Here's another one that I wrote for my philosophy class on the necessity of God in order to have moral rules. Basically the question is: Is God necessary in order to believe that there are universal moral rules which we must obey?
Are universal moral rules possible without God?
Before any discussion of the role of God in morality, morality must be defined--and “God”, for that matter. I will say before I begin that although I am Christian, I do not believe that this discussion is limited to a Judeo-Christian concept of God or simple guidelines by which we ought to behave. Rather, I would offer up the following clarifications: firstly that morality is defined as any system that mandates action beyond simple egoism. Note that I speak not of systems which espouse such behavior, or laud it, or even strongly encourage it. Such actions may be done regardless of morality solely to fulfill aesthetic preferences, or to curry favor, or for whatever reason the actor ascribes. For the purposes of this paper, I am only concerned with the absolute requirement that individuals act in accordance with the moral rule. If such action is not required, if it is somehow optional, then we have ceased to speak of moral rules and begun to speak of moral suggestions. Secondly, I will not define God as the Caucasian Father-Time-meets-Zeus grandfatherly figure that most Christians speak of. For my purposes, it is enough that this “God” stand as the enforcement of this morality, ready to visit punishment upon those individuals who do not obey the moral rule. A Muslim Allah, a Christian Lord of Hosts, or a mechanistic function as simple as karma would fulfill this loose definition of “God” as long as the moral code is enforced consistently.
The issue of the necessity of God for morality boils down to this: that morality must compel obedience. As I’ve already noted, nothing short of an absolute morally imperative system is of interest of us in this debate; if we accept any system that does not compel obedience, then we have ceased to speak of a world where the existence of such a moral system of a necessity requires the existence of God. If this hypothetical system is voluntary, then any variety of other motivations may impel individuals to obey it, as well as not to obey it. On the other hand, if this hypothetical system is not voluntary, then from whence comes the obligation to obey? We can speak of Utilitarian considerations, debate the pros and cons of Locke’s Social Contract, or explore the implications of Kant’s Universal Imperative all day long and still not find anything in them which compels obedience. Rather, each school of thought strives only to persuade without any tangible consequence for non-acceptance of the proffered ideas. All of these, then, are voluntary. One may choose to govern his life by Kant’s philosophies as easily as another chooses to live a Utilitarian life, and no earthly power can authoritatively differentiate between philosophies. The need for a higher moral authority is clear. Without any higher moral authority to arbitrate differences and mete out justice, moral rule is nothing but a toothless suggestion that nobody need obey. The addition of a governing force (i.e. God) is what distinguishes mere social norms from absolute moral law.
The strongest opposition to this view comes from the Social Contractualists. A Social Contractualist may argue with some effect that a good social contract compels it’s members to act in ways occasionally contrary to their own self-interest in the strictest sense of the term, and that this imperative is independent of any higher power or authority. And I agree that if the nature of men was not to be egoistic, members of a social contract would feel obligated to act at times in ways that appear altruistic. There are three holes in that position: first, that the “imperative” which would compel obedience to the social contract is not universal. The social contract is of no effect outside of the society. Second, that within that society there is nothing but pressure from other members of the society--even members duly appointed by the society--to obey the social contract. Third, because the enforcement of the social contract comes only from other members of the social contract, such enforcement is liable to be corrupted eventually. Furthermore, social contracts create a situation in which it becomes desirable for individual members of the society appear to obey the social contract when they are not in fact doing so. Appointed officials of the social contract will not be able to catch every offender. As a result, the moral code will not be equally enforced, nor will it adequately ensure the rights of all members of the society. In other words, the source of the imperative is both fallible and local.
The only logical conclusion is that moral codes and a higher authority for enforcement must both be present in order to provide an imperative which is both universal and compulsory. Having a moral law without God as an arbiter or enforcer is meaningless.
10 April 2009
09 April 2009
The Iraqi Washington
The following is a paper I wrote for my English class that I really loved writing, so I've decided to post it for the enjoyment of all and the betterment of mankind (and any other bs, self-aggrandizing reasons I can find to justify exhibiting my forensic ability).
The Iraqi Washington
The atmosphere was relaxed, friendly, comfortable. I was lounging on the couch opposite my good friends Nate and Lindsey Anderson while I interviewed them about their opinions of various aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. At least that’s how it started. Almost immediately, they both became alternately defensive or passionate, reacting to one of the most polarizing issues of our generation: the US invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Both Nate and Lindsey expressed a desire to return to the introverted international policy that the US had followed prior to--even between and during--the two world wars. Both get most of their information from TV media, and both agree very strongly with the currently popular view that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Lindsey acknowledged the altruistic motives for entering Iraq in the first place, but went on to explain that to her thinking, the cost versus the benefits simply didn’t justify the continued US presence. She said:
Well, as far as I knew the only reason [to invade] was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace. . . . and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us. . . . You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.
Nate added that:
[The continued US presence in Iraq is] probably not [justified]. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the (expletive deleted) out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.
While I can understand their concerns and desire to focus on our own citizenry to conserve our military strength, I cannot help but wonder where we as a nation would be without international intervention. After all, our history of lending other countries a hand has gotten us to the pinnacle of recorded history. I believe very strongly that--as is frequently said colloquially--Karma comes around. After all, we as a nation wouldn’t have ever gained our freedom without French assistance . . . and a century later we came to their rescue in both world wars. The international community has always been symbiotic, but that inconvenient fact is often forgotten in today’s politics. I should begin by explaining that I am proud to be a member of the military. I am an airborne combat engineer in the newest unit in the Utah National Guard, the 1457th Sapper Company. To translate that, I’m an Army paratrooper in an elite unit that specializes in demolitions, battlefield construction, and mine laying and clearing. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on active duty, but only for training. While I have not yet been deployed to a combat zone, I will not shirk my duty when that day comes. I enlisted in the army of a nation actively engaged in a dirty, asymmetrical, two-front war, and I did not do so ignorantly. My position provides me with a unique perspective regarding the War on Terror--an amalgamation of my views, others’ views, and various opinions worked out in countless late-night bull sessions, impromptu forums that have included some of the brightest soldiers in the Army. There are two intimately related questions which must be addressed in this issue. Firstly, ought the United States to remain in occupation of Iraq? Secondly, if the United States were to continue its occupation of Iraq, what ought to be the objectives or strategy employed from this point on? While I strongly affirm that the United States ought to continue occupying Iraq for the present, I will not present my views on continued strategy until after a discussion of the first question.
