In this new era of warfare, it is difficult to define our enemy. They are numerous, but all different in many ways. They all have a common goal however.. to kill western republics. Liberty is their enemy... in all its forms. They are at war with a concept. As long as it exists, their religious dogma can not be forced on all inhabitants of the earth. They don't care what country has it, they want it destroyed. Many on their side call it the "war with the west.." So, they are at war with a direction too... cool.
Why can't we define the enemy the same way? If Liberty is their enemy, why can't ours be a concept as well? Are we not at war with Fascism? In all its forms? Ultimately, they only way for us to be truly free is to stomp out authoritarian governments. We spread our way of life through liberty and allowing people to make their own choices. The Islamic Fundamental groups believe the opposite. They believe they must force their beliefs on others. So, they must kill the movement of Liberty.
Aren't we then in a catch 22? If the only solution to upholding Liberty is to destroy Fascism, and the only way to do that is to kill people and overthrow Fascist governments... would we not be doing exactly what they want to do to us? Are we then better simply because when we are done killing, we leave the people with Liberty and the ability to create a republic? Maybe we are?
Are we willing to go this far? Are we willing to just destroy Fascism? Period? If not, we will always be living in fear, playing defense and getting irritated with men like George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld because the world hasn't given them the political backing to go all the way. To use ALL our might to kill the enemy and everyone around them and never look back. Our men and women in uniform will continue to die and it will NEVER end. This is the question of our time everyone... so.... Let's open the floor here... what are we to do???
Saturday, November 11, 2006
21st Century War... what are we to do?
Posted by CitizenSaint at 2:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Citizen, Good Post. I understand your point. I'm not sure what exact points I disagree with however, I must for a moment play the other side.
The United States was built on the concept of personal liberty and individual rights. We as a country are recipients of a glorious history of people who believed in these ideals, fought for them and ultimately, many died for them. We come to honor these men and women as patriots. These honorable people gave all they had for a "concept" that people were given rights to decide for themselves whether they would live free or whether they would continue living under an authoritative rule. In my opinion that decision to live free or under rule gave these Americans the fortitude, the vested interest, the faith and the desire to sacrifice all for the cause.
the problem I see with this idea that we are to destroy facism and implement freedom is that the nations that we are destroying may not be ready for this new found liberty. It seems to me that the missing ingredient in this whole strategy is will and determination. Did it not take millenia for the children of Adam to decide that they wanted liberty? It took generations for the people of earth, the philosophies of man to come together to implement the idea of liberty. Liberty is god given, not even facsism can take away Liberty. In order for freedom to endure, to take hold, there must be people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It must take men and women courage to defend it and support it. It is fundamentally inherent that there men and women ready to die and to uphold Liberty at all costs.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to spread Liberty to all men on the earth. I believe that the idea that Liberty be forced upon any people is fundamentally against the core philosopy of Liberty. The inhabitants of the world must desire and sacrifice for it. Liberty by nature is a philosophy of sacrifice and will. It therefore must be gained through its axioms.
The people of any nation whose goverment is represive and anti-liberty deserve freedom. They however, like the greatest of all the generations of man, must be willing to give all to its cause. If it is not then it is destined to fail. The world believed the humble colonialist could not defeat the greatest army of the world. What the world did not understand was the the human soul longs for its freedom. It was the will of the human soul that defeated the British. If the world really yerns for liberty, let them sacrifice and die for it. As the benefactors of a benevolent history we should be there to lift them up and succor them. Let them take the first step towards freedom. If it is required let their freedom be testified through their blood.
Liberty cannot be taken away, no matter how represive a government is. Neither God nor government can take away agency. In order for Liberty to prevail the people must be willing to sacrifice and die to enjoy its benefits.
I think I agree with you in theory, however, a repressive government eventually has to be destroyed in order for Liberty to take hold. A great example of this is Japan. If we wouldn't have beat them on the battlefield, they wouldn't be the country they are today. I don't know... I agree it is a fine line, but how do we truly know their inner liberty will flourish if we don't help them first.
