Bush's War Policy: The Top Campaign Non-Issue?

[galtgulch]

www.aynrand.org

Bush's War Policy: The Top Campaign Non-Issue?

By Elan Journo

It's staggering to think that as we march toward a seventh year at war, Iraq (let alone Afghanistan) is hardly an issue on the campaign trail. Of course, nobody has forgotten about the war. But there's been no substantive debate on it, either.

John McCain, echoing many conservatives, regularly touts the supposed gains of the "surge." Upon his return from visiting Iraq, he declared, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." Barack Obama even grudgingly conceded, at one point, that the "surge" was working. And when liberals do challenge President Bush's war policy, they complain not about its goals, but about the crushing financial cost.

The war's a backburner issue in the campaign because--strange as it may sound--critics and cheerleaders of the President's policy judge it by the same spurious benchmark. They focus myopically on whether insurgents have been kicked out, for the time being, from one street, in some neighborhood of Baghdad. If that's success, then the issue can be pushed out of mind.

But nobody would have bought that as a vision of success, in the devastating aftermath of 9/11. And nobody should buy it now. The only rational benchmark for success is whether Washington's policies have made the lives of Americans safer from the threat of Islamists. Judged by that standard, Bush's war policy is an abject failure.

Bush vowed to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," and warned that either "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Bush's war policy, however, was not to target the greatest threat, but instead to minister to those in greatest need. It was to show compassion to oppressed Iraqis and Afghans, to raise them out of poverty, to give them elections.

Six-plus years into a "war on terror," Washington has done nothing to counter the spearhead of the global jihadist movement, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States has allowed it to grow stronger. Iran races to acquire nuclear weapons; it taunts and threatens our naval vessels; it arms and trains insurgents in Iraq in attacking Americans; it backs jihadists across the region--all with impunity.

What about Iraq? Four thousand-plus U.S. troops died so that hostile Iraqis could elect a new gang of anti-Americans to sit in Baghdad's parliament. Iraq's government is still dominated by Islamist groups, which still operate death squads, and it is still deep, deep in Iran's pocket.

Across the Middle East, Washington campaigned for elections in the strongholds of various Islamist groups--such as Hamas and Hezbollah--that it should have worked to destroy. Many people, true to their ideological beliefs, voted to give these groups more political power. Naturally, the jihadists feel encouraged. According to a new study, the Iranian-backed Hamas has amassed at least 80 tons of explosives in Gaza since 2007, and it has also got its hands on anti-tank weapons. So expect another Islamist war emanating from the terrorist proto-state of "Hamas-stan," which Bush's policy helped create.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Director, al Qaeda is gaining in strength and prepping new recruits who can blend into American society and attack domestic targets. Jihadists are now fighting to re-conquer Afghanistan, and to "Talibanize" large patches of Pakistan. The Afghan-Pakistan border, reports the National Intelligence Director, "serves as a staging area for al-Qaeda's attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as a location for training new terrorist operatives, for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the United States."

This is what Bush's war policy has achieved: an enemy that has no fear of us, that spits in our face, and that is gearing up to kill more of us.

This is what a "compassionate" war policy, aimed not at defeating our enemies but at serving the welfare of Iraqis and Afghans, had to achieve. It is a policy that put their lack of freedom and lack of wealth ahead of our moral right to end the threat of Islamist aggression. Bush's policy held that it was our duty to enable these hostile peoples to vote their political conscience--while evading the fact that so many avidly support jihadist goals.

Shame on Republicans for promising to stay the same disastrous course and toss thousands more troops onto the sacrificial pyre of Iraq. Shame on Democrats for squandering the opportunity of a campaign year to offer us a real Plan B--an alternative policy that would actually combat state-sponsors of terrorism.

Each of us deserves--and should demand--more of our leaders. We deserve a foreign policy that truly upholds our right to security.

Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

[Chris Grieb]

ARI is always talking about Iran. Yet the Saudis are the big exporters of fundamentalist Islam to the US and other countries.

I am beginning the wonder if the problem is just not Islam which is not a religion of peace. The only way Islam is a religion of peace is that there is peace after everyone becomes a follower of Islam.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[studiodekadent]

The comment about Iran being the "spearhead of the Jihadist movement" totally ignores the Sunni-Shia distinction. Sunni's and Shia's hate eachother more than they hate the West.

[Mike11]

The ARI's position is that if you throw dirt in someone's eye - ie the Shah for example - and they fight back just keep punching em in da face an day be not wantin tah fiche you any moe. This is not the case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

Don't forget about using the American government diplomatic corps for making sweet backroom deals with dictators for American multinational corporations, which are great contributors to political campaigns and whose stockholders often include family members of American politicians. That's just on the surface. Imagine what is hidden.

The American government has to stop doing this crap and take the moral high road if it truly wants to reflect moral values. One day the politicians will learn that blatant hypocrisy is a turn-off to many voters.

If that could be curtailed (doing business with bloody dictators and pretending it is something else) and then American political leaders decided to wage war against a foreign power they deem to be a threat, I can't think of any reaction against it that would have a chance in hell of being effective.