The nation has continuously debated the Iraqi occupation since the invasion, with an increasing amount of the national dialogue devoted to a discussion of what exactly the military and political objectives ought to be and when the US military can or should withdraw from the country completely. Current public opinion seems to be stated best in an article by Joan Chittister:
The reasons for which we invaded Iraq never existed--no weapons of mass destruction, no alliance with al-Qaeda, no relationship to the toppling of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. However, now that we are in Iraq, there is no definition of “victory,” they tell us, and no plan for getting out. Worse, the war has made Iraq a training ground for terrorists and the United States the prime target. Every day, that part of the world sees the United States as more enemy than friend. (Chittister)
I must admit that as a citizen I have a hard time justifying the expense of the war. A war on terror? Of course, we’ve got to defend ourselves. A long-term effort to prop up another country’s economy and political structure? No way.
Nevertheless, I am proud of our country for having the moral courage to stand up and be counted among those who will not stand for senseless terrorism. While I know that the various news media portray it as an unpopular or unrealistic objective, I cannot accept anything less than completion of the original mission: to replace the Iraqi government with a stable democracy.
To fully understand my view, I would like to review the world situation at the end of the eighteenth century. Britain was the undisputed world power; her navies ruled the seas and consequently the trade routes that were the lifeblood of every other country’s economy. Her armies had defeated the combined military forces of every other nation on the European continent under Napoleon, one of the most brilliant military minds of modern history. Wealth flowed into the country, and influence radiated from it. England was at its glorious zenith. . . until thirteen upstart, backwards colonies united only in their abhorrence of English rule, decided to form their own country. Our founding fathers--despite whatever other motives which could be ascribed to them--were dedicated to certain ideals; the Declaration of Independence is the most inspiring political text ever written, affirming that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Italics added)
Such were the principles that guided the men who effectively created a nation that has ever since stood as a bulwark of peace, prosperity, and individual freedoms. Men like John Hancock led the way, signing their names to a document so damning that it surely would have been their death sentence if their bid for freedom failed. For a time after that formative explosion of altruism, the United States’ policy was one of introverted interest. The nation gestated and--after bitter conflict--united. Finally, as a fully-integrated society, we emerged on the world stage to take our place as an equal power. Not long after that, we met our first two tests as a world power--and literally saved the entire European continent from rule by tyrannical leaders not once, but twice in three short decades. For the next three-and-a-half decades, we rallied the world against the oppressive Communist movement, reaffirming time and again our commitment to oppose oppressive government systems around the world and giving hope to countless millions in indigent circumstances. Having defeated Communism, we continued to stand firmly opposed to destructive governments, leading the charge against genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, and Eastern Europe. In light of our humanitarian track record, is it any wonder that Jihadist Islam should view us as their natural enemy? Should we, after two full centuries of moral leadership, suddenly abandon our tenets simply because an extremist splinter faction of an otherwise peaceful religion has declared its misguided war against us? Has weakness or deferral to fanatical extremists ever before worked in the history of the world?
The cowardly terrorist attacks of 9/11 galvanized the nation as few events in history ever have. To my knowledge, the nation has not spoken with one voice so clearly since the equally cowardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. With one accord, the entire population demanded not retaliation or retribution, but Justice. That was “Justice” with a capital “J”; the American people responded with the same clear, courageous attitude as always, clamoring that people who would perpetrate such a senseless act upon innocent civilians must be dealt with in kind for the good of all humanity. It was our innate sense of Justice that impelled us to seek out al-Qaeda after 9/11, just as that same inborn code has always guided this nation.
How quickly we have forgotten that initial resolve! Our own legislators and national leaders now clamor just as loudly that we must abandon the fight, and they are joined daily by hundreds who actively support them and faceless thousands who, by their inaction, tacitly assent. In Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have successfully toppled two governments whose lists of crimes against their own constituencies far surpass the injuries cited in our own Declaration of Independence. President Saddam Hussein stated baldly his disregard for Kurds living in northern Iraq in a recorded meeting with high officials in his government. Transcripts were used in his trial and appeared in an article written by John F. Burns for the New York Times. Speaking with his Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, he responded to Mr. Douri’s concerns about the effectiveness of chemical weapons against the Kurds by saying “. . . they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks.” Mr. Douri then asked, “You mean they will kill thousands?” to which President Hussein responded, “Yes, they will kill thousands.” These transcripts also show very definitively that the Iraqi government both had and was willing to use the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that many of our own citizens do not believe that Iraq ever had.
Unlike the general populace of the United States, I think that the military should be given the time and resources to finish the war properly. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are not popular now, but were originally supported extensively by the civilian population. Having received the popular mandate, I do not think that we should then question the mission or allow ourselves to lose our resolve. Theodore Roosevelt said it best:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who at the best knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least . . . fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who [know] neither victory nor defeat.
Where, then, ought we to continue our efforts? In what areas ought we to commit more effort and resources? Or ought we to re-commit ourselves to our current policies? Current political and military thought is that the insurgency ought to be thoroughly exterminated before any progress can be made toward a lasting peace and stable government in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Even this past month, one of the members of my platoon expressed the sentiment that we need to hunt down and root out the insurgents before we can leave either country. I must respectfully disagree. Even though conventional political and military thought is that priority must be given to military operations, I would put forth that military operations against an insurgency supported by the local population ought to be--at best--a secondary mission. Basic theory of political science suggests alternate courses of action, and postulates failure in the event that these alternate plans are ignored completely. Historical precedents bear out the theoretical arguments, and current events indicate that the Iraqi occupation is no different.
The common view of the US objective in Iraq and Afghanistan can be found in the opinion of a soldier in my unit named Rick Moore, a Private First-Class who is currently enrolled in an ROTC program to become an officer. When asked what the US objectives are in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said
Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general. . . . [When asked if any other issue exists which ought to be given higher priority than military operations against insurgents] No, I can’t think of any others.
Hardly anybody would disagree when I say that the goal of the US occupation of Iraq is to establish a stable, friendly, national government to ensure the basic civil rights of the population. Political science theorizes, however, that a direct military-style operation may not be the best way to establish such a government. Such a government depends on three main concepts: firstly, that support of the people in the form of legitimacy is needed. Legitimacy is the concept that citizens of the country feel that the government has the right to govern. The age of a given government, or a recent track record of good social and economic leadership, can establish legitimacy. Since neither of those is the case with Iraq, the best way to establish a legitimate claim to government is through equal representation and the establishment of a strong national identity. When the people feel that their interests are fairly represented in government, and they identify themselves with their countrymen--even, or especially, those with whom they disagree--then there will not exist a significant backlash of public opinion in favor of the insurgency. Secondly, the autonomy of the government ought not to be questionable. The people ought to be confident that their leadership has the country’s best interests at heart and are not merely the puppets of another sovereignty. Sovereignty, then, is damaged the longer that another country controls the government either in fact or simply in public perception. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more surely we give the kiss of death to the new administration. Thirdly and lastly, there must exist a leader with enough charisma and political skill to gain the trust of the people. Authority is the third principle of the triumvirate that enables the growth of good government. (Roskin, et. al. 1-7) When the people submit to the authority of one man--or woman--at the head of a government which they feel is legitimately the administrative instrument of a sovereign nation, then that government will not easily be overthrown, if ever. As a final note to this interesting subject, it should be noted that the practical implications of these concepts are nearly always the cause of insurgency or revolution. The two terms are simply two faces of the same coin, being differentiated only by the side to which the speaker is sympathetic. As Bernard Fall put it in Political Science: An Introduction, such warfare in combination with political action is an attempt “to establish a competitive system of control over the population,” and went on to say that, “when a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; is it being out administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front” (quoted in Roskin, et. al. 368). It should be noted that several excellent examples of the misapplication of this principle exist in our own country. How many so-called cults or splinter groups exist in the United States? How often have news stories run about Neo-Nazis in the Idaho panhandle, or fundamentalist groups in the Rockies agitating for change or advocating revolution? Several have even staged or planned to carry out terrorist-type attacks, to no avail. Why have they not succeeded in igniting the spirit of revolution in the US? There are two good reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the population feels that the government, however flawed, is legitimate. They don’t feel that change is needed; the status quo works for them. Secondly, these groups all lack an effective political campaign. Their messages simply fail to reach enough people and don’t start the groundswell of public opinion which might enable their views to become popular.
