From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:41:12 GMT
Kris said:
As many of you most likely don't know I am in the military serving in
Korea. I have been in the US Army for almost 6 years now. Before I came
to
Korea, I was serving in a unit that supported the President's
Counter-Drug
strategy. I know that not everyone agrees with this war, or any war, or
the
reasons behind them. I know, becuase of the lack or support for the one
I
was in that none reported on. But let me say this...
For anyone who believes that this war shouldn't happen, that is ok. I
can
agree to have a different opinoin than others. But please, when you see
a
soldier, remember what he or she is doing. That individual is continuing
the
protection that gives everyone the right to say what they want, when
they
want.
This war isn't about oil, money, liberting anyone, or anything like
that. It
is about the fact that Saddam Hussein is housing and actively supporting
terrorist atacks against Americans. Period. And NO, not just just white
anglo-saxon christian americans. Americans that are of any color,
religon,
creed, ethnicity, you name. To him and his "friends" as an AMERICAN, we
are
"infedels".
I have no problem with any Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist,
Hindu,
or whatever. I have a problem with someone who wants to kill and murder
Americans.
If you think that this is a pointless and lame statement, then look
around
your city, and ask yourself, Does the rest of the US look like this or
like
me or like a goulash with a little bit of evrything?
Kevin:
I usually avoid political discussion here because I don't think the MOQ
has much to do with my political feelings. But your earnest post made me
want to at least share a couple of thoughts.
Thanks for your dutiful service. You are appreciated greatly for what
you do and the sacrifice you and your family make.
I agree with you that whether or not you support the current policy, we
can all agree that we'd like to see our service men and women come home
safe and sound. All of them.
I must, however, take great exception with your characterization of the
issues at stake in this conflict. It's often so simple to resort to the
kind of sloganeering that fits easily on placards and signs, clips
nicely into sound bytes for the media, or can readily be made into a
catchy headline.
I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I am suggesting that perhaps
you've fallen prey to the drastic oversimplification of the issues that
various interests are guilty of doing to draw popular support for their
position.
There seems to be a calloused and calculated effort by many in power to
treat the public as if they are too stupid, naïve, or spineless to
*really* discuss the complexities and political realities that surround
the fates of nations. Everything is dumbed down to a multiple choice
question on a Gallup poll so either side can claim victory for their
cause.
To ignore the purely political, economic, and strategic interests, as
well as the obvious security interests at stake in Iraq is to miss the
point entirely, I'm afraid.
It's not "just" about any one of these things. It's not about "blood for
oil" and it's not about "they hate our freedoms". I'm sorry. Things are
just not that simple.
It is not credible to suggest that Saddam considers Americans as
"infidels". Saddam is not a religious man in any sense of the word. His
government is secular and suppresses religious extremism with ruthless
efficiency. The bulk of the victims of his regime have been religious
and ethnic activists who oppose his secular state. These elements are
sympathetic to regimes like the Taliban. Saddam has been conducting his
own "war on terrorism" (if we mean by terrorism the actions of radical
Islamists like Al'Queda) for decades. No one can doubt his cruelty, but
to mistake him for likes of Osama Bin Laden is to grossly misread the
reality of Iraq.
Like all Arab leaders, Saddam is apt to use religious imagery in his
speeches and to pay lip service to traditional Muslim causes. When you
are the secular head of a party that is massively outnumbered by
religious fundamentalists, this is all part of the game of staying in
control. It's also part of the game for diverting Arab rage towards the
West instead of against local dictators who are much more directly
responsible for their suffering.
This conflict *is* about oil. Why? Because everything in the middle east
is about oil as far as the major powers are concerned. Oil is the only
thing that makes the region of strategic importance to anyone. If not
for oil, the major powers would have ignored the region instead of
entwining their destinies with the likes of the Saudi family, The Shah,
and Saddam Hussein. The world economy runs on a cheap and stable oil
market. Oil is life and death for life as we know it (economically
speaking).
To illustrate, consider that economists have calculated that a
$15/barrel increase in the price of oil has caused a $105 Billion
decrease in consumer spending. And that is JUST in the US alone. It has
been of vital national interest for every president since Jimmy Carter
declared the policy, to pay very close attention to any threats to the
oil markets. After the embargo of the 70's, the US realized it could
never be "hands-off" about the region again.
That's not to suggest that the US craves ownership of the oil (although
some have speculated whether or not this invasion will lead to Iraq's
oil being privatized into the hands of US/UK companies), but that it
cannot ignore any threat to the region's stability and to the economic
relationships that maintain cheap and stable oil prices.
Whose hand is on the spicket is of unimaginable importance.
The security threat of Iraq is obvious. Proliferation of weapons is a
grave concern. I don't think I need to say why the US fears an Iraqi
regime armed with weapons of mass destruction.
There is also the matter of Israel's security. Not so long ago, Richard
Perle wrote a policy paper suggesting that ousting Saddam could lead to
building canals from the Tigris to supply Israel with fresh water. It
would also eliminate the largest military and economic challenge to
Israel's hegemony. These factors should not be ignored.
Of course, the humanitarian crisis that Iraqis have endured for 12 years
is of great importance. On this front, the status quo is entirely
unacceptable.
It is all of these complex concerns, as well as the competing interests
of other nations with regard to these same concerns, that leads to what
has proven to be a monumental cusp in modern history. We face a crisis
that could well re-draw the globe and it's alliances for the next
century.
Whether or not you support the Bush administration's solution to these
problems, I strongly encourage everyone to labor against the tendency to
resort to drastic oversimplification of the issues. Sloganeering is fine
for the TV cameras, but an intelligent and reasoned analysis of the real
issues at the heart of the matter will certainly prove more fruitful.
Not just for finding proper solutions, but for recognizing that a
difference of opinion on the subject is no grounds for hatred or fiery
invective. Certainly no grounds for dissolving historic alliances and
shattering the post WWII era of Internationalism.
This is only partially directed at you, Kris. It's more just a reaction
in general to something your comments put me in mind of. I hope you are
safe and near your family. And if called to serve in this conflict, I
thank you for your bravery and patriotism and hope you return safe and
sound to those who love you and appreciate you.
-Kevin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:41:35 GMT