We have a lot of issues to consider, at this time, with respect to who will give us the best opportunity for success in our Country and on the World stage; McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is the best choice for the following reasons:
McCain:
1. He has experience. While some might say that because he's been in government for decades that he's just one in the good-ole-boy network, his record shows that he's been against the mainstream on many issues (some I agree with and some I don't) and he stands behind his convictions.
2. He has integrity. He will do what he believes is the correct thing even when nobody is looking. His honor and unwavering devotion to his fellow man was made clear during his captivity. Nuf said.
3. He has shown that it is not his way or the highway. With his immigration stance, he changed his stance (call it flip-flopping if you will) to fall in line with what the majority of Americans want and admitted it. In my opinion, this shows his willingness to perform for the people.
4. His national security stance is unmatched by Obama. McCain, I believe, would know when the time for talk has passed. I don't believe he would plead to tyrants over and over again while they overtly defy World order and kick sand in the face of righteousness. Simply stated, I believe he will put a boot in the ass of somebody when the time comes.
5. Palin may not have a ton of experience, but she has more than Obama. She's a fresh face to an old crowd in Washington and I believe she will mix things up a bit there.
6. I like Palin's pro-life views and I believe she has a strong and independent mind.
7. I believe that McCain and Palin will surround themselves with smart and practical people, and I believe that given all of the advice and information from those smart and practical people that they would make better decisions for our country than Obama and Biden would.
8. I believe under McCain/Palin, our military will be gainfully employed. Not because I'm a war-monger but because I believe a strong defense is essential to our survival.
Anyway, that's how I feel. Any comments?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
On Military Intervention
My brothers John, Jim and Brian have been carrying on an e-mail discussion on the Iraq war, that has spread into areas of public policy, religion, philosophy, politics, and human nature. As a means of kicking off this blog, and in an attempt to re-focus the discussion, I'd like to offer my take on President Bush and the Iraq War.
When judging whether the USA should have invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003, it's important to recall the geopolitical setting at that time, and in the months leading up to the invasion. Less than a month after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the USA, along with the UK and a coalition of other nations, had invaded Afghanistan. By the end of November 2001, the Taliban had been swept from power, and al Qaeda had been driven into hiding. Osama bin Laden had escaped from the battle of Tora Bora, and was presumed to be hiding somewhere near the Pakistan border.
President Bush had made clear in several speeches, however, that the American war effort was not focused solely on Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. He was committed to defeating every terrorist group of global reach, and the states that supported them. In his 2002 State of the Union address, he named Iraq, Iran and Korea as an "axis of evil" -- particularly noting their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
In 2002, the idea that Iraq had WMDs was not at all controversial. Saddam Hussein had certainly used chemical weapons in the past, and had been trying to produce weapons-grade plutonium since the late 1970s. He was in clear violation of nearly all 16 points of the cease-fire agreement that ended Operation Desert Storm in 1991. He was stonewalling UN weapons inspectors. His armed forces were consistently firing on US surveillance aircraft flying over the Kurdish regions in the north.
Iraq was also on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, having sponsored various terrorist groups, particularly the Abu Nidal Organization. The Iraqi government paid reward money to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel. To be sure, Iraq was not linked to al Qaeda, and had no role in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks -- nor did the Bush administration claim that they did.
Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Economic sanctions had been imposed on Iraq since the first Gulf War, and many activists had been complaining that the sanctions had no effect on Saddam Hussein, but were causing shortages of food and health care for the Iraqi citizenry. It was later learned that abuses and corruption in the United Nations "oil for food program" were allowing Hussein to work around the sanctions.
Throughout 2002, President Bush stepped up diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein, while staging troops and supplies for possible military action. He had mixed success in the diplomatic effort. Many nations that had supported the invasion of Afghanistan (without UN authorization) were unwilling to support military action against Iraq. However, in November, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which restated the cease-fire terms of the first Gulf War, and called for "serious consequences" if Iraq remained in material breach.
So that was the lay of the land at the beginning of 2003. Hussein was still stonewalling weapons inspectors, and was clearly in material breach of many points of Resolution 1441. There were conflicting reports on Iraqi WMDs. Some intelligence analysts believed that they had largely been destroyed since 1991, while others believed there were hidden stockpiles. Saddam Hussein himself seemed to be trying to bluff the issue, simultaneously claiming that they had all been destroyed, and threatening to use them against US troops if an invasion took place. Leaders from both parties are clearly on the record from this period as believing that WMDs were either stockpiled or being pursued.