Earlier I spoke of the overwhelming weight of the English Empire and the seeming folly of the American Revolution against the Crown. A Prima Facie examination of the logistical situation would make the American position seem hopelessly suicidal. However, in light of political theory, it becomes clear that the vast size of the British Empire necessitated the dilution of authority in the form of territorial governors who undermined the authority and legitimacy of the royalty through their heavy-handed rule. Further, the more that those governors--in some cases with the consent or at the instance of the central government--ignored or stretched the law to widen the gap of inequality between citizens of different governorships from Great Britain proper, the more they emphasized the delicacy of the Empire’s sovereignty. Revolution was inevitable, and eventually England was left only with its own little group of islands to rule. Saddam Hussein’s misunderstanding of the principle of authority is evidenced by a quote from another Hussein, Maaruf Hussein, that was recorded by Dexter Filkins in his book The Forever War. When asked about his looting of the royal palace, he said, “Nobody likes to steal . . . But he never made us feel like we were part of the country.”
More recently, the American experience in Vietnam was almost exactly the same as the British Empire’s two centuries earlier. To return to Bernard Fall’s brilliant insights, I would direct the reader’s attention to the research he conducted in Vietnam both during the French and American involvements in that country. He discovered that
The Communists were collecting taxes throughout most of the country under the very noses of the regimes they were overthrowing. The occupying power, whether French or American, deceived itself through its ability to drive through a village in an armored convoy; this does not indicate administrative control, which may be in the hands of the insurgents. The emphasis on military hardware is a big mistake . . . for it detracts from the human element. . . . While the insurgent is patiently building a network to supplant the regime, the occupier or government is impatiently trying to substitute firepower for legitimacy. . . . The government’s over reliance [sic] on firepower erodes its tenuous moral claims to leadership of the nation. (Italics added)
In the same vein, I’d like to relate a personal experience about the use of purely military force without accompanying political action. While walking through the Special Operations museum in Ft Bragg, North Carolina, with other Special Forces candidates, our tour guide pointed out to us that the US military hadn’t lost a single battle in the entire Vietnam conflict. Accordingly, a justifiably irritated US diplomat had pointed out that very fact to his North Vietnamese counterpart at negotiations in Paris. The Viet Cong’s gallingly true response was “That is true. It is also irrelevant.”
I know that my views are unorthodox or unpopular, but I believe them to be well-founded, and can only hope that I have managed to bring out into the open what I see as the fundamental issues of the US presence in Iraq. These are--I believe--the principles by which history will judge us, whether they are explicitly stated or not. The nature of our struggle is not military with political ramifications; it is political with military ramifications. We are viewing this conflict through the prism of military operations while the opposition is viewing it from the perspective of public opinion. While we worry about how best to find and kill high-profile insurgents, the insurgency as a whole is finding new ways to score political points by killing one or two service members and reveling in their ability to make the general populace duck and run at every loud noise. The inevitable association is that the Americans cannot achieve victory. And this is true. The Americans cannot achieve victory, but the Iraqis can.
My position differs greatly from the current public opinion about the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the strategy of the military and government. I think that our efforts could best be spent building Iraqi sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy. Conversely, the source of this effort ought not to be perceived as American. Rather, the initiative in this new direction ought to at least be publicly perceived to be Iraqi, even if in fact it is not. As PFC Moore put it, “the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.” I strongly agree. However, it is imperative that we realize that a US puppet-government is just as much a military dictatorship--in Iraqi eyes at least--as a Ba’ath Party one. What we need is a strong Iraqi leader who can step forward and rally his people behind him. He needs to give them something to believe in and needs results to which he can point. Iraq needs it’s George Washington. Even national sports and holidays or a stirring national anthem can be used to unify the country and help to smooth cultural differences. Student exchange programs between Kurdish northern Iraq and predominantly Shi’ite southern Iraq could conceivably help to unite the country. This Washington--whatever his background or upbringing--must focus on building the government, not on destroying the insurgency. At the same time, the national and local police forces must be strengthened to provide clean, safe streets to promote a feeling that the government is doing its job well. Nate observed, we want “none of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.” As Nate so elegantly points out with his colorful invective, safe streets are a very quick indicator of the stability of an area and provide the populace with an instant feedback as to whether the government is doing its job or not. Ultimately, building an independent, unified, democratic government will destroy the insurgency more quickly through resolving the issues upon which it is founded than any number of strategic or tactical air-strikes, no matter how well-placed. In essence, I am saying that insurgents are the same as schoolyard bullies: if we treat the insurgency as irrelevant, it will become irrelevant.
Works Cited
Anderson, Lindsey Peery. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.
Anderson, Nathan. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.
Burns, John F. “The Reach of War: Hussein’s Voice Speaks Out in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities” New York Times, 9 Jan. 2007. 13 Sep 2008 <http://www.newyorktimes.com/>.
Chittister, Joan. “We Need Another Investigation” Catholic National Reporter, 23 Dec. 2005, pg 22. 14 Sep. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com/>.
Filkins, Dexter. The Forever War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jun. 1776 14 Sep. 2008 <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html> .
Moore, Rick. Personal interview. 26 Jan. 2009.
Roosevelt, Theodore. "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, 23 Apr. 1910. 20 Sep. 2008 <http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm>.
Roskin, Michael, Robert L. Cord, James A. Medeiros, and Walter S. Jones. Political Science: An Introduction Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Interview
Name: Lindsey Peery Anderson
Occupation: Office Manager
Education: College
How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
Hmm, maybe fifty percent.
Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Yeah.
Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
Well, as far as I knew the only reason was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace… and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us.
Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
Losing. We’re wasting our resources, so when the big wars come, we’re gonna lose because we won’t have anything left to fight with.
Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
No.
Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
No. You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.
What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
To leave. I think they just need to take everybody out [of the country].
Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah. Its been on the TV… From the media.
Interview
Name: Nathan Durrant Anderson
Occupation: Paint Specialist
Education: Some College
How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
I try and avoid it most of the time. Its pretty bleak.
Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Hmmm, somewhat.
Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
I personally believe that Bush had a hidden agenda to try and control oil sources.
Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
I don’t think there can be a winner. Basically this is an example of how you can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
Sure. After 9/11, we had to kick somebody’s a$$, and it was just their turn.
Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
Probably not. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the $hit out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.
What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
I think they should get out. I think they’re wasting their time and a #ell of a lot of time. I’ve never personally talked to any of these Iraqi people, but it certainly doesn’t seem like we’re getting through to them.
Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah, we know now that they did. When we first went to war, they told us that the Iraqis had WMD.
Interview
Name: Rick Moore
Date: 26 Jan, 2009
Qualifications: ROTC member, PFC in UTNG
What do you view as the US approach to handling the insurgency in Iraq?
Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general.
Do you feel that this approach is the correct way to deal with the insurgency? (skipped for irrelevancy to subject’s answer)
Is the insurgency in Iraq the most pressing issue?
No. I think that the insurgency in Afghanistan is, is where we should be focusing time, energy and money. Really, I feel that that’s where the majority of the threat is coming from.
Re-direct: Are there other issues in that country (Afghanistan) which are more pressing?
No, I can’t think of any others.
What are the conditions upon which withdrawal from Iraq is dependent?
I think, one, Al-Qaeda should sign some sort of treaty or disbandment, and I think that both Iraq and Afghani governments need to sign some sort of no-tolerance policy agreement.
Do you feel that the Iraqi people support US operations?
yes. I feel like Iraqi civilians largely support the US operations because of the casualties they’ve already taken themselves.
Re-direct: Do you feel that the Iraqi government is supported by the citizens of that nation?
I think the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.
The Iraqi Washington
The atmosphere was relaxed, friendly, comfortable. I was lounging on the couch opposite my good friends Nate and Lindsey Anderson while I interviewed them about their opinions of various aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. At least that’s how it started. Almost immediately, they both became alternately defensive or passionate, reacting to one of the most polarizing issues of our generation: the US invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Both Nate and Lindsey expressed a desire to return to the introverted international policy that the US had followed prior to--even between and during--the two world wars. Both get most of their information from TV media, and both agree very strongly with the currently popular view that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Lindsey acknowledged the altruistic motives for entering Iraq in the first place, but went on to explain that to her thinking, the cost versus the benefits simply didn’t justify the continued US presence. She said:
Well, as far as I knew the only reason [to invade] was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace. . . . and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us. . . . You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.
Nate added that:
[The continued US presence in Iraq is] probably not [justified]. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the (expletive deleted) out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.
While I can understand their concerns and desire to focus on our own citizenry to conserve our military strength, I cannot help but wonder where we as a nation would be without international intervention. After all, our history of lending other countries a hand has gotten us to the pinnacle of recorded history. I believe very strongly that--as is frequently said colloquially--Karma comes around. After all, we as a nation wouldn’t have ever gained our freedom without French assistance . . . and a century later we came to their rescue in both world wars. The international community has always been symbiotic, but that inconvenient fact is often forgotten in today’s politics. I should begin by explaining that I am proud to be a member of the military. I am an airborne combat engineer in the newest unit in the Utah National Guard, the 1457th Sapper Company. To translate that, I’m an Army paratrooper in an elite unit that specializes in demolitions, battlefield construction, and mine laying and clearing. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on active duty, but only for training. While I have not yet been deployed to a combat zone, I will not shirk my duty when that day comes. I enlisted in the army of a nation actively engaged in a dirty, asymmetrical, two-front war, and I did not do so ignorantly. My position provides me with a unique perspective regarding the War on Terror--an amalgamation of my views, others’ views, and various opinions worked out in countless late-night bull sessions, impromptu forums that have included some of the brightest soldiers in the Army. There are two intimately related questions which must be addressed in this issue. Firstly, ought the United States to remain in occupation of Iraq? Secondly, if the United States were to continue its occupation of Iraq, what ought to be the objectives or strategy employed from this point on? While I strongly affirm that the United States ought to continue occupying Iraq for the present, I will not present my views on continued strategy until after a discussion of the first question.
The nation has continuously debated the Iraqi occupation since the invasion, with an increasing amount of the national dialogue devoted to a discussion of what exactly the military and political objectives ought to be and when the US military can or should withdraw from the country completely. Current public opinion seems to be stated best in an article by Joan Chittister:
The reasons for which we invaded Iraq never existed--no weapons of mass destruction, no alliance with al-Qaeda, no relationship to the toppling of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. However, now that we are in Iraq, there is no definition of “victory,” they tell us, and no plan for getting out. Worse, the war has made Iraq a training ground for terrorists and the United States the prime target. Every day, that part of the world sees the United States as more enemy than friend. (Chittister)
I must admit that as a citizen I have a hard time justifying the expense of the war. A war on terror? Of course, we’ve got to defend ourselves. A long-term effort to prop up another country’s economy and political structure? No way.
Nevertheless, I am proud of our country for having the moral courage to stand up and be counted among those who will not stand for senseless terrorism. While I know that the various news media portray it as an unpopular or unrealistic objective, I cannot accept anything less than completion of the original mission: to replace the Iraqi government with a stable democracy.
To fully understand my view, I would like to review the world situation at the end of the eighteenth century. Britain was the undisputed world power; her navies ruled the seas and consequently the trade routes that were the lifeblood of every other country’s economy. Her armies had defeated the combined military forces of every other nation on the European continent under Napoleon, one of the most brilliant military minds of modern history. Wealth flowed into the country, and influence radiated from it. England was at its glorious zenith. . . until thirteen upstart, backwards colonies united only in their abhorrence of English rule, decided to form their own country. Our founding fathers--despite whatever other motives which could be ascribed to them--were dedicated to certain ideals; the Declaration of Independence is the most inspiring political text ever written, affirming that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Italics added)
Such were the principles that guided the men who effectively created a nation that has ever since stood as a bulwark of peace, prosperity, and individual freedoms. Men like John Hancock led the way, signing their names to a document so damning that it surely would have been their death sentence if their bid for freedom failed. For a time after that formative explosion of altruism, the United States’ policy was one of introverted interest. The nation gestated and--after bitter conflict--united. Finally, as a fully-integrated society, we emerged on the world stage to take our place as an equal power. Not long after that, we met our first two tests as a world power--and literally saved the entire European continent from rule by tyrannical leaders not once, but twice in three short decades. For the next three-and-a-half decades, we rallied the world against the oppressive Communist movement, reaffirming time and again our commitment to oppose oppressive government systems around the world and giving hope to countless millions in indigent circumstances. Having defeated Communism, we continued to stand firmly opposed to destructive governments, leading the charge against genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, and Eastern Europe. In light of our humanitarian track record, is it any wonder that Jihadist Islam should view us as their natural enemy? Should we, after two full centuries of moral leadership, suddenly abandon our tenets simply because an extremist splinter faction of an otherwise peaceful religion has declared its misguided war against us? Has weakness or deferral to fanatical extremists ever before worked in the history of the world?
