Here on the University of Miami campus, it's pretty clear on which side of the political bread most people put their butter. One cannot walk twenty feet without seeing an Obama sticker, banner, flag, T-shirt, pin, or sign. This doesn't surprise me, obviously. The utopia of an oasis-like campus in between Miami and Coral Gables easily fosters rampant liberalism. It can be disheartening, though, for a realist conservative.
My mind seems to run at about 10,000 RPM's, when it's working properly. While this sounds desirable, I'd rather it slow down and not run at the red-line point all the time. I guess you can call it ADD or whatever (although I'm hesitant to use that term, since it's so overused these days), but it's difficult to focus my mind on one matter, especially when that one matter revolves around something important that I have to do, like schoolwork. It's less bothersome when I'm doing something mundane, like walking back to my dormitory. So today, as I was walking back to my dorm, I started listing the types of people who I saw supporting Obama. Here's the list, written to the best of my memory.
Nota Bene: Don't think that these categorizations apply to ALL people of these descriptions. If you think that's what I mean, then you need to realize that, no, I don't mean everyone of that group thinks this way or that way. Get a grip.
Black People
Obviously. African-Americans vote, as a bloc, mostly Democrat, but Obama has brought out those blacks that usually don't vote, adding to the percentage. Obama also enjoys the support of some black conservatives or black Republicans, such as Colin Powell. Are blacks voting for Obama because he's (half) black? Yes, that is one undeniable reason. Is it the only reason? No, absolutley not. The fact that he's (half) black just sweetens the pot. He's a chance to get "one of them" into the White House. The messianic comparisons are not so absurd as some people think. A lot of black people really do believe that he will solve all of America's problems. "Change" is not just an alternative to George W. Bush, as Obama supporters say, but in addition, it's a change of race, which excites black people, for obvious reasons. I've yet to witness a black UM student who doesn't support Obama, and if someone finds one for me, I'll give them a nice firm handshake and a pat on the back.
Gay People
Another obvious one. I don't think I need to get too far into this one. Homosexuals feel repressed, and, like most diehard liberals, think that Obama will end this oppression and empower them. Gays believe in Obama's other positions, too, of course, but their main bone of contention is gay marriage.
"Cool" People
Being conservative isn't cool. Don't believe me? Watch MTV, VH1, BET, all those channels, and tell me who pretty much EVERYone supports. Many people I see wearing the shirts or brandishing the pins most likely couldn't have a serious conversation about politics, but hell, Obama seems like a really nice guy, and everyone popular is really into him, and, oh, did you hear?? He's BLACK!! That's so cool! These people make me sick because they'll ruin a nation just to go with the cool crowd. You all fail.
Pansies
What's a pansy, you ask? It's a pretty broad concept, but here, it means physically (and usually mentally) weak people. I'm not talking about physically or mentally handicapped people. I'm talking about the people who really don't seem to eat much, who never seem to make it to the gym (or any sporting event in which they participate), and who wear clothes that enhance this weakness. People who fall into this category are emo kids, goth kids, hipsters, and anyone else who doesn't fit into those categories, but fits the description.
I've always maintained that those who are weak and slow in body are equally weak and slow in mind and morality, so these people are going to vote for Obama because conservative people are such fucking asshole Nazis. Any manifestation of solid principles or moral backbone makes these people suspicious because everything is relative to them: culture, gender, race, society, religion, EVERYthing. When you take a definite stance on any of these things, these people will be quick to jump on you and call you bigoted, even when your stance is completely valid. I have little respect for these people because their beliefs are so indefensible. How can you defend belief in nothing? How can you believe in non-belief? How can you even take a definite stance that everything is relative, or constructed by society, and is therefore not real? Absurd. Completely absurd.
Older Liberals Who Still Think They're Doing The Right Thing
These people are thirty years old or older, and still think the way that the above-mentioned people do, for whatever reason. These people are the hardest to debate with because they're so stubbornly set in their ways due to years of crippling liberalism. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of Republicans and conservatives, even though the liberal politicians they supported in the past clearly initiated the problems (read: The current subprime mortgage/recession crisis). I respect these people for their age, but time spent on the earth doesn't always make you wiser.
Ex-Communist/Socialist Citizens
These people used to live in socialist or communist countries and then immigrated into the United States. Included in this list are the offspring of these immigrants. In contrast to many Cubans who have thrown off the yoke of collectivist leftist oppression in return for the GOP, though, these people still think that socialism and communism are still viable, good solutions for America's problems. They neglect to realize that, if those leftist ideologies were so great, they'd probably still be in their places of origin! Oops!
Well, that wraps up the list. I'm sure you can find your own unique groups of people in your area who are supporting Obama! Let me know, I'm interested to see what you find.
