bush Doctrine, for what it was ever worth, saw the value in supplanting tyranny and fundamentalism with democracy, if necessary at the point of a gun.  Somalia would have been an excellent opportunity to try that again.  If nothing is done, the chances are very good that we will be merely delaying, not defying, the inevitable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…1011121314151617181920Next »