The cowardly terrorist attacks of 9/11 galvanized the nation as few events in history ever have. To my knowledge, the nation has not spoken with one voice so clearly since the equally cowardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. With one accord, the entire population demanded not retaliation or retribution, but Justice. That was “Justice” with a capital “J”; the American people responded with the same clear, courageous attitude as always, clamoring that people who would perpetrate such a senseless act upon innocent civilians must be dealt with in kind for the good of all humanity. It was our innate sense of Justice that impelled us to seek out al-Qaeda after 9/11, just as that same inborn code has always guided this nation.
How quickly we have forgotten that initial resolve! Our own legislators and national leaders now clamor just as loudly that we must abandon the fight, and they are joined daily by hundreds who actively support them and faceless thousands who, by their inaction, tacitly assent. In Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have successfully toppled two governments whose lists of crimes against their own constituencies far surpass the injuries cited in our own Declaration of Independence. President Saddam Hussein stated baldly his disregard for Kurds living in northern Iraq in a recorded meeting with high officials in his government. Transcripts were used in his trial and appeared in an article written by John F. Burns for the New York Times. Speaking with his Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, he responded to Mr. Douri’s concerns about the effectiveness of chemical weapons against the Kurds by saying “. . . they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks.” Mr. Douri then asked, “You mean they will kill thousands?” to which President Hussein responded, “Yes, they will kill thousands.” These transcripts also show very definitively that the Iraqi government both had and was willing to use the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that many of our own citizens do not believe that Iraq ever had.
Unlike the general populace of the United States, I think that the military should be given the time and resources to finish the war properly. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are not popular now, but were originally supported extensively by the civilian population. Having received the popular mandate, I do not think that we should then question the mission or allow ourselves to lose our resolve. Theodore Roosevelt said it best:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who at the best knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least . . . fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who [know] neither victory nor defeat.
Where, then, ought we to continue our efforts? In what areas ought we to commit more effort and resources? Or ought we to re-commit ourselves to our current policies? Current political and military thought is that the insurgency ought to be thoroughly exterminated before any progress can be made toward a lasting peace and stable government in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Even this past month, one of the members of my platoon expressed the sentiment that we need to hunt down and root out the insurgents before we can leave either country. I must respectfully disagree. Even though conventional political and military thought is that priority must be given to military operations, I would put forth that military operations against an insurgency supported by the local population ought to be--at best--a secondary mission. Basic theory of political science suggests alternate courses of action, and postulates failure in the event that these alternate plans are ignored completely. Historical precedents bear out the theoretical arguments, and current events indicate that the Iraqi occupation is no different.
The common view of the US objective in Iraq and Afghanistan can be found in the opinion of a soldier in my unit named Rick Moore, a Private First-Class who is currently enrolled in an ROTC program to become an officer. When asked what the US objectives are in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said
Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general. . . . [When asked if any other issue exists which ought to be given higher priority than military operations against insurgents] No, I can’t think of any others.
Hardly anybody would disagree when I say that the goal of the US occupation of Iraq is to establish a stable, friendly, national government to ensure the basic civil rights of the population. Political science theorizes, however, that a direct military-style operation may not be the best way to establish such a government. Such a government depends on three main concepts: firstly, that support of the people in the form of legitimacy is needed. Legitimacy is the concept that citizens of the country feel that the government has the right to govern. The age of a given government, or a recent track record of good social and economic leadership, can establish legitimacy. Since neither of those is the case with Iraq, the best way to establish a legitimate claim to government is through equal representation and the establishment of a strong national identity. When the people feel that their interests are fairly represented in government, and they identify themselves with their countrymen--even, or especially, those with whom they disagree--then there will not exist a significant backlash of public opinion in favor of the insurgency. Secondly, the autonomy of the government ought not to be questionable. The people ought to be confident that their leadership has the country’s best interests at heart and are not merely the puppets of another sovereignty. Sovereignty, then, is damaged the longer that another country controls the government either in fact or simply in public perception. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more surely we give the kiss of death to the new administration. Thirdly and lastly, there must exist a leader with enough charisma and political skill to gain the trust of the people. Authority is the third principle of the triumvirate that enables the growth of good government. (Roskin, et. al. 1-7) When the people submit to the authority of one man--or woman--at the head of a government which they feel is legitimately the administrative instrument of a sovereign nation, then that government will not easily be overthrown, if ever. As a final note to this interesting subject, it should be noted that the practical implications of these concepts are nearly always the cause of insurgency or revolution. The two terms are simply two faces of the same coin, being differentiated only by the side to which the speaker is sympathetic. As Bernard Fall put it in Political Science: An Introduction, such warfare in combination with political action is an attempt “to establish a competitive system of control over the population,” and went on to say that, “when a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; is it being out administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front” (quoted in Roskin, et. al. 368). It should be noted that several excellent examples of the misapplication of this principle exist in our own country. How many so-called cults or splinter groups exist in the United States? How often have news stories run about Neo-Nazis in the Idaho panhandle, or fundamentalist groups in the Rockies agitating for change or advocating revolution? Several have even staged or planned to carry out terrorist-type attacks, to no avail. Why have they not succeeded in igniting the spirit of revolution in the US? There are two good reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the population feels that the government, however flawed, is legitimate. They don’t feel that change is needed; the status quo works for them. Secondly, these groups all lack an effective political campaign. Their messages simply fail to reach enough people and don’t start the groundswell of public opinion which might enable their views to become popular.
Earlier I spoke of the overwhelming weight of the English Empire and the seeming folly of the American Revolution against the Crown. A Prima Facie examination of the logistical situation would make the American position seem hopelessly suicidal. However, in light of political theory, it becomes clear that the vast size of the British Empire necessitated the dilution of authority in the form of territorial governors who undermined the authority and legitimacy of the royalty through their heavy-handed rule. Further, the more that those governors--in some cases with the consent or at the instance of the central government--ignored or stretched the law to widen the gap of inequality between citizens of different governorships from Great Britain proper, the more they emphasized the delicacy of the Empire’s sovereignty. Revolution was inevitable, and eventually England was left only with its own little group of islands to rule. Saddam Hussein’s misunderstanding of the principle of authority is evidenced by a quote from another Hussein, Maaruf Hussein, that was recorded by Dexter Filkins in his book The Forever War. When asked about his looting of the royal palace, he said, “Nobody likes to steal . . . But he never made us feel like we were part of the country.”
