Self-Absorption and a Bleeding Heart
Any number of conservative news outlets have reported stories about the feelings of the Iraqi people about America, but there's always retorts from people like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who called Iraq "a morass" on The CBS Early Show this morning after recently endorsing Barack Obama for President. It has always incensed me when hatred for the Bush Administration manifests itself with such First Amendment expressions, but never more so then after a conversation I had today with a U.S. government employee working in Iraq that I'd like to share.
His name is Jim (he has not given me the authority to share my discussion with him in this forum and so he will remain anonymous) and he is on leave stateside from his job teaching the Iraqi people centuries-old techniques of survival, namely farming and raising chickens. Jim is transported to his field "classrooms" all over the Baghdad area by U.S. military personnel, commuting in tanks, Humvees and helicopters. I, of course, had to ask Jim how his "students" were taking to his presence and the presence of our military. Without hesitation, I was told an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people could not be more grateful to America for their new lives.
Grateful? To America?? Not enraged at some coalition of the duped who were convinced by phony intelligence propagated by President Bush??? I inquired further and learned that in Iraq, The United States of America is largely being credited for some of the country's current living conditions. "Credited, not blamed," was the distinction I was told to make, which I interpreted to mean "thanked for the positives" about life in Baghdad and not "cause of all the negatives" as heard on the nightly news. According to Jim, America was far from The Great Satan in the minds of Iraqis.
Intrigued, I pressed on with some questions about how things were REALLY going, and was told emphatically the ability to walk in the open, be it daylight or midnight, without fear of being kidnapped by a member of Sadaam's regime for purposes of extorting members of one's family into military service, was a freedom not known for generations of Iraqis. It was something which many people in Baghdad still have yet to be accustomed. When the former dictatorship collapsed, the fear of Sadaam was replaced by the fear of the unknown. The basic elements of life were interrupted and for some, that was understandably an angering thing. This caused me to recall one of the post-war liberal talking points which suggested George Bush had ruined a good, prosperous life under a strict, but fair, dictator: "At least under Hussein, they had clean water and electricity."
Our conversation continued. I asked Jim what he thought about the length of time it has taken for the Iraqi government to form, decide and begin acting with its new-found freedom following Sadaam's removal. The response I got should not have surprised me, but for some reason it did: "If the U.S. government can't get anything done quickly and done right after 200+ years of existence, what makes you think a brand new, upstart can be any better?"
As my discussion with Jim continued, things began to come into a new focus. Slowly, life in Iraq has been and is continuing to be rebuilt from the ground up, but to hear we have boots on the ground providing security for U.S. government employees who are teaching the Iraqis how to care for themselves instead of being reliant upon the whims of a puppet regime backed by the U.S. under the guise of democracy took me a bit by surprise. I knew we were involved in the physical restoration of the country's infrastructure, but had somewhat forgotten about the humanitarian side. I then saw Jim's efforts for what they really are: a teaching of the Iraqi people of personal responsibility for their situation, and a providing of the tools for self-sufficiency under a democratic system of governance they will eventually be able to call their own. I then realized a good life might still be had in Iraq if those citizens willing to accept a little help from people like Jim take a run at making it on their own, even though the government of Iraq is a bit inept at the moment (if even operationally in existence at all.)
And then it hit me - these are the exact opposite of the ideals of the Democratic Party, whose current philosophy regarding the purpose and function of our government is that it is the only thing that can cure the mortgage "crisis," restore New Orleans after Katrina, and make health care better and more affordable by controlling it. Translation: we need a Democratic-controlled government here in America to run our lives because we cannot run our lives ourselves. Free market forces inherent in a strong, capitalist economy are Republican-supported and always breed greed. Since Republicans are corrupt, and greed eventually takes the satantic form of the likes of Enron and Bear Stearns, we need the protection of the caring Democratic Party who will raise us and nuture us and educate us and provide for us from birth until death do we part.