Michael

[Mike11]

Joel,

Don't forget about using the American government diplomatic corps for making sweet backroom deals with dictators for American multinational corporations, which are great contributors to political campaigns and whose stockholders often include family members of American politicians. That's just on the surface. Imagine what is hidden.

The American government has to stop doing this crap and take the moral high road if it truly wants to reflect moral values. One day the politicians will learn that blatant hypocrisy is a turn-off to many voters.

If that could be curtailed (doing business with bloody dictators and pretending it is something else) and then American political leaders decided to wage war against a foreign power they deem to be a threat, I can't think of any reaction against it that would have a chance in hell of being effective.

Michael

I don't think there's much hidden underneath to be honest, our middle east disasters have been based on overt self interest mixed with selective memory. In another thread for example it was said that Islam is a threat for what has gone down in Lebanon, forgetting that for decades the Christian minority ruled tyrannically with the support of their French and Israeli sponsors, us against them. Pity they won. Its the mentality which allows for justifying the Israeli colonial movement on account of the terrorists as opposed to a far more truthful reading - terror in defense of one's home caused by said colonials.

There.

I said it.

These disputes are not far removed to the English occupation of Ireland, America, Egypt... Take any population that can't smack you in the face. Say that makes them primitives. Steal and murder on a massive scale. Use the reactions as further justification to murder and steal. Watch the population retreat into religion after the failure of non religious responses (the ones we killed the first time around). Call the religion primitive. Steal and murder some more.

Many Americans, like the ARI people, would be perfectly happy using a false image of Islam as a convenient justification for naked greed. This is also why the ARI supports the historic extermination of Natives in the name of "Reality! Reason! Rights!" and every other instance of White psychotic behavior.

We be civilizen da world for dem ingrates! With some oil, land, diamonds, furs, and slaves on the side.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

I'm with you on just about everything. I have to be. Any simple examination of human history bears it out.

That is, except the implied condemnation of Israel. I think it is OK to criticize Israel (and I think all excesses should be bashed in public), but it is a double standard to condemn Israel. This is more than a word game.

To be clearer, the monstrosity practiced against the Jews was so great that I believe they have more than a right to act to secure a safe harbor. The problem is where.

They wanted that damn patch of desert so the world gave it to them and told the local inhabitants to move over. Anywhere would have been fine, but the Jews wanted there because of their traditions. OK. They got it.

When looking at the rest of human history, I have no problem with that. In fact, I not only cannot condemn Israel as a nation, I support it. The birth of Israel has much more morality behind it than most nations on earth, where the idea was originally conquer and plunder and little else. At least survival was involved. But I do condemn some things Jewish. There are specific acts and policies by individual Israelis (politicians or otherwise) that I condemn.

You make a good point about Palestinian people being terrified of losing their homes to invading colonizers. You are right. I would be terrified, too. But that in no way justifies what I have seen on the Palestinian TV broadcasts. The only thing missing is the swastika.

Unfortunately both elements are present. Both are simultaneously wrong and feel they are justified. So both do crazy stuff when they get wound up. (Nothing beats suicide bombing for crazy, though.) The sad truth is that this issue is complicated.

btw - I seem to remember Jews being terrified with good reason at one time in history. As I keep implying, I strongly believe that the real issue is not Jewish terror or Palestinian terror, but why terror has to be a part of human intercourse at all.

My vote is to make a strong effort to eradicate the leftovers of Nazism from the Islamist world, which is naked evil, and tell the more fanatical Israelis to pipe down before they turn into that.

Michael

[Mike11]

Most of the moral defenses of Israel I've heard follow 2 courses. Israel's accomplishments internally (which are many and praiseworthy) and the Holocaust, which, to a great extent, justifies the State's existence. But the Occupation is something different. This is problematic in a way you touched on - the Holocaust and Israeli social idealism are values in the Western experience, Al Nakba and the Occupation exist in the Arab experience. We in the West have been comfortable to play down the humanity of a few million peasants to give Israel a better image, the Arabs play down the humanity of a few million "Zionists" to give themselves a better image. This is why the UN roster looks so weird, not many western nations attack Israel, not many Arab ones attack Palestine.

Two Israel's. One in Israel and one in the Territories. One for us and one for the Arabs.

Without being too harsh I assume you know about Arab actions against Israel, the terrorism, divestment campaigns etc. Did you know for 20 ears it was illegal for a Palestinian to own key industries in the territories? That they're education was blocked at all turns? The State used them as a taxed but unserved labor pool? That they were subject to similar treatment at the hands of the Israelis as the Jews faced in the Pale?

The issue is mass myth. When you mention individual Israeli politicians and policies these have been underpinned by widespread misunderstandings and self interest. No one invented American slavery but it framed and encouraged a good chunk of your history. No one person invented "A land without a people for a people without a land" but it informs this situation to this day in denying the Palestinian narrative thus encourages Israel and its supporters to behave a certain way. These are mass stories written by millions for the advantage of millions. Same goes for the Arabs - I just mention Israeli myths because I know my own myths more.

