Iran's government tests the resolve of the U.S., Israel, and the world. by Gary Wood
(conservative)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Writing this article will, without doubt, solicit the standard backlash of responses from those leaning toward the hawkish, interventionist policies that lead us into world conflict today. Receiving hate mails and responses due to my blind, pacifist, isolationist, naive stance are sure to follow.
For this reason the following caveats are provided;
A total of 22 years has been devoted to military duty.
Lifetime membership in the VFW gives credence to the fact of understanding wartime service.
A Jeffersonian inspired agreement with a non-interventionist foreign policy is not now, nor has it ever been, pacifist or isolationist no matter how much opponents say it is.
This article and the beliefs held by the author have been developed since 2002 and do represent a change from one leaning in favor of our current policy versus becoming totally opposed to it.
With those caveats out of the way it is time for every United States citizen to carefully take note of the way in which the Iranian long-range missile tests serve to strengthen our leadership regarding their desire to secure the outer reaches of our empire. Yes, an empire in every sense of the modern day understanding of what that is. Our tentacles encircle the globe and our leadership is not ready to reduce those tentacles anytime soon even though there are countries who want us to and there are citizens who understand it is better not only for our security but for our long-term stability as a free and honorable nation.
In a dangerous game of "I'm not touching you!" Iran conducted the most recent show of strength by launching up to 9 long-range missiles as both a test and a statement of their own resolve to defend themselves against the recent threats from Israel, the U.S., and others allied together against Iran. These tests allow the hawkish leaders of our country to puff out their chests and rally the citizens by clearly pointing to these tests and saying, "See, we told you they were dangerous and we better get them before they get us!" Millions of peaceful U.S. Citizens will feel a bit of fear, concern, and anger while standing with the warmongering leaders among us for we are not going to allow anyone to push us around.
It was not that long ago the people (remember this important word, people rather than governments) of Iran stood by the U.S. resolve to punish Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. As we invaded Afghanistan and began the rightful pursuit of the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11 Iran and others supported our actions. This should have been the target we stayed laser-focused on. If there was any location on the globe we should have sent in more than 100,000 of our brave men and women in uniform this was the country and Bin Laden was the target. Saddam (whom we once supported even though we knew he was bad) posed no threat to us, Al Qaeda attacked us. We developed a weak case to attack Iraq and our main target is free and growing stronger today while those that once supported us now fear us more than ever, and for good reason.
How many of you reading this think it is high time the Iraq government stand up and take care of themselves and their citizens? Would you applaud the leadership of Iraq for wanting to stand up? Our leaders don't nor do they want to accept the fact the democratically elected leadership in Iraq has moved from asking us to leave to demanding a time line for our departure. We should be encouraging their desire to run their own affairs including those of security yet we simply deny their requests and turn in silent opposition to their desires for our troops to leave their shores, now pointing directly at Iran for good measure.
Every parent can think of the first steps of a child who has experienced that time. You release the child and after two steps the child falls, nearly cracking their skulls on a table. Moving to rescue the child you pause as the child reaches for the table and pulls upright continuing the long 5 step journey to outstretched, waiting arms. Iraq is trying to take their first real steps and yet we will not release them, we claim we want to protect them in case they fall. With this attitude they will never stand on their own and some in our leadership will obtain their desires, operating bases in Iraq forever.
While we ignore the requests from Iraq's leaders we are busy ramping up the rhetoric against Iran. Saber rattling is going on between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. With each passing day the talk and actions become more severe. This game, this dangerous game, is heading down a path of confrontation government officials claim to not want. Without a doubt the majority of the PEOPLE of all nations don't want confrontation. Most PEOPLE would prefer to live in security, peace, and shrouded in the real hope for a better tomorrow. Government is not people. The U.S. government no longer embraces the will to be, nor the realization it is, controlled by the people. Instead governments tell their people to look at the threats of others against them. Officials turn their backs on their oath to protect our Constitution while claiming they're merely protecting us.
Putin once again has reasons to point to the United States and warn all who will listen to beware our aggression. Before the ink dried on Secretary of State Rice's signature on an agreement with the Czech Republic, for building missile defense shields, the Russian leaders quickly used it to bolster their propaganda and their growing alliances countering the threats they feel are being created by our current policy. We pledge not only to build shields for the Czech Republic but also for the European Union. Missiles fly and our leaders stand ready to invest more money we don't have for defenses we cannot afford in areas we don't need to be defending. If we are to invest more debt into defensive security should we not be doing so within our borders instead of for another country or union of countries? Should we not let other countries pay for their own security needs?
