[AAACE-NLA] : [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1073] additional musing on War and Peace

[George E. Demetrion]

David,

Thank you for your generous interpretation in terms of what is allowable
and even encouraged discussion.

In that spirit, I offer up one of my posts that had beeb blocked, which,
shortly before the war started challenged the notion that what the Bush
administration was concerned about in Iraq was weapons of mass
destruction.  Even before the war a certain amount of suspicious was held
among some that the WMD issue was more of a pretext than a cause belli
for the war.  Given the current situation, perhaps there's more than a
little merit in that viewpoint.

Note the date of the original message.

George Demetrion
_________________________________________________________________


--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit at literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1073] additional musing on War and Peace
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:59:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20030305.205617.9262.0.sophocles5 at juno.com>

(Long and a bit rambling)

Colleagues:

Like so many others on this list, I have a full plate, including a major
writing project to which I would much prefer be attending.   I am also
aware that there may be some doubt as to whether this topic is a valid
one for this list. I had raised that procedural issue a few weeks back
and the few responses that were made supported the notion that this list
is an appropriate venue for this discussion.  I still think the
procedural issue is important and am willing to engage it if it is
raised, but unless it is raised, I'm going to proceed to the substance of
the matter of US policy with regard to Iraq. The issues are so
provocative that, as stated in one certain book, the stones themselves
cry out for justification and explanation.

This evening, we hear from Secretary Powell that the Iraqi government has
had its last chance and war is very imminent.  We also hear from the
Secretary that recent Iraqi action on destroying the missiles is too
little, too late and is only meant to divide the unity that the United
States,  through the auspices of the United Nations, has mounted against
him.  No doubt, as a sovereign state, the government of Iraq is capable
of engaging in Machiavellian diplomacy, but we need to be more than clear
here on what nation is the major perpetuator of that game at this time
(other than the President of North Korea).  Also, the split in the
coalition "of the willing"  has a lot less to do with Iraq than it has to
do with the current policy of the government of the United States.  The
question for the Administration is why are we so intransigent in the
self-assertiveness of our policy, when much of the world, and for
substantial reasons, is against it.  Despite all the bravado reflected in
the President's plain talks to the American people, is it just possible
that we're the odd man out, and there may be something skewed
with>our< policy?  Just a thought, Mr. President.  Let's keep it crystal
clear here that even in the German, French and Russian memorandum to the
United Nations,. the focus is on the disarmament of Iraq, although they
disagree with the United States on how that is to happen. 

 But the issue is, really, is whether disarmament is the primary drive
motivating US policy.  There's more than a little doubt about that, which
I have raised here on at least two messages.  I'm going to by-pass a more
substantive discussion on what I think are the complex sets of
motivations of current US policy.  My more extensive musings can be found
in a web-based document titled, "Reflections  on US Iraqi Policy: A
Critique of Rightward Thinking, Secular and Religious."

http://www.ctconfucc.org/resources/theology/PoliticalTheology.pdf

Staying focused on the more immediate issue of this message, one of the
critical issues raised by a member of the Labour Party in the British
Parliament was, in fact, whether the issue was Iraqi disarmament or
regime change, with disarmament serving as a pretext.  The British
Foreign Minister assured the Parliament member that it was disarmament,
and
that  Iraqi compliance would end the matter.  In several remarks Prime
Minister Blair made the same point, but the primary  message we hear from
President Bush or Secretary Powell is regime change.  Given  what I
can only interpret as purposeful obfuscation among the two primary
allies, what incentive is there for Saddam Hussein to disarm?   

If the issue is not disarmament, then one needs to wonder what is driving
US policy, which I believe is some combination of 3 key factors that I
will only enumerate: (1) an absolute quest for security against even the
possibility of another 9-11 attack; (2) a very combative foreign policy
bordering on the jingoistic, reflecting the collective ideology of Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and such journalists as Charles Krauthaimer
(sp)., and George Will, seeking to undue the damage caused by the "loss"
of Vietnam; (3)  the moral and religious righteousness of a war against
absolute good and evil wherein religious, civic, and geopolitical
fundamentalism are joined.  

