One of the classic motivational quotations is from a fellow named Judson B. Branch, who opined:
“There is no limit to the good man can do if he doesn’t care who gets the credit.”
In that vein, let me discuss President George W. Bush.
I voted for him in 2000, and again in 2004. For the most part, I think he’s done a better job than Al Gore or John Kerry would have done — and that were the choices available at the time. I agree with some of his policies, I disagree with others. I think, at his core, he’s a decent guy who tries to do what he thinks is the best.
Personally, though, I don’t like him.
I’ve heard him give speeches, and there’s something about his speech pattern annoys me. There’s an attitude, a personality quirk, in either him or me (or both), that just sets my teeth on edge. It might be interesting to meet him, but I would not enjoy a prolonged discussion with him. I don’t see me wanting to pal around with him (except to ingratiate myself to his daughters), exchanging phone calls, having dinner together, swapping e-mails.
But there is one inescapable fact: George W. Bush is the President of the United States, and pending extraordinary circumstances (that have occurred exactly seven times in over two hundred years), will remain so until January 20, 2009. He is the Head Of State for the United States, and that means that in nearly all matters of national and international policy, he is the voice of the nation.
This is a very troubled time in the world. The threats to our nation are many, both open and covert. The forces behind international terrorism are shadowy, and only a few nation-states (Iraq and Afghanistan) have been brought to task for their deeds, while others (Iran and Syria, just to name two) are feeling a bit nervous.
Iran, in particular, is the one I find more troubling. As I have said recently, I am greatly concerned about their quest to possess nuclear weapons, and have frequently made no bones about their willingness to use them. Those who calls me and those who agree with me “alarmists” are basing their arguments on a rather slender reed: the rationality of Iran’s leaders. As a wise man once said, “one cannot reason someone away from a position they did not reach by reasoning.” Or, more succinctly, as commenter kevino put it,
“The Iranian Mullah’s would have to be crazy to try it.
I think they’re crazy.”
“Crazy” might be too harsh a word. In their own way, they are acting perfectly in accordance with their culture, their perceptions, their goals, their world-view, their beliefs. By their standards, we are the crazy ones.
That’s a bit of the standardPC crap. It’s the makings of a fine philosophical argument, but it doesn’t address the fundamental question: the conflict between those two perceptions will most likely not be settled by debates, but by force. The other side has already made it abundantly clear that discussions are a way to buy more time to prepare for the fight, not to avoid it. Pressure is what is needed — economic and political pressure might do it, but in the end I fear the overpressure of large explosions might end up being needed.
The United States, realistically, has no choice in the matter. Iran has laid out its goals: the removal of all Western elements from the Middle East, as a starter. That includes Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western warships in the Persian Gulf, Western culture on the TV or radio. And the biggest element of Westernism: the existence of the nation of Israel, which they perceive as an invasion and occupation of the West’s Jews on sacred Muslim land.
Towards the achievement of those goals, Iran has laid out its methods: terrorism, through Hizbollah and other terrorist groups. Economic forces, through its own oil exports and its strategic position astride the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25% of the world’s oil supply flows). And, if they can get them, nuclear weapons.
Yesterday, I outlined a nightmarish scenario that could develop if Iran gets nuclear weapons. While I pulled actual casualty figures out of whole air, I think it is a plausible outcome. I have little doubt that should Iran get nuclear weapons, they will use them — and use them against a nation with a never-acknowledged but widely-known nuclear capacity of its own. And it is a widely accepted truism that any nuclear-armed nation that suffers a nuclear attack will retaliate with its own nuclear weapons. Toss in the volatility of the Middle East and its key role in the world economy, a nuclear exchange will have devastating affects across the world — not to mention the millions of people who will suffer directly.
I don’t want that to happen. I want it stopped.
Realistically, there is only one nation that has the means and interest in doing so. That nation is the United States.