(Counter example, "A land with without people for people without a land" is Said's mistranslation of the Zionist's phrase widely quoted among Arabs with obvious implications)

Our myth toward the Arabs tells us there are no Arab democracies, Islam is a disease that "hates us" without reason. That's beneficial for us. Peaceful protest, such as the first intifadah, becomes mass terror, we are sheltered from the effects of our actions because we know the "other" can not have rational grievances. We forget our own past which is a beautiful thing for the would be Galts at the ARI.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

A very interesting response. Where are you from?

(If you don't want to answer, that's OK. I am merely curious. Not trying to put you on the spot.)

Michael

[Mike11]

Joel,

A very interesting response. Where are you from?

(If you don't want to answer, that's OK. I am merely curious. Not trying to put you on the spot.)

Michael

I'd love to say I'm calling from Haifa or some kibbutz in the Negev but I'm not.

I'm just outside the Greater Toronto Area, it has a vibrant Jewish community (a few hundred thousand) divided between extreme Israeli supporters on one side and anti-zionists on the other. I don't get along well with either, hence the chip on my shoulder. I'm the typical assimilated Jew I guess. I mean I like Jewish women, so I guess you can call me a feminist

Did you find my response interesting because of its arrogant and presumptive use of "our" or some other reason?

Canada has been described as the first "Post Modern" nation - no identity, no agreed past or future, 2 (perhaps more like 4) dominant ethnic groups living in mutual solitudes and xenophobias - its much harder for a Canadian to think of this situation in the same integrated way others do. We are experiencing post colonialism at home - the République du Québec may come into existence in my lifetime while Nunavut in the north is a very autonomous Native political community. The evolving political relationships between the English elite and emerging Native, French, and Asian nationalities are not too far removed from the Israeli/Palestinian relationship. Both the French, through the FLQ, and the Natives, through the Oka crises, have given Canada experience with terrorism from disenfranchised groups yet we have encouraged their national movements, not the opposite.

I often find myself having to "Show my ideological credentials" so to speak. It is hard to see both narratives as worthy while keeping a unified view of the conflict. I made the decision a few years ago to sacrifice my sanity for empathy. This has me in a very open, very Canadian, way of thinking.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I made the decision a few years ago to sacrifice my sanity for empathy.

Joel,

More later. But for now, in another thread it was mentioned that there is scientific evidence showing that empathy (I presume you are talking about the kindness side of empathy) is beneficial to your health.

In this sense, I don't think you traded sanity for empathy. I think you found rock solid sanity by consciously adopting empathy as a value.

There are actually two standards of judging good and bad and they often overlap (but just as often don't): the moral standard of good and evil according to principles, and the psychological standard of healthy and unhealthy according to biological actions and reactions.

Michael

[Mike11]

Looking forward to the "more later". As for empathy I mean both understanding and kindness (whenever the opportunity presents itself). The narratives of the 2 sides are split so evenly and dramatically embracing both as true makes one feel as though the Middle East lives in your head.

Aspirin, lots and lots of aspirin.

[Mike11]

....

Not wanting to further things till you post

...

Edited June 13, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

I promised, so here I am. Unfortunately I am up to my neck in a project and I know if I start discussing the Israeli issue, I will be distracted once again.

In a nutshell, I have noticed and mentioned on more than one occasion that this issue is so loaded that it is almost impossible to discuss it in public without controversy arising and people trying to pigeonhole you into being the equivalent of a bigot on one side or another.

I have noticed distortions on all sides and I generally sense fear and hatred more than wish to resolve.

It is a fascinating subject, though, and almost a laboratory of how the human psyche bears up in an environment of passionate collectivist thinking. You can observe a large sample (old and new) of words and deeds of all qualities every day.

I think the real trick is to extract universal values and try not to turn into that.

Incidentally, I have been bouncing around an idea in my head of doing a Romeo and Juliet kind of story based on an Israeli and Palestinian love affair where the parents and family members are committed and fanatical haters of each other (obviously with some members who are not). I am sure there are many such real-life stories.

Depending on how it is told, it could be quite explosive. A good number of the more intense real-life conflicts surrounding this matter could be dramatized in a heart-wrenching manner. And, of course, the positive resolution would always be rejection of tribalism and embracing reason, regardless of the character. The negative resolution for some characters would be to continue the hatred and hostility and affirm the tribe. The only thing is that this would have to be very passionate reason. I see adrenaline flying around all over the story and spilling over the sides.

I have been doing some research to make sure I get the facts right, and to make sure I really want to step into the middle of this storm. I have always had more courage than sense (with scars and healed bones all over my body to show for it), so I imagine I will not err on the side of caution.

EDIT: I just noticed that I did not comment on Journo's article. I just skimmed it over once again and I prefer to remain not commenting on it. I have bigger fish to fry.

Michael

[Mike11]

The book, "Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in the Promised Land" is about these kinds of interpersonal issues and stereotypes, it would be good research material.

The only stories I know about the Romeo and Juliet thing are ones focusing on intra-arab or jewish relationships.

Sigh.

In the end of these stories there is a clear pro-suicide message.

I hope you find this uplifting.

I think the only way to tell it would be in the Middle East style. As a dryer than dry "comedy" into the darkest reaches of the psyche.

It is a very worthy project though.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald