In which is contained political comments that really need saying
In my "away" life, I spend a lot of time listening to news. I am, after all a card-carrying news junkie. I tend to listen to NPR in the mornings, while CNN is the evening drug of choice. As long as I am alone at a site, I read USA Today daily - after all the hotel provides complimentary copies, and one must have some diversion at lunches taken alone.
This of course means that I have ample time to digest the news and views of the day. This week, one thing really has me thinking - the War on Terror (insert your own dramatic baritone inflection).
The War on Terror isn't a war. You can't make war on an idea or a concept. You can make war on a country or a people, which the US certainly has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can have a war against terrorists, but of course one must decide who is a terrorist and who is not, and there is a lot of gray between the "is" and "is not".
What is commonly described as the "War on Terror" is simply a reaction against a predictable outcome precipitated by the West's [1] actions in the region over the past 150 years. We've shoved our weight, imperialism and policies around in the Middle East since the British decided to colonialize. I suspect that a lot of our foreign policy in the 20th century was designed specifically to keep the region destabilized, in order to maintain the flow of cheap oil. We are now seeing the effect of those policies in the increased instability and violence, both in the region and emanating from it.
Additionally, the current US administration's stance ("you're either with us or against us" to paraphrase) completely discounts the portion of the population who consider themselves patriots and opposed to the wide range of actions bundled under the concept "War on Terror". It polarizes the people.
I listened to Bill O'Riley's comments on Good Morning America yesterday morning. I can't stand the man, but he did say some valuable things. He identifies a section of the country as "secular progressives". Although he dismisses us as just 20% of the population, and that we're bashing the administration without offering solutions, he did get the characterization right. He says that we think that we live in a bad country, and that sweeping changes need to occur. That we brought terrorism on ourselves with our policies in the Middle East - our greed, exploitation of foreign oil, and lying to the world. So far, that's pretty much how I feel.
Of course, he then says that we control the media (if that's correct, why is the media lapping up this whole "War on Terror" thing - an invention of the Bush administration?), that we control the ACLU (currently representing Fred Phelps in actions opposing the laws against picketing at funerals), and that we have tens of millions of dollars to pour into propaganda. He's intelligent enough to correctly describe the progressive sector of the population, but totally incorrect in his conclusions and the percentage of the country that believes that this administration is dead wrong.
One thing he is correct on - although we can clearly identify the issues, we really have not offered solutions. I don't think it's because we're not creative enough to come up with a workable solution to the mess we made in Iraq, or the rise of Islamic actions against Israel, or how to insure security without damaging liberty. I think it's because we're speechless in the face of overwhelming complexities. It's not as simple as sending in the Marines. Force makes an impression alright, but that impression isn't usually favorable.
If the Arabs pulled together as a unified group of peoples, tribes and countries, they could strangle the West's economies, albeit not without risk to their own western-money-fueled economies. Obviously there are few good solutions.
I would suggest that our dependence on oil - of which the vast majority originates in the Middle East - is the single largest risk to our security. If we could break this dependence, it would be a step in the right direction. If we could learn to treat each other with decorum and respect, rather than pouring verbal gasoline on the fires of discontent, this too would be a step in the right direction. How can fault be found with either of these things? Oh, wait - there is no enormous pile of cash at the end of either of these rainbows.
Yes, Virginia, it is all about the money.
[1] The US and EU, mostly.
This of course means that I have ample time to digest the news and views of the day. This week, one thing really has me thinking - the War on Terror (insert your own dramatic baritone inflection).
The War on Terror isn't a war. You can't make war on an idea or a concept. You can make war on a country or a people, which the US certainly has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can have a war against terrorists, but of course one must decide who is a terrorist and who is not, and there is a lot of gray between the "is" and "is not".
What is commonly described as the "War on Terror" is simply a reaction against a predictable outcome precipitated by the West's [1] actions in the region over the past 150 years. We've shoved our weight, imperialism and policies around in the Middle East since the British decided to colonialize. I suspect that a lot of our foreign policy in the 20th century was designed specifically to keep the region destabilized, in order to maintain the flow of cheap oil. We are now seeing the effect of those policies in the increased instability and violence, both in the region and emanating from it.
Additionally, the current US administration's stance ("you're either with us or against us" to paraphrase) completely discounts the portion of the population who consider themselves patriots and opposed to the wide range of actions bundled under the concept "War on Terror". It polarizes the people.
I listened to Bill O'Riley's comments on Good Morning America yesterday morning. I can't stand the man, but he did say some valuable things. He identifies a section of the country as "secular progressives". Although he dismisses us as just 20% of the population, and that we're bashing the administration without offering solutions, he did get the characterization right. He says that we think that we live in a bad country, and that sweeping changes need to occur. That we brought terrorism on ourselves with our policies in the Middle East - our greed, exploitation of foreign oil, and lying to the world. So far, that's pretty much how I feel.
Of course, he then says that we control the media (if that's correct, why is the media lapping up this whole "War on Terror" thing - an invention of the Bush administration?), that we control the ACLU (currently representing Fred Phelps in actions opposing the laws against picketing at funerals), and that we have tens of millions of dollars to pour into propaganda. He's intelligent enough to correctly describe the progressive sector of the population, but totally incorrect in his conclusions and the percentage of the country that believes that this administration is dead wrong.
One thing he is correct on - although we can clearly identify the issues, we really have not offered solutions. I don't think it's because we're not creative enough to come up with a workable solution to the mess we made in Iraq, or the rise of Islamic actions against Israel, or how to insure security without damaging liberty. I think it's because we're speechless in the face of overwhelming complexities. It's not as simple as sending in the Marines. Force makes an impression alright, but that impression isn't usually favorable.
If the Arabs pulled together as a unified group of peoples, tribes and countries, they could strangle the West's economies, albeit not without risk to their own western-money-fueled economies. Obviously there are few good solutions.
I would suggest that our dependence on oil - of which the vast majority originates in the Middle East - is the single largest risk to our security. If we could break this dependence, it would be a step in the right direction. If we could learn to treat each other with decorum and respect, rather than pouring verbal gasoline on the fires of discontent, this too would be a step in the right direction. How can fault be found with either of these things? Oh, wait - there is no enormous pile of cash at the end of either of these rainbows.
Yes, Virginia, it is all about the money.
[1] The US and EU, mostly.
posted by Melanie Unruh-Bays at
10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home