More recently, the American experience in Vietnam was almost exactly the same as the British Empire’s two centuries earlier. To return to Bernard Fall’s brilliant insights, I would direct the reader’s attention to the research he conducted in Vietnam both during the French and American involvements in that country. He discovered that
The Communists were collecting taxes throughout most of the country under the very noses of the regimes they were overthrowing. The occupying power, whether French or American, deceived itself through its ability to drive through a village in an armored convoy; this does not indicate administrative control, which may be in the hands of the insurgents. The emphasis on military hardware is a big mistake . . . for it detracts from the human element. . . . While the insurgent is patiently building a network to supplant the regime, the occupier or government is impatiently trying to substitute firepower for legitimacy. . . . The government’s over reliance [sic] on firepower erodes its tenuous moral claims to leadership of the nation. (Italics added)
In the same vein, I’d like to relate a personal experience about the use of purely military force without accompanying political action. While walking through the Special Operations museum in Ft Bragg, North Carolina, with other Special Forces candidates, our tour guide pointed out to us that the US military hadn’t lost a single battle in the entire Vietnam conflict. Accordingly, a justifiably irritated US diplomat had pointed out that very fact to his North Vietnamese counterpart at negotiations in Paris. The Viet Cong’s gallingly true response was “That is true. It is also irrelevant.”
I know that my views are unorthodox or unpopular, but I believe them to be well-founded, and can only hope that I have managed to bring out into the open what I see as the fundamental issues of the US presence in Iraq. These are--I believe--the principles by which history will judge us, whether they are explicitly stated or not. The nature of our struggle is not military with political ramifications; it is political with military ramifications. We are viewing this conflict through the prism of military operations while the opposition is viewing it from the perspective of public opinion. While we worry about how best to find and kill high-profile insurgents, the insurgency as a whole is finding new ways to score political points by killing one or two service members and reveling in their ability to make the general populace duck and run at every loud noise. The inevitable association is that the Americans cannot achieve victory. And this is true. The Americans cannot achieve victory, but the Iraqis can.
My position differs greatly from the current public opinion about the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the strategy of the military and government. I think that our efforts could best be spent building Iraqi sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy. Conversely, the source of this effort ought not to be perceived as American. Rather, the initiative in this new direction ought to at least be publicly perceived to be Iraqi, even if in fact it is not. As PFC Moore put it, “the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.” I strongly agree. However, it is imperative that we realize that a US puppet-government is just as much a military dictatorship--in Iraqi eyes at least--as a Ba’ath Party one. What we need is a strong Iraqi leader who can step forward and rally his people behind him. He needs to give them something to believe in and needs results to which he can point. Iraq needs it’s George Washington. Even national sports and holidays or a stirring national anthem can be used to unify the country and help to smooth cultural differences. Student exchange programs between Kurdish northern Iraq and predominantly Shi’ite southern Iraq could conceivably help to unite the country. This Washington--whatever his background or upbringing--must focus on building the government, not on destroying the insurgency. At the same time, the national and local police forces must be strengthened to provide clean, safe streets to promote a feeling that the government is doing its job well. Nate observed, we want “none of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.” As Nate so elegantly points out with his colorful invective, safe streets are a very quick indicator of the stability of an area and provide the populace with an instant feedback as to whether the government is doing its job or not. Ultimately, building an independent, unified, democratic government will destroy the insurgency more quickly through resolving the issues upon which it is founded than any number of strategic or tactical air-strikes, no matter how well-placed. In essence, I am saying that insurgents are the same as schoolyard bullies: if we treat the insurgency as irrelevant, it will become irrelevant.
Works Cited
Anderson, Lindsey Peery. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.
Anderson, Nathan. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.
Burns, John F. “The Reach of War: Hussein’s Voice Speaks Out in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities” New York Times, 9 Jan. 2007. 13 Sep 2008 <http://www.newyorktimes.com/>.
Chittister, Joan. “We Need Another Investigation” Catholic National Reporter, 23 Dec. 2005, pg 22. 14 Sep. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com/>.
Filkins, Dexter. The Forever War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jun. 1776 14 Sep. 2008 <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html> .
Moore, Rick. Personal interview. 26 Jan. 2009.
Roosevelt, Theodore. "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, 23 Apr. 1910. 20 Sep. 2008 <http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm>.
Roskin, Michael, Robert L. Cord, James A. Medeiros, and Walter S. Jones. Political Science: An Introduction Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Interview
Name: Lindsey Peery Anderson
Occupation: Office Manager
Education: College
How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
Hmm, maybe fifty percent.
Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Yeah.
Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
Well, as far as I knew the only reason was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace… and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us.
Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
Losing. We’re wasting our resources, so when the big wars come, we’re gonna lose because we won’t have anything left to fight with.
Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
No.
Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
No. You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.
What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
To leave. I think they just need to take everybody out [of the country].
Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah. Its been on the TV… From the media.
Interview
Name: Nathan Durrant Anderson
Occupation: Paint Specialist
Education: Some College
How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
I try and avoid it most of the time. Its pretty bleak.
Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Hmmm, somewhat.
Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
I personally believe that Bush had a hidden agenda to try and control oil sources.
Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
I don’t think there can be a winner. Basically this is an example of how you can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
Sure. After 9/11, we had to kick somebody’s a$$, and it was just their turn.
Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
Probably not. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the $hit out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.
What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
I think they should get out. I think they’re wasting their time and a #ell of a lot of time. I’ve never personally talked to any of these Iraqi people, but it certainly doesn’t seem like we’re getting through to them.
Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah, we know now that they did. When we first went to war, they told us that the Iraqis had WMD.
Interview
Name: Rick Moore
Date: 26 Jan, 2009
Qualifications: ROTC member, PFC in UTNG
What do you view as the US approach to handling the insurgency in Iraq?
Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general.
Do you feel that this approach is the correct way to deal with the insurgency? (skipped for irrelevancy to subject’s answer)
Is the insurgency in Iraq the most pressing issue?
No. I think that the insurgency in Afghanistan is, is where we should be focusing time, energy and money. Really, I feel that that’s where the majority of the threat is coming from.
Re-direct: Are there other issues in that country (Afghanistan) which are more pressing?
No, I can’t think of any others.
What are the conditions upon which withdrawal from Iraq is dependent?
I think, one, Al-Qaeda should sign some sort of treaty or disbandment, and I think that both Iraq and Afghani governments need to sign some sort of no-tolerance policy agreement.
Do you feel that the Iraqi people support US operations?
yes. I feel like Iraqi civilians largely support the US operations because of the casualties they’ve already taken themselves.