So voting Democrat really means asking what your country can do for you. On this point, the eloquent and powerful speeches of JFK seem relegated to historical inconvenience. That notwithstanding, I was conflicted. I struggled with these ideals as they could be applied to our efforts in Iraq. After all, the Democratic Party is the party of social programs, right? And they are all about aiding those who cannot (or refuse to even try to) help themselves, so why not make Iraq their biggest and best example of how a government can truly rescue the formerly oppressed and downtrodden?
And then I got hit again. The real reason liberals want us out of Iraq is not because of the Iraqi people's inability to take charge of their own lives at a pace that satisfies the Microwave Culture of America; Its not about Bush's lies, the war's costs, or the 4,000 brave Americans who have now been counted as having lost their lives in this endeavor; It is not because our ill-conceived actions were wrong and have created terrorism in a place where it never before existed; Its not even about The War for Oil by Big Oil.
Its because to the current Democratic Party, the U.S. should only stop ethnic cleansing when its politically convenient; only give aid to impoverished areas of the world when it serves a political purpose; and only provide exile to displaced and persecuted peoples if it results in support for their party in the next election.
The current humanitarian efforts underway in Iraq are not politically convenient to the Democratic Party because staying there doesn't get them any votes in November. Remaining because its the right thing to do, regardless of how our presence there came to be, hasn't even crossed their minds (I wonder if their constant assault on God, by way of distorting the separation of church and state, has anything to do with this callousness?) Instead, leaving and leaving now under the rationale it will save American military lives, save American taxpayer money, and immediately restore American's reputation around the world as we cease to occupy a foreign land is the path to American political power right now because throwing the Iraqis out into the cold, to the wolves, with the bathwater, is equated with righting the wrongs of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. Its plain and simple and probably something I missed during the '04 elections, but for some reason my conversation with Jim put things into a crystal clear context. The humanitarian mission to the survivors of the Iraq War and its violent aftermath is not even on liberal radar screens because the liberal politicians really only truly care about themselves and that's politics and I get that. But how does a predominance of the membership of an allegedly compassionate party like the democrats morph into such a selfish movement who only really truly cares about what THEIR government can do for THEM?
Its clear to me Jim's efforts are considered by the Left to be a clean-up job of George Bush's mistakes. Liberal hatred for Bush won't allow concession to the obligation of standing alongside the Iraqis for as long as it takes for them to establish a strong foundation on which they can build for the rest of eternity. Apparently they are not worthy of such a chance, and I can only surmise its because they allowed someone like Sadaam Hussein to rise to power in the first place. Somehow, the justifications for the war itself have been tied to the efforts of people like Jim - one is believed to have been bogus so the other is bogus-by-association. How mature liberal democrats can be.
I am sickened the complicit mainstream media and most of our elected officials in Washington have become too political even for themselves to realize that by calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq means an exponential escalation of a humanitarian crisis already underway - a crisis that is a direct result of our own military's action! Right or wrong, it happened, and sadly I am not as much outraged about the lack of caring by the liberals of the Iraqi people themselves as much as I am at the level of hypocrisy over all this and how they are not being called on the carpet to explain it!
Maybe the young and recently "politically energized" of our country, who believe a message of Change and Hope for the future is better than actually taking action themselves, should stop and ask themselves why being told they cannot succeed in this country without the Democrats in office is any better than a mother telling her young daughter she is too stupid to amount to anything in life? Maybe this is one and the same.
We are approaching what some are calling the most important presidential election of a generation yet all the talk of withdrawing from Iraq centers on how such would impact the safety of America from terrorism. Nobody seems to be asking the candidates how we can abandon, on humanitarian grounds alone, an entire country of people whose current situation we essentially created. Any response involving intelligence failures, rushes to judgment, or no stockpiles of WMDs is an attempt at misdirection and only diverts attention from the true reason a Democratic President, Senator or Congressperson will not openly vote for the reconstruction of Iraq to continue.