October 22, 2008
October 16, 2008
Understanding the Case for Staying In Iraq
We’ve heard from the neocons that we, meaning the American military, need to maintain a presence in Iraq “until the job is done”. This opinion is often derided by both the political left and constitutionalist conservatives, albeit for different reasons. The leftists use their typical anti-war knee-jerk response to any conflict, alleging that the current administration is involved in the conflict because of reasons varying from the administration’s desire for control over the oil reserves to the advancement of the interests of big businesses to outright racism. Obviously, the constitutionalist conservatives have differing reasons for opposing a continuing American presence in Iraq. These reasons usually involve the lack of constitutionality in the current campaigns in which we're involved.
The current War in Iraq is unique in that it has placed the constitutionalists and the political left on the same side of a major issue, isolating the neoconservatives as essentially the sole supporters of the conflict. This is even more interesting because the constitutionalists usually consider the neoconservatives and the leftists to be different sides of the same coin on most issues. As a traditional conservative myself, I would sooner ally myself politically with a neoconservative before a leftist, so what makes my alleged fellow “conservatives” support this conflict?
One main argument that I hear from neoconservatives is the claim that there will be “chaos” when the US military leaves. This claim always neglects the fact that it was the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government and the dismantling of the Iraqi Army by US forces that brought about the current state of chaos in the first place. Most neocons will admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by George W. Bush prior to the invasion. Their claim is then based upon the opinion that America has a commitment to uphold, namely the establishment of a secure, safe, and democratic Iraq, since we upended Iraqi society in almost every way.
From a military perspective, this opinion is valid; a military perspective eliminates the feel-good alleged moral obligation that neoconservatives like to cite. Parallels have been made between the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War. There are many parallels that can be validly drawn, but militarily, the conflicts are very nearly interchangeable: the mighty American military is in conflict with a shapeless entity that does not follow the rules of conventional warfare, thereby causing the American military to have a lot of trouble gaining ground and winning decisive victories. This is because the American military is not fighting an organized army, like in the two World Wars. America is, again, in conflict with guerrillas, insurgents, and terrorists, who are essentially different names for the same type of enemy.
In conventional warfare, two organized armies seek each other out and fight each other with the purpose of either eliminating the opposition or driving them out of key strategic locations until the capitulation of the opponent. In conventional warfare, America is still unmatched. America’s combination of massive potential manpower, cutting-edge technology, and rapid deployment of forces on a global scale essentially assures a victory over any other conventional fighting force.
So why, then, is the American military having such a difficult time adjusting to IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices), of all things? To put it simply, the American military still needs to improve its counterinsurgency tactics. Guerrilla warfare is nothing new; we as Americans used it in the French and Indian Wars, and in our own Revolutionary War, to some extent. After we established ourselves as the premiere conventional fighting force in the first two World Wars, we started getting involved in conflicts against guerrillas and insurgents. The difficulties fighting against this enemy came to a head in the Vietnam War. We did learn many lessons about this new unconventional style of warfare, though, and General David Petraeus, who wrote his dissertation on those lessons learned, began applying those lessons in Iraq during the so-called surge.
Conflicts which pitted guerrillas against a conventional army have proven this quote: “A guerrilla wins if he does not lose; the occupying force loses if it does not win completely.” At first glance, this quote seems extremely obvious. However, the underlying meaning in that quote explains fully the reason to remain in Iraq.
If the occupying forces in Iraq are withdrawn before the newly-formed Iraqi armed forces are prepared to deal with the insurgency, it will only be a matter of time before the insurgents inflict enough damage to force a capitulation by the Iraqi army and an abdication by the current Iraqi government. The greatest threat to a victory by the occupying force is rarely the insurgency itself; rather, it is the loss of political will that will lead to the withdrawal of the occupying force that usually grants the insurgents victory. Through perseverance and attrition, the occupying force can win the war against the insurgents. When the political leadership of the occupying military and the people back home are detached from the conflict, however, political will is always in danger of slipping away as more soldiers in the occupying force are killed and more resources are used in the conflict. One can observe this very thing happening during the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War.
In hindsight, we can safely say that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. George Bush made a bad call based on faulty intelligence. No matter how much of a mistake it may have been, though, it was indeed a commitment, especially after we completely dismantled Iraq’s government and military. So what, now, do we do? We could pull out all forces as quickly as possible, as advocated by many constitutionalists. It’s highly probable that the Iraqi security forces will be unable to deal with insurgent forces, and the characteristics of the Vietnam War would have been successfully and wholly repeated. In Vietnam, even when we and our allies were within sight of victory, we pulled all support before our South Vietnamese allies were adequately self-sufficient (because the US lost its political will to continue the fight), and they were eventually destroyed. The same could very well happen in Iraq, resulting in another potentially radical Islamic state in the Middle East.
