In what is probably a case of too many (positions) too late, John
\n Kerry has finally come out with an Iraq policy which is in clear contrast
\n to the Bush position. Kerry has for some time been having trouble elucidating
\n a coherent policy on the number one issue in the current presidential
\n election.<\/p>\n
His difficulties derive from a combination of his own
\n ineptitude and a series of brilliant maneuvers by the Republicans to
\n sucker him into a series of evolving unsustainable stands, the most egregious
\n of which was his recent inexplicable declaration that, even knowing what
\n we know now, he would have supported the invasion of Iraq. What
\n was he thinking? With that single statement he handed the number one
\n issue to Bush on a silver platter, and undermined any subsequent efforts
\n by his campaign to attack Bush on the war.<\/p>\n
The ingeniously contrived conundrum facing Kerry is
\n that if he now declares that the war was a mistake, the Republican attack
\n dogs shoot back with, "So, we would be better off if Saddam still
\n in power?" How to oppose the tyrant Saddam and at the same time the war
\n that got rid of him?<\/p>\n
Tough as it seems, the answer is obvious to the Dowbrigade.
\n It was in our vital strategic interest to remove Saddam. It is NOT in
\n our strategic interest to occupy a hostile country, to attempt to build
\n a democratic nation in an area with no history or tradition
\n of democracy and whose people deeply resent our presence on religious,
\n moral and nationalistic grounds. It is most definitely
\n not in our interest to leave thousands of our children twisting in the
\n wind, being shot at daily by people whose only aim in life is to kill
\n Americans and anyone who so much as smiles at them.<\/p>\n
It is a beautiful dream indeed to imagine democracy
\n blooming in the Middle East. But beyond the fact that there are no signs
\n of this happening, it puts the question, is the administration suggesting
\n that we have a moral obligation to intervene wherever people are oppressed
\n by unelected leaders, to install Democracy on a world-wide basis? If
\n so, there is a long list of candidates for political makeover, including
\n our buddies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China, as well as places like
\n North Korea, Sudan and Nepal, where people are dying by the scores every
\n day and intervention on moral grounds would be at least as urgent as
\n Iraq.<\/p>\n
There are obviously many, many spots around the globe
\n where people are not free and where the values we hold dear, human rights,
\n rule of law, an independent judiciary and press, are completely absent.
\n Clearly, we cannot solve all of these problems, or free all of these
\n people. Does this mean we should stay out of external involvement,
\n as a rule? We think it does.<\/p>\n
The administration obviously thinks it can pick and
\n choose among the world’s disasters and injustices, and intervene in selected
\n conflicts according to what it views as America’s vital strategic interests.
\n In the case of Iraq, this basically boils down to oil.<\/p>\n
Is Iraq’s oil of vital strategic interest to the United
\n States? This is where we differ from the reasoning of the Wolf
\n pack. The Iraqi oil may be in the strategic interests of the energy industry,
\n but it is not a vital interest of the country as a whole. Vital comes
\n from the Latin word for life, and in order to offer up the lives of American
\n men and women, the very life of the nation must be at stake.<\/p>\n
It is obvious now that at the time of the invasion,
\n Saddam Hussein was NOT a direct threat to the United States. Yet we are
\n on the record as being in favor of the invasion! This is because at the
\n time Saddam was most definitely a direct threat to Israel. If you
\n will remember, at that time he was offering sizable cash payments to
\n the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in cafes, pizzerias
\n and supermarkets. There was a wave of women suicide bombers, some as
\n young as 17. And Saddam was elegizing them, encouraging them, and
\n rewarding them posthumously. We were convinced that he was directly responsible
\n for the deaths of scores of innocent Israelis and a demonic escalation
\n of the conflict.<\/p>\n
Now, what makes threatening Israelis so special? In
\n the name of full disclosure we should state that the Dowbrigade is of
\n the Jewish persuasion, although it seems to him that being of the Chosen
\n People mostly means being Chosen to be blown up, gassed, gunned down
\n and beheaded. But there is a more compelling reason.<\/p>\n
The exception to the principle of American non-intervention
\n has always been our binding treaties with allies and friends around the
\n world. We are committed to going to war in the face of a direct
\n and deadly attack on England, Japan, NATO, Taiwan – and Israel. For this
\n reason alone, we were justified in removing Saddam from power. Trying
\n to occupy the country, on the other hand, is only in the interest of
\n those who want the Iraqi oil.<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/\noilsources.gif\")
The
\n caveat to this whole argument is the possibility that the United States
\n has become so addicted to foreign oil that even
\n the relatively minor withdrawal caused by being denied access to the
\n second largest proven reserves in the world would cause such serious
\n disruptions that companies could crash, industries could fail, and thousands
\n of Americans could freeze or starve to death. <\/p>\n
This is more plausible than it may seem. We are
\n clearly so addicted that If
\n we tried to go cold turkey and quit oil altogether it would certainly
\n be the end of the world as we know it. Transportation, energy production,
\n and our economy would collapse. Food production and distribution would
\n grind to a halt. Millions would die.<\/p>\n
If we are indeed at the point that even a significant
\n reduction in our oil supply would threaten our true vital security and
\n survival, than maybe we are justified occupying the oil fields. But if
\n that is the case, our leaders should have the guts to come out and tell
\n it like it is.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In what is probably a case of too many (positions) too late, John Kerry has finally come out with an Iraq policy which is in clear contrast to the Bush position. Kerry has for some time been having trouble elucidating … Continue reading