Get the issues of Iraq straight Monday, May 14 2007

What distresses me just as much as the war in Iraq are the many people out there who think that by making this war illegal and impeaching the President we are doing a service to the Iraqi’s or the thousands of U.S. and foreign troops that are abroad.

Folks, as of this point, from a policy and humanitarian standpoint it does not matter if the war was legal, if there were WMD’s, or whether or not the information the Bush administration had was altered to make the case for war more appealing. Certainly, these are important issues and they must be dealt with; but that is for another time. Impeaching the President now will not stop a bomb from ripping through a marketplace. Litigating whether the war was legal or not will not stop the kidnappings and mass executions of people from differing religious sects. Calling the President a liar in public is not going to help bring peace to this struggling nation.

 What is most important right now is that we continue to debate the issues that will help Iraq to help itself. In my opinion, setting a blind pull out date is not helping the situation. Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel recently said:

“In the face of a President oblivious to human suffering and death, the voting public is the only power that can stop the war. The Congress can and must energize this citizen’s power. Timidity, compromise, comity and politics as usual are not viable alternatives to LEADERSHIP when Americans and Iraqis are dying every day.”

By saying this, Senator Gravel has shown that he is oblivious to human suffering and death as well. Bringing the troops home by Christmas is not necessarily going to lead to stability and compromise in the Iraqi capital. It is bad enough to engage in a war without knowing the consequences or without knowing how to properly deal with the consequences. I would make the case that it is equally as bad to leave a country in a state of disrepair without fully knowing the consequences. The Senator, as with many other politicians and presidential candidates, are playing politics with this issue, all the while criticizing the President for doing the same thing. Sure, everyone wants to be out of there as soon as possible, that is not the issue; but is doing it right now – regardless of what might happen after the fact – what is best for that country? Is creating a power vaccum in Iraq going to stablize it politically? It’s not very likely.

What needs to take place right now is a vigorous debate on what policy will best help the situation in Iraq. I think if Congress were to look at the information and listen to the people who have specific knowledge about the situation, they would understand pulling out forces as soon as possible is not going to prevent a bomb from murdering thousands of civilians in a peaceful cafe.

The time for reprimanding this administration will come, but while there are still civilians and troops winding up dead and in the hospital, our first task must be to figure out how to fix that and keep more people alive.  

6 Responses »

 

Iraqi lawmakers push for U.S. withdrawal Monday, May 14 2007

Well, here is an article that completely contradicts many ideas in my last post regarding forces in Iraq. It appears that many Iraqi parlimentarians want a timetable for foreign troop withdrawls. It seems that they feel they have the political and military togetherness to bring safety and security to their country. Give it a look and let me know what you think.

-Kent

 

Baghdad — A majority of Iraq’s parliament has signed a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels, a sign of a growing division between Iraqi legislators and the prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some Democrats in the United States have demanded, and require the Iraqi government to secure parliament’s approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

“We haven’t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational forces, we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified and at that point there would be a withdrawal,” said Baha al-Araji, a parliamentarian allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. “But no one can accept the occupation of his country.”

In both Iraq and the United States, there is deepening frustration among lawmakers and the public over President Bush’s troop buildup, a policy that has yet to prevent widespread killing in Iraq. At the same time, Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are dispatching their emissaries in an urgent transatlantic gambit to shore up support.

Iraq’s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, was in Washington this week to ask Democratic members of Congress to have patience with the “surge,” and to not abandon Iraq at such a precarious time. On Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney landed in Baghdad to press the government to act quickly on a host of divisive political issues the Bush administration deems necessary for long-term stability.

(Article: Joshua Partlow, Washington Post; photo: johnworldpeace.com )

read more | digg story

5 Responses »

 

Turkey’s protests break the mold Monday, May 14 2007

When you hear news of a protest in the Middle East, what is the first thing you think? “Oh great, another anti-American smash’em-up…what did Bush do now…what anti-Christian venom is being spit and for what purpose?”

While these might not be your exact thoughts, I think it’s safe to argue that news of protest in the Muslim world fills us, here in the West, subconciously with fear and animosity. That’s why the latest round of protests in Turkey break the mold set by years of strife and religious extremism in the Middle East.  

Yesterday, over a million and a half people clogged the port city of Izmir, Turkey in an emphatic display against the pro-Islamic government over fears that the government is in the process of installing a leader more sympathetic to Islamic law than to Turkey’s foundation of secularism. Wow, how often do we see this? A movement in the Middle East FOR secularism? Unheard of!

The Turkish people have been adament in their tradition of a strict separation of church and state since the secular revolution in 1923 lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, but it would be unfair to label the ruling AK party as a despotic theocracy just yet. In fact, the ruling party’s record has been harmoniously in line with the principles declared in 1923. What I think is most troubling to the pro-secular Turks is a fear of their government slowly slipping into the throws of religious based ruling, as has been seen across the region for decades. They should be careful, however, as the military has threatened to intervene if the upcoming elections appear to be too “Islamic” – just because the President or Prime Minister’s wife wears a veil (which are not allowed in public buildings) does not mean the country is in for another Islamic revolution. It is important, though, that the citizens of Turkey show their government that they strongly believe in government based on a seperation between church and state. Let’s just hope that they can prove it through democratic means, and not military intervention.

Turks in Europe?

Another hot button issue in the European region is the question of Turkey’s admittance into the European Union. Certainly, if the military intervenes in Turkey’s upcoming elections, they can forget about it. But the fact that talks are already underway between the Union and the Turkish government leads me to believe that, if Turkey continues to follow its foundation of secular government and if it is willing to conform to the market principles of the EU, we will one day see them join the ranks of the European nations.

Many in Europe are hostile to this idea. For one thing, the admittance of Turkey would automatically make them the most populous nation in the EU. That would also make Islam its largest religion. It’s funny that Europe, so pious in its own secular values, would be so hostile to a Muslim country equally pious in its secularity.

Also, by adding Turkey, the European boarder would extend to touch countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran – which many feel will bring terrorism and instability to their peaceful European boarders. This also begs the question: where will European expansion stop? Many are already worried that the current 27 are already burdensome. If they add Turkey, why not Syria? After all, the two are, in fact, connected; even more so than Turkey connects to Bulgaria! How about Israel? They have already made a case for their right to join. Certainly the new Iraq would find many advantages in joining. And Russia, already a portion of many current maps of Europe, would extend the EU all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and give it neighbors such as Mongolia and China.

Of course some of these suggestions are unrealistic; however, the debate is still a vigorous and worthwhile one: where will Europe stop?

The United States has enacted the policy supporting Turkey’s bid for the EU, and it should continue with that. President elect Nicolas Sarkozy of France and outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain have also been supportive of this. The mixing of Christian and Muslim nations into a political union could produce and amazing vehicle that would spearhead the Middle East peace initiative. The EU would also gain more legitimacy in dealing with Islamic affairs as they arrise in the Middle East, Africa, and in their own backyard. Will Turkey one day be admitted into the EU. I say yes, but you can bet they will not get there without a fight.  

3 Responses »