Despite this, though, how many more Americans will we have to sacrifice before we can consider Iraq “secure”? We all have a tough choice to make. If Iraq collapses into a radical Islamic state, then the trillions of dollars and the thousands of American lives lost would be for naught. And, no, “taking out” Saddam Hussein doesn’t level that field. What would have been the point of removing Saddam from power and having him executed if his oppressive, secular regime is replaced by an even more oppressive Islamist one?
There is the undeniable fact that the United States faces no direct attack from any state in the Middle East. The threats to our national security come from groups such as al Qaeda, an organization without borders or uniformed armies. Our options are threefold, as I see it. The first two options could lead to the destruction of al Qaeda; the third option does not.
Option 1: An all-out, no-holds-barred offensive. No punches will be pulled. Wherever a single al Qaeda unit resides, we will decimate them and anyone supporting them, without regard to the sovereignty of the nations in which al Qaeda is operating. It would essentially boil down to an unprecedented assault on the entire Islamic world. Combined with a ruthless crackdown on Islamic populations in Europe and the US, we would strike the hearts of all Islamic people with the fear of God. It would be the ultimate example of preemptive warfare, and with our current nuclear and conventional warfare capabilities, we could do it. The draft would have to be reinstated and the cost could reach the hundreds of trillions. We would probably have to do it alone, too, although a few allies might pop up. However, this option would be the most surefire way to eliminate a very real enemy to the Western world. Our ways of life and cultures will be much more preserved and secured.
Option 2: Continue on our current policy path. Confront Islamic/Muslim states diplomatically when they do something that threatens our interests, attack al Qaeda when they pop up into our sights, and promote pro-Western democracy. This option leaves open the possibility that we will never get out of the region, and the increasing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe could prove a huge problem to these efforts in the long run. This option also does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again.
Option 3: Withdrawal all military assets from the area. Reduce (or even eliminate) military aid to Israel. Basically give the Islamists nothing to complain about, nor anything to fight with us about. Like Option Two, this option does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again, but no more Americans will die in the immediate conflict, and huge sums of American money will be saved in the coming years.
Which option is the right option? Unfortunately, only history will tell us that. Option Three most certainly seems to be in the best interest of Americans. Option One has the potential to eliminate a great threat to the entire Western world, but at a potentially great cost. Option Two is proven by history to be the most sensible path to achieve an acceptable balance of peace and prosperity (specifically for Americans), albeit also with a cost.
It’s all mighty complicated, for sure. It’s very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of politicians who call for the entire spectrum of options, but every option has positive and negative consequences. An appropriate balance must be found, because getting bogged down in a counterinsurgency war could possibly be eclipsed by us all getting bogged down in indecision and doubt about what to do.
- Alex Lee
The current War in Iraq is unique in that it has placed the constitutionalists and the political left on the same side of a major issue, isolating the neoconservatives as essentially the sole supporters of the conflict. This is even more interesting because the constitutionalists usually consider the neoconservatives and the leftists to be different sides of the same coin on most issues. As a traditional conservative myself, I would sooner ally myself politically with a neoconservative before a leftist, so what makes my alleged fellow “conservatives” support this conflict?
One main argument that I hear from neoconservatives is the claim that there will be “chaos” when the US military leaves. This claim always neglects the fact that it was the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government and the dismantling of the Iraqi Army by US forces that brought about the current state of chaos in the first place. Most neocons will admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by George W. Bush prior to the invasion. Their claim is then based upon the opinion that America has a commitment to uphold, namely the establishment of a secure, safe, and democratic Iraq, since we upended Iraqi society in almost every way.
From a military perspective, this opinion is valid; a military perspective eliminates the feel-good alleged moral obligation that neoconservatives like to cite. Parallels have been made between the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War. There are many parallels that can be validly drawn, but militarily, the conflicts are very nearly interchangeable: the mighty American military is in conflict with a shapeless entity that does not follow the rules of conventional warfare, thereby causing the American military to have a lot of trouble gaining ground and winning decisive victories. This is because the American military is not fighting an organized army, like in the two World Wars. America is, again, in conflict with guerrillas, insurgents, and terrorists, who are essentially different names for the same type of enemy.
In conventional warfare, two organized armies seek each other out and fight each other with the purpose of either eliminating the opposition or driving them out of key strategic locations until the capitulation of the opponent. In conventional warfare, America is still unmatched. America’s combination of massive potential manpower, cutting-edge technology, and rapid deployment of forces on a global scale essentially assures a victory over any other conventional fighting force.