I can't get into the substance of these reflections here, except to make
the general point, that at the least, they represent a dubious basis upon
which to construct a foreign policy and expect the >world< to embrace. 
At
least on my interpretation, the fundamental question is why would we
expect the world to embrace this somewhat exuberant form of US jingoism? 
No, Saddam's not a good guy, but neither is the President of North Korea,
but that's not really the point, and anyone making so is either naive or
arguing in bad faith.

In short, what's missing is a realistic-based, but sophisticated foreign
policy, which comes to terms with complexity and pluralism.  With the
President, I accept the need for a reasonable homeland security policy,
though I have not yet got my ductape.  Seriously, though, in principle I
accept a need for this, at least at some substantial level.  I also agree
with the Administration and with many others that the crashing into the
Trade Center and Pentagon was an attack on the United States and an act
of war, which demanded an immediate response.  I support (and have all
along) the unrelenting attack on Al Queda, though I am concerned to some
extent with the abuse of civil liberties.  

Also, I would say to President Bush, there are reasons why 'they" hate us
and it's not because we're free or we practice religious liberty, but
because collective US power and culture are threatening the taproot of at
least fundamentalist Islam, and perhaps a lot more of indigenous
cultures.

 Let me be clear here, that's no justification and no reason not to
respond, but absolute statements about US righteousness when this nation
is more than a little culpable in the collective evil perpetuated by many
countries, forces, and movements,
will not do.  Though I will not raise this in-depth because this is a
secular forum, for a man who strives to live but the Word of God,. to
claim such righteousness on the part of the United States might be viewed
by serious Christians as a form of idolatry, a violation of the First
Commandment.

So, yes, Mr. President, there are serious world threats and we need to
deal with them both with firmness >and< with  wide intelligence.  For
example, even though your Administration is down playing it, who would
doubt that North Korea is posing much more of a serious threat to the US
and the world than Iraq?  Who would doubt that Mr. President?  Yet,
because you are so obsessively focused on Iraq, the hands of the United
States are tied.  On North Korea, Mr. President, the United States is not
standing tall at all and that country is about ready to expand its
nuclear capacity.  

You see, Mr. President, we need a more flexible foreign policy to deal
with the complex world issues before us.  Yes, we need a strong military
and we need to credibly threaten the use of force in some situations
where it may be warranted.  Yet, sticks alone, or only offering carrots
if you accept our sticks (Turkey), is a weak foreign policy in this
complex and morally ambiguous world of ours, as is lecturing the world as
to what there duty is--namely, adherence to US foreign policy.

Going  back to the mid-East--sure, the attack on Al Queda was a logical
and righteous response, but you didn't have to turn that into a war
between good and evil or a perpetual and total "war" (which Susan Sontag
refers to as a metaphor) against terrorism, even though  that provided
you with your
distinctive calling as President.  Such clarity, sir, comes with a heavy
price tag.  I think also you would have had very broad support if, as
part of a comprehensive Mid-East policy you had begun to put pressure on
Iraq to allow the inspections and to disarm (along with discussion of
quid pro quos for ending the sanctions), while working systematically on
the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which is really at the center of the major
conflict in that region.

What I am suggesting is a very different foreign policy than the one that
you have enacted, yet one realistically-based, which I believe is
preferable to the current strategy .  Though you seek to make your
peculiar foreign policy the mainstream US and world vision, it is an
aberration that needs to be viewed as such.  I do believe there can be a
centrist Republican foreign policy that would meet national interests and
garner much broader consensus, but we have not seen that yet.

I have no expertise in these issues, but I try to keep apprised of the
issues.

The stones themselves cry out to be heard!

George Demetrion
(A lay commentator)











________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!