We rattle, we push, they rattle, and push back...to what end? The end is one of financial gain for any and all involved in the military industrial complex. The end is one of financial gain for all who invest their money in unstable commodities. The end is one of financial gain for privateers profiting on the war and misery of people at war. The end is not for the safety of the people of Iraq, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, the United States, or Europe. The end is not for the security of our borders nor the protection of our U.S. Constitution or way of life.
The end is focused on profits for the few at the expense of the many. The payment is not merely monetary but the very liberty and freedom our leaders claim they are attempting to defend from terrorists. Through all that has happened the past six plus years Bin Laden and our enemies still breath, growing stronger once again. If the above end were not true this enemy would have been defeated, our focus would have stayed laser sharp and the world would have stood by our side while we took out our enemy.
Yes, there are bad people in the world who want to harm our nation within our shores. Yes, governments and people don't always get along. Yes, we need to defend our borders and stand ready to take on any "true" enemy daring to consider bringing harm to our neighbors, our towns, our States. Yes, those who hate us will not stop hating us tomorrow even if we start treating the rest of the world the way we want to be treated. Yes, non-interventionist foreign policies as prescribed by Jefferson and embraced by Washington still are effective and still are the right way to defend our nation while embracing the world, leading the world, and sharing prosperity, liberty, and freedom with the world.
Governments won't agree nor will the leaders of our government for theirs is an end-game that is less concerned with people and more concerned with power and profits. Bankrupting our national treasure and good will are of no concern. Our grand children's children's future is of no concern. War brings both profitability and power so war is preferred by government. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." (George Washington)
We the People must control our government and insist on treating the world as we would want to be treated. We the People must be responsible and demand a foreign policy change that embraces sanity, draws down the numbers of those who would be our enemies, and leads the world by example of how powerful it is to live within a nation that is governed for the people and by the people. People, of all religions, creeds, races, and heritage have more reason and eloquence than all current governments combined. Internal strength and external compassion and interaction pave a much brighter path to meeting our future's needs as a nation and as a global community. Yet, without the people the dangerous fires of government will burn us all to the ashes of freedom known as oppression.
If you enjoyed this article give it a thumbs up, bookmark it to your favorite social site from the drop-down menu and suggest it to a friend. Thanks for taking the time to visit Nolan Chart, do come back often for the latest from all political views.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-09 14:32:50
Many words, but little substance. Therefore, it is difficult to respond to your article.
I do, however, take issue with your opinionated statement:
"It was not that long ago the people (remember this important word, people rather than governments) of Iran stood by the U.S. resolve to punish Al Qaeda and Bin Laden."
The "people" of Iran do not stand in resolve anywhere for anything other than where their theocratic dictatorship tells them to stand. Nonethelss, as a public relations ploy by Iran, it evidently did the trick, however cynical.
Many words, little cogency.
I can only suggest that your expressed opinion, from what I understand of it, is rather naive, and this despite your introductory caveats.
We no longer have a world, given the advancment of technology in the space age, where an ideal pastoral model of governments and states and foreign relations under "Queensbury Rules" applies or even exists anymore.
The "world commons" today begins exactly at the lintel and threshold of each and every citizen's own homestead. And some would argue that it has penetrated even into the sanctuaries within to the hearth. That is the extent to which the encroachment of the modern world has evolved.
I would argue a strictly "non-interventionist" policy is no longer applicable, nor even is it possible, under the existing modern human condition. The paradigm has made a quantum shift...whether we pine after the "used-to-be" nostallic "good old days" or not, and any arguments against such fables notwithstanding.
An unintended consequence of global modern technology is that the destructive capacity of a determined rouge--whether a single man, a group, or a state--has become simpler, or at least easier to enact on ever larger scales...and most especially when the homeowner is asleep or is inattentive to the bolts upon his door.
In short, while your words calling for "foreign policy change that embraces sanity" sound fine enough--and who could argue against it?--it is the putting of that call into practice wherein lies the rub.
Besides, there's still the little matter of "sanity" which demands definition.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-07-09 18:30:40
Gary - great article. For both yourself and Floyd above, recommend watching the BBC's Inside Iran movie - should be searchable at youtube. In liberty, Jake
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-09 19:30:32
And I did NOT find the article "great", but rather to be inane and jingoistic almost to the point of worn cliche.