So why, then, is the American military having such a difficult time adjusting to IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices), of all things? To put it simply, the American military still needs to improve its counterinsurgency tactics. Guerrilla warfare is nothing new; we as Americans used it in the French and Indian Wars, and in our own Revolutionary War, to some extent. After we established ourselves as the premiere conventional fighting force in the first two World Wars, we started getting involved in conflicts against guerrillas and insurgents. The difficulties fighting against this enemy came to a head in the Vietnam War. We did learn many lessons about this new unconventional style of warfare, though, and General David Petraeus, who wrote his dissertation on those lessons learned, began applying those lessons in Iraq during the so-called surge.
Conflicts which pitted guerrillas against a conventional army have proven this quote: “A guerrilla wins if he does not lose; the occupying force loses if it does not win completely.” At first glance, this quote seems extremely obvious. However, the underlying meaning in that quote explains fully the reason to remain in Iraq.
If the occupying forces in Iraq are withdrawn before the newly-formed Iraqi armed forces are prepared to deal with the insurgency, it will only be a matter of time before the insurgents inflict enough damage to force a capitulation by the Iraqi army and an abdication by the current Iraqi government. The greatest threat to a victory by the occupying force is rarely the insurgency itself; rather, it is the loss of political will that will lead to the withdrawal of the occupying force that usually grants the insurgents victory. Through perseverance and attrition, the occupying force can win the war against the insurgents. When the political leadership of the occupying military and the people back home are detached from the conflict, however, political will is always in danger of slipping away as more soldiers in the occupying force are killed and more resources are used in the conflict. One can observe this very thing happening during the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War.
In hindsight, we can safely say that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. George Bush made a bad call based on faulty intelligence. No matter how much of a mistake it may have been, though, it was indeed a commitment, especially after we completely dismantled Iraq’s government and military. So what, now, do we do? We could pull out all forces as quickly as possible, as advocated by many constitutionalists. It’s highly probable that the Iraqi security forces will be unable to deal with insurgent forces, and the characteristics of the Vietnam War would have been successfully and wholly repeated. In Vietnam, even when we and our allies were within sight of victory, we pulled all support before our South Vietnamese allies were adequately self-sufficient (because the US lost its political will to continue the fight), and they were eventually destroyed. The same could very well happen in Iraq, resulting in another potentially radical Islamic state in the Middle East.
Despite this, though, how many more Americans will we have to sacrifice before we can consider Iraq “secure”? We all have a tough choice to make. If Iraq collapses into a radical Islamic state, then the trillions of dollars and the thousands of American lives lost would be for naught. And, no, “taking out” Saddam Hussein doesn’t level that field. What would have been the point of removing Saddam from power and having him executed if his oppressive, secular regime is replaced by an even more oppressive Islamist one?
There is the undeniable fact that the United States faces no direct attack from any state in the Middle East. The threats to our national security come from groups such as al Qaeda, an organization without borders or uniformed armies. Our options are threefold, as I see it. The first two options could lead to the destruction of al Qaeda; the third option does not.
Option 1: An all-out, no-holds-barred offensive. No punches will be pulled. Wherever a single al Qaeda unit resides, we will decimate them and anyone supporting them, without regard to the sovereignty of the nations in which al Qaeda is operating. It would essentially boil down to an unprecedented assault on the entire Islamic world. Combined with a ruthless crackdown on Islamic populations in Europe and the US, we would strike the hearts of all Islamic people with the fear of God. It would be the ultimate example of preemptive warfare, and with our current nuclear and conventional warfare capabilities, we could do it. The draft would have to be reinstated and the cost could reach the hundreds of trillions. We would probably have to do it alone, too, although a few allies might pop up. However, this option would be the most surefire way to eliminate a very real enemy to the Western world. Our ways of life and cultures will be much more preserved and secured.
Option 2: Continue on our current policy path. Confront Islamic/Muslim states diplomatically when they do something that threatens our interests, attack al Qaeda when they pop up into our sights, and promote pro-Western democracy. This option leaves open the possibility that we will never get out of the region, and the increasing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe could prove a huge problem to these efforts in the long run. This option also does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again.
Option 3: Withdrawal all military assets from the area. Reduce (or even eliminate) military aid to Israel. Basically give the Islamists nothing to complain about, nor anything to fight with us about. Like Option Two, this option does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again, but no more Americans will die in the immediate conflict, and huge sums of American money will be saved in the coming years.
Which option is the right option? Unfortunately, only history will tell us that. Option Three most certainly seems to be in the best interest of Americans. Option One has the potential to eliminate a great threat to the entire Western world, but at a potentially great cost. Option Two is proven by history to be the most sensible path to achieve an acceptable balance of peace and prosperity (specifically for Americans), albeit also with a cost.
It’s all mighty complicated, for sure. It’s very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of politicians who call for the entire spectrum of options, but every option has positive and negative consequences. An appropriate balance must be found, because getting bogged down in a counterinsurgency war could possibly be eclipsed by us all getting bogged down in indecision and doubt about what to do.
- Alex Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