Realistically, if the United States is to head off this nuclear holocaust, either tomorrow or five years down the road, the President must be committed to doing so. And until Januray 20, 2009, that president will be George W. Bush.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about George W. Bush, more than I would any other human being. But he is the President. As he put it, he is “the decider.” The whole point of a president is to be a Chief Executive, to make decisions, to execute policy. I need him to make the decisions that will keep this from happening.
Were John Kerry president today, or if we were halfway through Al Gore’s second term, I would be saying much the same thing. (Admittedly, I think my tone would be different, but the substance would be unchanged.) Because in the end, this is not about who is in the Oval Office — but what decisions are made there.
Looks like Iraq’s getting their shit toegether. Al Sistani’s calling for militias to stand down, their government’s coming together, every day there’s progress.
Looks like Iran’s getting froggy. They’ve told the IAEA they ain’t gonna play nice.
Time’s getting short, and the diplomatic dance over there’s coming to an end. I don’t think anyone’s going to be happy with the outcome.
In my earlier comments I asked the fundamental question:
If the US tries to negotiate to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, what is the basis of this negotiation?
I guess I have my answer: those on the Left don’t have an answer, and they don’t care. They’ll just let the Iranians build a bomb the same way that the North Koreans did. It’s certainly disappointing that the GOP had the vision to really change the world for the better, but couldn’t get it done. They will be replaced by the Left in 2006, creating a power vacuum that let’s the Fascists dominate the planet for the next several decades. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die, millions of people will suffer under tyrannical regimes, and women throughout the Islamic world will be brutally oppressed by systematic sexual apartheid. But the Left doesn’t care. As long as the US isn’t at war, they’re happy. The fact that others are suffering is irrelevant.
This is a turning point in history. Many years from now, historians will look back at the world and say that this generation of Americans could have turned back the Darkness, but they failed.
To kevino:
I think I’m on your Left, and I am diametrically opposed to what you are saying, as are practically all of the “Lefties” that I know.
Democrats (the people, not the power brokers) believe basically the same things that you do. We need to make the world a better place.
Don’t buy into the nonsense that the American Fascists are feeding you: there is no Right/Left divide in the US. Maybe one in a hundred “Left” people are those insane homosexual marriage/anti-Christian maniacs that your leaders tell you that all Democrats are. The majority of people are reasonable and will listen to reasoned arguments.
And according to recent news, the Right is withdrawing its support for the war as well. How is that related to the mythical liberal threat? Suddenly Republican politicians are listening to Liberal Democrats on their strong issues?
As long as the US has a professional volunteer military, I’m all for US military intervention. However, I support the draft only for American soldiers to serve protecting US soil.
Summing up, the US needs to act on Iran now. Drop bombs, organize the local resistence, whatever. Negotiating with the iranian government will prove jsut as effective as negotiating with Hitler. I am on the Left, kevino. I agree with you!
To JLawson:
Al Sistani is calling for the militias to disband? did you see how many victims there were of militia violence yesterday (as reported on the BBC)? Don’t trust this guy any more than Hussein. He’ll say anything he thinks the US wants to hear in order to strengthen his position. These claims shouldn’t be used as an excuse for the US to weaken its position in the Middle East.
Cliff Nickerson:
Thanks. Sorry to say that bombings won’t work. It won’t destroy their centrigue sites because they are too well hidden. The Mullahs probably see it as a way to gain sympathy from their neighbors and help rally their own people. We can cripple their economy, but the moment we tough their oil fields, Russia and China step in.
Your idea to organize anti-government forces is a good one.. I though of that myself.
But the real problem is a political one. President Bush is beyond lame duck. The Iranian Mullahs have been seeing all of the protest signs that say, “War never solved anything.” They now see that as the majority opinion in the US. Real armed conflict is not going to happen because most Americans don’t want it. Bush could bomb for 60 days, then he needs approval that he won’t get — especially from the Democratic congress (coming soon).
The US is weak — not weak militarily or economically. We have no will to stand up against these people. They know it.
My question about negotiation comes to an opinion constantly expressed by the Left: war is never the answer; the answer is negotiation. Bush is failing because we aren’t negotiating well.