Many of the premises made, if I can distill them from the verbosity, are rehashes.
For example, the author's claim, "theirs is an end-game that is less concerned with people and more concerned with power and profits" is straight out of the 60's abused terminology of the "military-industrial complex" which itself was derived from Eisenhower's use of the term.
I am not quite that machiavellian. Jaded perhaps, yes.
Further, I am not convinced that the author's interpretation of current events in Iraq [e.g. "the fact the democratically elected leadership in Iraq has moved from asking us to leave to demanding a time line for our departure"] is at all accurate, even if it is a simplistic construct designed for public consumption.
What truly strikes me as twisted irony is that many devoted "champions" of the Constitution and liberty today are in fact arguing against it and against the consoldiated government which it authorized. Too little too late.
The fact is that the Federalists wrote the American histories consumed today from birth. George Washington and his cherry tree. Today, too many take their histories as pablum.
It is axiomatic, unfortunately, that it is the victors (in this case, the Federalists) who write the histories.
The irony is that those who couch their comments "In Liberty" today, if they were to analyize their arguments, would come to the understanding that what they are actually arguing for is a Confederated Union--or, in otherwords, the very same government that America threw away when the Federalists first rammed through their Constitution which authorized this very consoldiated government at the expense of liberty in the first place.
The "Bankrupting" of America is not a nouveau malady. It began on the very first day of the very first Congress of this "new government" 220 years ago.
The whole of which is moot anyhow. For as Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu wrote:
"Republics end with luxury; monarcies with poverty." [The Spirit of Laws Bk. VII, Ch. 4]
For being so difficult to respond to based on the length and your belief there was a strong lack of substance Floyd you've left quite a long reply, obvious you didn't like the article which is fine. Many share your belief a non-interventionist policy will no longer work due to our world being too complex. That very complexity would actually allow it to work quite well in modern times. The simple idea is to allow people to get along, interact, and communicate. A strong defense coupled with a friendly attitude is not something that is outdated yet many who support our strike first, often, and stay entrenched approach state it as being outdated all the time. A first strike interventionist approach fails, being too costly and stretching our resources too thin. Peaceful life on Earth is not naive, challenging to be sure, but not naive. A world which dared to enjoy longer eras of peace than war is one that can be obtainable when people communicate more than governments. Many share a negative view of mankind today; too angry, too well armed, and too unwilling to allow others to live in peace to accept the idea. I happen to hold a higher opinion of people based on the thousands I've met here and overseas. To claim the view is naive is to claim there is far more bad than good which is a very limited view IMHO.
I'm not sure what form of government you would have favored had you been at the helm 225 years ago, based on your comments perhaps a central government as Hamilton favored. Though imperfect the foundational course perscribed in the Constitution is a sound foundation to build upon if the people stay diligent and involved. It was this key factor that concerned Washington most, we now have our own history to teach us why.
Based on your replies I have no clear indication of what you believe would be a better method of foreign affairs. It does appear you don't like the U.S. Constitution, the history of the nation, the direction we were started on or the current course, plus my writing doesn't pass your approval. No matter, I do appreciate your time in both reading the article and sharing your insights into it. Often in politics two must come to understand it is often OK to agree to disagree as long as the discussion is civil which you have been.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-09 23:27:12
Gary, you resonded: "I'm not sure what form of government you would have favored had you been at the helm 225 years ago, based on your comments perhaps a central government as Hamilton favored."
Then you truly do completely misunderstand my political philosophy. No. Actually, I disfavor a consolidated Federalist government.
225 years ago I would have fallen squarely and completely shoulder to shoulder with the Anti-Federalists, and I would have fought just as earnestly AGAINST this Constitution.
Politically? I am solidly an unreformed Confederate. And here, I do not refer to Dixie. I refer to the original compact of a Confederated Union of States versus a consolidated Federalist government.
Elsewhere, you write: "Though imperfect the foundational course perscribed in the Constitution is a sound foundation to build upon." Your logic there cannot be extended because it is incongruent with itself.
As for whether or not "there is far more bad than good" I cannot say of certainty how the scale tips were it ever to be weighed. I am not the judge, though I may have my suspicions.
I do think that you presume much, much too much, when you state: "The simple idea is to allow people to get along."
While you believe in "a strong defense coupled with a friendly attitude", I believe that any such War Department cannot and will not work in real world geopolitics.