So vote for Hillary because you like her health care plan. Vote for Obama because you like his pastor's views on race relations in America. Don't vote for either of them because you support the belief the War in Iraq was a mistake and, as a result, all of our troops should come home.
His name is Jim (he has not given me the authority to share my discussion with him in this forum and so he will remain anonymous) and he is on leave stateside from his job teaching the Iraqi people centuries-old techniques of survival, namely farming and raising chickens. Jim is transported to his field "classrooms" all over the Baghdad area by U.S. military personnel, commuting in tanks, Humvees and helicopters. I, of course, had to ask Jim how his "students" were taking to his presence and the presence of our military. Without hesitation, I was told an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people could not be more grateful to America for their new lives.
Grateful? To America?? Not enraged at some coalition of the duped who were convinced by phony intelligence propagated by President Bush??? I inquired further and learned that in Iraq, The United States of America is largely being credited for some of the country's current living conditions. "Credited, not blamed," was the distinction I was told to make, which I interpreted to mean "thanked for the positives" about life in Baghdad and not "cause of all the negatives" as heard on the nightly news. According to Jim, America was far from The Great Satan in the minds of Iraqis.
Intrigued, I pressed on with some questions about how things were REALLY going, and was told emphatically the ability to walk in the open, be it daylight or midnight, without fear of being kidnapped by a member of Sadaam's regime for purposes of extorting members of one's family into military service, was a freedom not known for generations of Iraqis. It was something which many people in Baghdad still have yet to be accustomed. When the former dictatorship collapsed, the fear of Sadaam was replaced by the fear of the unknown. The basic elements of life were interrupted and for some, that was understandably an angering thing. This caused me to recall one of the post-war liberal talking points which suggested George Bush had ruined a good, prosperous life under a strict, but fair, dictator: "At least under Hussein, they had clean water and electricity."
Our conversation continued. I asked Jim what he thought about the length of time it has taken for the Iraqi government to form, decide and begin acting with its new-found freedom following Sadaam's removal. The response I got should not have surprised me, but for some reason it did: "If the U.S. government can't get anything done quickly and done right after 200+ years of existence, what makes you think a brand new, upstart can be any better?"
As my discussion with Jim continued, things began to come into a new focus. Slowly, life in Iraq has been and is continuing to be rebuilt from the ground up, but to hear we have boots on the ground providing security for U.S. government employees who are teaching the Iraqis how to care for themselves instead of being reliant upon the whims of a puppet regime backed by the U.S. under the guise of democracy took me a bit by surprise. I knew we were involved in the physical restoration of the country's infrastructure, but had somewhat forgotten about the humanitarian side. I then saw Jim's efforts for what they really are: a teaching of the Iraqi people of personal responsibility for their situation, and a providing of the tools for self-sufficiency under a democratic system of governance they will eventually be able to call their own. I then realized a good life might still be had in Iraq if those citizens willing to accept a little help from people like Jim take a run at making it on their own, even though the government of Iraq is a bit inept at the moment (if even operationally in existence at all.)
And then it hit me - these are the exact opposite of the ideals of the Democratic Party, whose current philosophy regarding the purpose and function of our government is that it is the only thing that can cure the mortgage "crisis," restore New Orleans after Katrina, and make health care better and more affordable by controlling it. Translation: we need a Democratic-controlled government here in America to run our lives because we cannot run our lives ourselves. Free market forces inherent in a strong, capitalist economy are Republican-supported and always breed greed. Since Republicans are corrupt, and greed eventually takes the satantic form of the likes of Enron and Bear Stearns, we need the protection of the caring Democratic Party who will raise us and nuture us and educate us and provide for us from birth until death do we part.
So voting Democrat really means asking what your country can do for you. On this point, the eloquent and powerful speeches of JFK seem relegated to historical inconvenience. That notwithstanding, I was conflicted. I struggled with these ideals as they could be applied to our efforts in Iraq. After all, the Democratic Party is the party of social programs, right? And they are all about aiding those who cannot (or refuse to even try to) help themselves, so why not make Iraq their biggest and best example of how a government can truly rescue the formerly oppressed and downtrodden?
And then I got hit again. The real reason liberals want us out of Iraq is not because of the Iraqi people's inability to take charge of their own lives at a pace that satisfies the Microwave Culture of America; Its not about Bush's lies, the war's costs, or the 4,000 brave Americans who have now been counted as having lost their lives in this endeavor; It is not because our ill-conceived actions were wrong and have created terrorism in a place where it never before existed; Its not even about The War for Oil by Big Oil.
Its because to the current Democratic Party, the U.S. should only stop ethnic cleansing when its politically convenient; only give aid to impoverished areas of the world when it serves a political purpose; and only provide exile to displaced and persecuted peoples if it results in support for their party in the next election.
The current humanitarian efforts underway in Iraq are not politically convenient to the Democratic Party because staying there doesn't get them any votes in November. Remaining because its the right thing to do, regardless of how our presence there came to be, hasn't even crossed their minds (I wonder if their constant assault on God, by way of distorting the separation of church and state, has anything to do with this callousness?) Instead, leaving and leaving now under the rationale it will save American military lives, save American taxpayer money, and immediately restore American's reputation around the world as we cease to occupy a foreign land is the path to American political power right now because throwing the Iraqis out into the cold, to the wolves, with the bathwater, is equated with righting the wrongs of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. Its plain and simple and probably something I missed during the '04 elections, but for some reason my conversation with Jim put things into a crystal clear context. The humanitarian mission to the survivors of the Iraq War and its violent aftermath is not even on liberal radar screens because the liberal politicians really only truly care about themselves and that's politics and I get that. But how does a predominance of the membership of an allegedly compassionate party like the democrats morph into such a selfish movement who only really truly cares about what THEIR government can do for THEM?
Its clear to me Jim's efforts are considered by the Left to be a clean-up job of George Bush's mistakes. Liberal hatred for Bush won't allow concession to the obligation of standing alongside the Iraqis for as long as it takes for them to establish a strong foundation on which they can build for the rest of eternity. Apparently they are not worthy of such a chance, and I can only surmise its because they allowed someone like Sadaam Hussein to rise to power in the first place. Somehow, the justifications for the war itself have been tied to the efforts of people like Jim - one is believed to have been bogus so the other is bogus-by-association. How mature liberal democrats can be.
I am sickened the complicit mainstream media and most of our elected officials in Washington have become too political even for themselves to realize that by calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq means an exponential escalation of a humanitarian crisis already underway - a crisis that is a direct result of our own military's action! Right or wrong, it happened, and sadly I am not as much outraged about the lack of caring by the liberals of the Iraqi people themselves as much as I am at the level of hypocrisy over all this and how they are not being called on the carpet to explain it!
Maybe the young and recently "politically energized" of our country, who believe a message of Change and Hope for the future is better than actually taking action themselves, should stop and ask themselves why being told they cannot succeed in this country without the Democrats in office is any better than a mother telling her young daughter she is too stupid to amount to anything in life? Maybe this is one and the same.
We are approaching what some are calling the most important presidential election of a generation yet all the talk of withdrawing from Iraq centers on how such would impact the safety of America from terrorism. Nobody seems to be asking the candidates how we can abandon, on humanitarian grounds alone, an entire country of people whose current situation we essentially created. Any response involving intelligence failures, rushes to judgment, or no stockpiles of WMDs is an attempt at misdirection and only diverts attention from the true reason a Democratic President, Senator or Congressperson will not openly vote for the reconstruction of Iraq to continue.
So vote for Hillary because you like her health care plan. Vote for Obama because you like his pastor's views on race relations in America. Don't vote for either of them because you support the belief the War in Iraq was a mistake and, as a result, all of our troops should come home.
Comments