Re-direct: Do you feel that the Iraqi government is supported by the citizens of that nation?
I think the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.
21 January 2009
Thank you Will Smith
I cannot express the amount of respect I gained for Will Smith today. On a day when he could be divisively gloating about the ascension of President Obama to the White House, he instead chose to speak of the unifying effect that having a minority president will have on both his own race and the country as a whole. He rebuffed racism from both sides of the black/white line as well as extended hope to every other race in an edifying, uplifting way. My favorite two paragraphs say it better than anything I could possibly craft, so I'll quote them here:
"I love that all of our excuses have been removed. African-American excuses have been removed. There's no white man trying to keep you down, because if he were really trying to keep you down, he would have done everything he could to kee Obama down. Yes, there are racist people who live here, absolutely. But they're not the majority anymore.
...I don't think we are African Americans, Irish Americans, or Japanese Americans anymore. I think Americans are a new race of people We are Americans of African descent. We are Americans of Irish descent.
Its a whole new world."
"I love that all of our excuses have been removed. African-American excuses have been removed. There's no white man trying to keep you down, because if he were really trying to keep you down, he would have done everything he could to kee Obama down. Yes, there are racist people who live here, absolutely. But they're not the majority anymore.
...I don't think we are African Americans, Irish Americans, or Japanese Americans anymore. I think Americans are a new race of people We are Americans of African descent. We are Americans of Irish descent.
Its a whole new world."
12 September 2008
My goal is to dance in my RANGER PANTIES!
I must interrupt your lives to bring you the following important news bulletin:
I AM NOW ON THE UVU BALLROOM DANCE TEAM.
Thank you, that will be all.
HA! Just kidding, of course I'll write more! Here's the whole story: I took a Latin Ballroom class last winter and had a blast! I'm not the best dancer in the world, but I'm ok, and lack of guys is a problem for every single dance class ever formed since the invention of wooden basketball courts to dance on. (I can only presume that basketball's more masculine allure has stolen many a guy away from dancing) We learned the Rumba, Samba, and a tiny bit of Cha Cha. We even had to compete in a Samba competition. Some of you may remember that my partner and I placed 2nd! Anyway, that was a great introduction for me, so this semester I enrolled in an intermediate Latin Ballroom class so that I could learn a little bit more. On the second day of class, one of the instructors of the same class at a different time came in to ask if any of the guys would like to come dance in his class too. Apparently he had something like 20 girls enrolled, but only four guys. WOW. Talk about good odds! So naturally I added his class to my schedule. What single guy wouldn't?! Then, a couple of days later, I was sitting in the hall when the TA from my first class (the one last year) came walking by. Out of the blue, she recognized me and asked if I wanted to join the UVU Bronze Ballroom Team (there are four: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Tour). Once again, there were enough girls for the team, but only enough guys to barely fill out some of the teams, and they needed one more for the Bronze team. So here I am now. I started the semester with one dance class, and now suddenly I have three.
I AM NOW ON THE UVU BALLROOM DANCE TEAM.
Thank you, that will be all.
HA! Just kidding, of course I'll write more! Here's the whole story: I took a Latin Ballroom class last winter and had a blast! I'm not the best dancer in the world, but I'm ok, and lack of guys is a problem for every single dance class ever formed since the invention of wooden basketball courts to dance on. (I can only presume that basketball's more masculine allure has stolen many a guy away from dancing) We learned the Rumba, Samba, and a tiny bit of Cha Cha. We even had to compete in a Samba competition. Some of you may remember that my partner and I placed 2nd! Anyway, that was a great introduction for me, so this semester I enrolled in an intermediate Latin Ballroom class so that I could learn a little bit more. On the second day of class, one of the instructors of the same class at a different time came in to ask if any of the guys would like to come dance in his class too. Apparently he had something like 20 girls enrolled, but only four guys. WOW. Talk about good odds! So naturally I added his class to my schedule. What single guy wouldn't?! Then, a couple of days later, I was sitting in the hall when the TA from my first class (the one last year) came walking by. Out of the blue, she recognized me and asked if I wanted to join the UVU Bronze Ballroom Team (there are four: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Tour). Once again, there were enough girls for the team, but only enough guys to barely fill out some of the teams, and they needed one more for the Bronze team. So here I am now. I started the semester with one dance class, and now suddenly I have three.
08 September 2008
In which I get a free oil change
This one goes under 'Consumer Economics'. Saturday I had a pretty busy schedule: I had to work for a couple of hours in the morning, then I went golfing with a buddy before we went to go work again for another couple of hours. At the same time, I needed to drop my car off to get a much-needed oil change, so I left it with Jiffy Lube in Provo, just north of the Provo Towne Center Mall. I explained to them that I wouldn't be back until 10 pm to pick it up, so they needed to lock my key in it and call me to take my credit card number to pay for it. I offered to pay up front, but they wanted to wait until after they'd changed the oil. You can imagine how irritated I was when I got back to my car, only to find that not only had they failed to ever call me for my card number, but they had also neglected to put my key in my car. I'll give them three points for remembering to lock the car, but they lose ten for locking the car with the window rolled down far enough to unlock the car without the key. I could open my car faster without the key than I could have with it. I know because I did it a couple of times just to satisfy my curiosity. To make a long story short, I spent the weekend without a car and had to impose on a buddy to come all the way up from Payson to pick me up at Jiffy Lube. This morning I took a bus and walked 11 blocks to tell the manager in person that I wasn't going to pay for such poor service. He didn't even try to argue the point, he agreed right off the bat and handed me the key right back. Good customer service after the incident, but it doesn't completely correct the problem. I might let them work on my car again, but only under close adult supervision.
05 September 2008
Dressing the part won't give you any 'mana'
I've got a new pet peeve. I've noticed a disturbing trend here at UVU that threatens to lower not only the collective IQ of our little microcosm but, if allowed to spread, the IQ and self esteem (both real and perceived) of the entire US! What single practice could threaten to tear our social fabric so easily? Asian kids dressing as if they just walked straight out of an anime cartoon of course! Every time I see some fruity little asian kid walking around with that shaggy mane of hair I want to shake him and tell him to wake up. I wish I could put his internal monologue on an external speaker so that the entire world could hear the stupidity:
"Oh, yes, I rook rike (insert random name. I'll go with 'Akira') Akira! You wana battle? I use sper of strenth to car my spirit guard, kick you butt!"
I've got another one: Emo. I'm not even sure why I capitalized that, the title doesn't merit such distinction. I have two problems with this one:
1. What's with the emo 'uniform'?! Sure, I'll buy the 'fashion statement' excuse, but not the 'individual expression' excuse. On the fashion statement, yeah, you're making a fashion statement. That statement is 'I am such a loser that I have to dress like the losers and pretend to be troubled just so that I can feel fulfilled'. As for individual expression, let's put that internal monologue on an external speaker too;
"sweeeeet. now i can show the world how much pain im going thru. theyll finally understand me. and i can finally fit in with my friends. i bet (insert lengthy list of friends here) will all luv these clothes. i wonder what theyre wearing today. prolly sumthin just like this. i luv standin out frum the crowd. now people will kno were difrent."