I do agree with you on one point however... Iraq has shown us that some people need liberty and even want it, but I question their resolve to stand up and die for it.
If I may submit a few questions to ask in this question about spreading liberty. My remarks will not be as philosophical as the above; they are more pragmatic.
1. How do we finance the spread of liberty and take-down of oppressive regimes? Iraq has cost us billions, and will cost billions more. Our government should be bankrupt, but it is in the World's interest that we remain stable, so Europe and Asia keep lending us money to the tune of over a billion dollars every business day. The Treasury is full of IOU's; we couldn't properly outfit the Hummers or provide body armor for the troops, and we are going to ask them to globe-hop and fight for other people who may not be ready to help fight for their freedom?
2. There are a lot of dictators and evil, oppressive governments in the world. How do we decide who poses the greatest risk?
3. The armed forces had to close the flood gates of servicemen retiring by implementing stop-loss, which basically forces people to stay in the army, and recruits are hard to come by these days. So who is going to fight these battles? Our all-volunteer army is the greatest in the world, but to ask them to fight for the rest of their lives (which is what it will take to bring down every evil dictator in the world) to keep us safe from some young, destitute Arabs who feel like their only option in live is to kill innocent people might be a stretch for some people.
I don't have any idea how long it would take to fight all these battles around the world. It seems like a pretty tall order to me though, no matter how deserving the poor, oppressed people are. Look at us, we felt oppressed by the British government, and we fought back! Why aren't the Arabs, Persians, Africans, or Koreans fighting against their governments? We were poor farmers living in an agrarian society, and we found a way to beat one of the world's superpowers (with a little help from the French Navy. I know, that must pain some people to hear).
Why didn't George H.W. Bush take out Saddam? Because he saw no exit strategy. Maybe that sounds wimpy or un-honorable; it was for sure practical.
I think Davieboy's practical points make a lot of sense. As a philosophy, I believe freedom as a form of rule must be earned, and not given. Liberty will always be there because it is ours and no one else's.
How are we to determine who wants or needs freedom? As davieboy pointed out, who do we choose? We clearly chose wrong on Iraq. Not only did we enter Iraq for grievously wrong assumptions, for exception to a select few of Iraqi's, they do not want us in their country. How are we to win a war when those who we claim to be liberating don't want liberation? We can conquer the nations of the world, destroy facism in all of its form but to what end? So the conquered can trample of the sacrifices of their liberators? The idea that we destroy facism in principle is correct, however in order for us to do so it can't be fought with guns and blood. Liberty must be won in the war of ideas. Just as it was in American, when it wins over its constiuents, then it can endure.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009239
This article is pretty heavy. It relates though, to this discussion.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009239
This article is pretty heavy. It relates though, to this discussion.
I am on board with the practical nature of these arguments. I agree that theory falls prey to logistics quite often. I think that is definitely what we are seeing in Iraq. Too much money and American lives for little visible return at this point.
I think however we are missing the gravity of the question of "how far will we go..." I am not suggesting using more troops... I am not suggesting that we invade these countries. I am suggesting using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear missiles.
We could (in theory) accomplish the goals previously stated and not have to worry as much about the logistical nightmare of having an army that has to fight for years and then clean up a mess. There is only one problem... civilian casualties. Where do you draw the line there?
I believe the argument for and/or against nuclear weapons is seriously flawed in this war in Iraq, and really with the "war on terror". The problem is we often don't know who the enemy is or where they are. If one have learned one thing in Iraq it is that no muslim is the same. Not only are they fighting us, they are fighting each other. Who are we going to blow up?
Iran we could justify blowing them to kindgom come because of their outward desire to acquire nuclear weapons. I believe we could have been justified in Afghanistan to. In practical terms however, the U.S. has an arsenal greater than none and could deliver the required blow without nuclear weapons. Why fight a war against nuclear proliferation by blowing them up with one? Then again, America just may be hypocritical enough to do just that.
Post a Comment