At the time, I supported the invasion, and I still do, although I recognize it was a close call. To have backed down after the military buildup and diplomatic pressure would have greatly damaged American credibility in the greater War on Terror. However, I think President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld failed to prepare the American public for the real costs in blood and treasure, and that failure led to the rapid decline of public support.
But while the rectitude of the initial invasion may have been a close call, the idea of subsequently abandoning the cause, as Senator Obama, Senator Reid and other prominent Democrats called for, never made sense to me. Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that President Bush deliberately misled the American people. He (and I) may have been mistaken, but I don't see any reason to believe he was duplicitous.
When judging whether the USA should have invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003, it's important to recall the geopolitical setting at that time, and in the months leading up to the invasion. Less than a month after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the USA, along with the UK and a coalition of other nations, had invaded Afghanistan. By the end of November 2001, the Taliban had been swept from power, and al Qaeda had been driven into hiding. Osama bin Laden had escaped from the battle of Tora Bora, and was presumed to be hiding somewhere near the Pakistan border.
President Bush had made clear in several speeches, however, that the American war effort was not focused solely on Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. He was committed to defeating every terrorist group of global reach, and the states that supported them. In his 2002 State of the Union address, he named Iraq, Iran and Korea as an "axis of evil" -- particularly noting their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
In 2002, the idea that Iraq had WMDs was not at all controversial. Saddam Hussein had certainly used chemical weapons in the past, and had been trying to produce weapons-grade plutonium since the late 1970s. He was in clear violation of nearly all 16 points of the cease-fire agreement that ended Operation Desert Storm in 1991. He was stonewalling UN weapons inspectors. His armed forces were consistently firing on US surveillance aircraft flying over the Kurdish regions in the north.
Iraq was also on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, having sponsored various terrorist groups, particularly the Abu Nidal Organization. The Iraqi government paid reward money to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel. To be sure, Iraq was not linked to al Qaeda, and had no role in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks -- nor did the Bush administration claim that they did.
Regime change in Iraq had been US policy since 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Economic sanctions had been imposed on Iraq since the first Gulf War, and many activists had been complaining that the sanctions had no effect on Saddam Hussein, but were causing shortages of food and health care for the Iraqi citizenry. It was later learned that abuses and corruption in the United Nations "oil for food program" were allowing Hussein to work around the sanctions.
Throughout 2002, President Bush stepped up diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein, while staging troops and supplies for possible military action. He had mixed success in the diplomatic effort. Many nations that had supported the invasion of Afghanistan (without UN authorization) were unwilling to support military action against Iraq. However, in November, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which restated the cease-fire terms of the first Gulf War, and called for "serious consequences" if Iraq remained in material breach.
So that was the lay of the land at the beginning of 2003. Hussein was still stonewalling weapons inspectors, and was clearly in material breach of many points of Resolution 1441. There were conflicting reports on Iraqi WMDs. Some intelligence analysts believed that they had largely been destroyed since 1991, while others believed there were hidden stockpiles. Saddam Hussein himself seemed to be trying to bluff the issue, simultaneously claiming that they had all been destroyed, and threatening to use them against US troops if an invasion took place. Leaders from both parties are clearly on the record from this period as believing that WMDs were either stockpiled or being pursued.
At the time, I supported the invasion, and I still do, although I recognize it was a close call. To have backed down after the military buildup and diplomatic pressure would have greatly damaged American credibility in the greater War on Terror. However, I think President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld failed to prepare the American public for the real costs in blood and treasure, and that failure led to the rapid decline of public support.
But while the rectitude of the initial invasion may have been a close call, the idea of subsequently abandoning the cause, as Senator Obama, Senator Reid and other prominent Democrats called for, never made sense to me. Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that President Bush deliberately misled the American people. He (and I) may have been mistaken, but I don't see any reason to believe he was duplicitous.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Calvin Family Blog
I've set up this blog as a place for general discussion, political debate, and things of that nature. The original target is the family, but be aware that this forum is open to the general public, so don't say anything here that you don't want the world to know. Of course you wouldn't tell me anything you don't want the world to know anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem.
If you want to post here, I will have to set you up as an Author, so send me an e-mail, or reply to this post, and I'll take care of it.
Have fun!
If you want to post here, I will have to set you up as an Author, so send me an e-mail, or reply to this post, and I'll take care of it.
Have fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