That understanding is based upon the nature of the beast. It has little if anything to do with my considering the concept you expressed as being "outdated". Likewise, my understanding that a "non-interventionist" policy cannot and will not work in the world of 2008 is again based on the nature of the beast. 2008 is not 1788.
Interconnected societies aside for the moment, the problem today, as you must be aware, is that "assymetrical" warfare from guerilla combatants does not follow Geneva Convention protocol, much less a noble value system of the inherent worth of a fellow person.
A rabid dog cannot be trained to "do good", nor can it be controlled by "friendly attitutde"; it will not be dissuaded by "peace". They do not heel, nor can they be befriended; and certainly they cannot be trusted. They can only be destroyed.
Lastly, you protest that "Peaceful life on Earth is not naive". There we can agree. The concept is not naive, it is delusional. Life itself is simply surviving death. The hard fact is that life on Earth is violent beyond description, of man and beast and herb, insect, fungus and worm.
"A time for every purpose under heaven." And so long as we are under heaven, it will always be thus.
Personally I find most of your comments simple rhetoric.
While you believe in "a strong defense coupled with a friendly attitude", I believe that any such War Department cannot and will not work in real world geopolitics.
Is the War department under the DOD? I believe they were established for defense not too wage war. Thus why the Constitution has provisions to stop pre-emptive war.
Likewise, my understanding that a "non-interventionist" policy cannot and will not work in the world of 2008 is again based on the nature of the beast. 2008 is not 1788.
There were terrorists in 1788 as there are in 2008. What has changed so drastically about the world? Maybe it our changing from a non-interventionist foreign policy to one of world policeman.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none...Does that sound familiar?
A rabid dog cannot be trained to "do good", nor can it be controlled by "friendly attitutde"; it will not be dissuaded by "peace". They do not heel, nor can they be befriended; and certainly they cannot be trusted. They can only be destroyed.
Rabid dogs do not have the power of reasoning. All man has the power of reason until his death. That's what separates man from the animals.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-10 13:42:59
RE: J. Thomas.
EVERYTHING written here is rhetoric, by definition. So on that point, whatever.
Be advised, to make a different point, I purposely chose the term "War Department" (which in fact is what it was referred to for well over 100 years after the Federal consoldiated "new government" was seated). My choice in otherwords was "bait", which obviously you took in an attempt to discredit.
Here, you apparently accept, then, the Department of Defense as it has come to exist after generations of continued Federalist consolidation and Executive usurpations?
I do not. Furthermore, by making the deliberate choice of the term, I would remind readers of the distance travelled from the original Executive model, and the original Executive Cabinet. And this, not only regarding the War Deparment, but the now 15 other Executive Cabinet Departments, and growing daily it seems.
Regardless, I was unaware that Libertarians could so freely to pick and choose acceptance among the various consolidated Federalist organs of State. On the one hand condemning statism, while on the other using Federal consolidation whenever it might suit their own rhetoric.
But, "What has changed so drastically about the world?" from today, 2008, and the original Federalist consolidation in 1788, you asked? You must not be serious!
If you cannot conceptualize the radical changes worldwide, irrsepective of American intervention (or non-intervention for that matter), then you and I have no possible basis for a continued discussion.
Population counts alone would argue against you, even if you could ignore the technological, scientific and health changes that have occured since then. As I stated, a paradigm shift has occured globally. The global conditions of 1788 no longer exist.
You write: "All man has the power of reason until his death. That's what separates man from the animals."
Ignoring certain pathological and societal penomena which would argue against your premise, may I point out that it is a mighty fine line, as sharp as a razor's edge, between a human and an animal.
Not all two legged upright animals are in fact human. And rabidity is not confined only to four legged creatures.
Lastly, concerning your highly touted "power of reasoning", please consider these words from Patrick Henry, who argued against ratification of the Constitution:
"Nations who have trusted to logical deduction have lost their liberty"
And these by Thomas Paine,
"England has lost hers [liberty] in a long chain of right reasoning from wrong principles."
But hold to your reason if you will. Kumbaya.
Utopianism (which has a clear and distinct philosophical lineage with Libertarianism) has been tried on too numberable occasions, and tried throughout history. Each time tried, those utopian "reasonable" experiments failed in the stark naked light of reality.
And if the Ralph Waldo Emersons of early 19th century America could not make it happen here in America, when Liberty was still somewhat fresh and green, how can you ever possibly hope to succeed at a new effort now?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