In my mind that voice just sounds uneducated, lacking punctuation and completely unconcerned with correct capitalization or anything else to show brain activity beyond the ability to maintain a heartbeat.
2. The entire premise of the emo movement (what little I understand about a trend that I cannot empathize with at all) is that it is an outward sign of inward pain. Basically, its a very public plea for attention, sympathy, even pity. I have a very simple answer for your problems: grow up. stand up straight, get a job, find some friends who haven't smoked themselves retarded, and take your place in society. I have very little sympathy for the middle class unmotivated kid that most emo kids are. You're in the middle class of the wealthiest nation on earth, whining about how tough life is and how misunderstood you are because NOBODY else on the ENTIRE planet could POSSIBLY understand your pain because NOBODY else has EVER been in your position before. You're right. Less than .001% of the population of the world knows what its like to be in your position. The other 99.999% of the world wishes they were in your position. Grow up. And just because I want to share it, I'll end with a joke. What happens when two emo kids fight? One slaps the other, and they both cry!
Response to Chelsea's question:
Its tough to describe... its a social movement full of whiny kids pretty much, no matter what their actual age is. The 'uniform' that I hate seeing is usually tight black pants, some sort of tight shirt, a black leather belt with silver studs on it, and hair that looks like it was cut with a pair of gardening shears. Usually its dyed black with one bleached strand, and allowed to hang straight down over one eye. The accompanying attitude is perhaps the most annoying part to me: that they are experiencing pain that nobody else could possibly understand, and that they dress like they do in order to show that pain to the rest of the world.
"Oh, yes, I rook rike (insert random name. I'll go with 'Akira') Akira! You wana battle? I use sper of strenth to car my spirit guard, kick you butt!"
I've got another one: Emo. I'm not even sure why I capitalized that, the title doesn't merit such distinction. I have two problems with this one:
1. What's with the emo 'uniform'?! Sure, I'll buy the 'fashion statement' excuse, but not the 'individual expression' excuse. On the fashion statement, yeah, you're making a fashion statement. That statement is 'I am such a loser that I have to dress like the losers and pretend to be troubled just so that I can feel fulfilled'. As for individual expression, let's put that internal monologue on an external speaker too;
"sweeeeet. now i can show the world how much pain im going thru. theyll finally understand me. and i can finally fit in with my friends. i bet (insert lengthy list of friends here) will all luv these clothes. i wonder what theyre wearing today. prolly sumthin just like this. i luv standin out frum the crowd. now people will kno were difrent."
In my mind that voice just sounds uneducated, lacking punctuation and completely unconcerned with correct capitalization or anything else to show brain activity beyond the ability to maintain a heartbeat.
2. The entire premise of the emo movement (what little I understand about a trend that I cannot empathize with at all) is that it is an outward sign of inward pain. Basically, its a very public plea for attention, sympathy, even pity. I have a very simple answer for your problems: grow up. stand up straight, get a job, find some friends who haven't smoked themselves retarded, and take your place in society. I have very little sympathy for the middle class unmotivated kid that most emo kids are. You're in the middle class of the wealthiest nation on earth, whining about how tough life is and how misunderstood you are because NOBODY else on the ENTIRE planet could POSSIBLY understand your pain because NOBODY else has EVER been in your position before. You're right. Less than .001% of the population of the world knows what its like to be in your position. The other 99.999% of the world wishes they were in your position. Grow up. And just because I want to share it, I'll end with a joke. What happens when two emo kids fight? One slaps the other, and they both cry!
Response to Chelsea's question:
Its tough to describe... its a social movement full of whiny kids pretty much, no matter what their actual age is. The 'uniform' that I hate seeing is usually tight black pants, some sort of tight shirt, a black leather belt with silver studs on it, and hair that looks like it was cut with a pair of gardening shears. Usually its dyed black with one bleached strand, and allowed to hang straight down over one eye. The accompanying attitude is perhaps the most annoying part to me: that they are experiencing pain that nobody else could possibly understand, and that they dress like they do in order to show that pain to the rest of the world.
20 August 2008
The Dakr Knight
I'm going to be up-front with everybody right now and warn you that this is gonna be a pretty long posting. Partly because I have a lot to talk about, but mostly because its midnight and I'm really not sleepy at all. And partly because its been almost a month since my last posting. Forewarned is Forearmed, right? If you can figure out what this foreknowledge arms you for, then you're smarter than me.
I watched The Dark Knight tonight. It was GREAT. It started off on the right foot too. I'm not talking about the opening scene (which was good too). The best part came before we even got into the drive-in (why aren't there more of those around?!): the movie was listed on the marquee as The Dakr Knight, which is almost as good a title as other memorables such as Handcock and The Devil Wears Proda. Good wokr with the spellign. Anyway, since I don't want to drop any spoilers, I'll just say that the part where Harvey Dent, one of the most moral characters, becomes Two-Face and commits several crimes which Batman takes the fall for was very well done. Equally well-done was the 'death' of Lieutenant Gordan, who goes on to take the place of the deceased commissioner, right before Rachel Dawes dies. And who can forget the Joker asking "Do I look like a guy with a plan? I'm just a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do if I actually caught one!"
I pretty much spent all of my two-week Annual Training with the National Guard hearing about how good The Dark Knight was. Which is why watching it was one of the first things I did when I got back. Incidentally, I have a couple pictures for Adam of a proper military uniform along the lines of my Ranger Panties that he thinks are so comical. This is one of the lower enlisted 
members of my platoon. Ok, I'll drop the pretense. Appropriately enough, his rank is Private. Private First Class Glad, carrying his rifle and wearing nothing but his skivvies, boots, Kevlar helmet, gas mask, and a huge smile for our sergeant, who dropped him for pushups when Glad went to the position of At Ease for him. I don't think I've laughed so hard in a LONG time.
members of my platoon. Ok, I'll drop the pretense. Appropriately enough, his rank is Private. Private First Class Glad, carrying his rifle and wearing nothing but his skivvies, boots, Kevlar helmet, gas mask, and a huge smile for our sergeant, who dropped him for pushups when Glad went to the position of At Ease for him. I don't think I've laughed so hard in a LONG time. We did a lot of things at our AT, including launching three MCLCS rockets. Nobody cares what that stands for, we're just ecstatic that they explode. Really. These things fire off of a trailer pulling a chain of C4 military explosives on a line behind them to blow a path through a minefield. We fired them into a field full of so many sunflowers it looked like something straight out of a book about munchkins and unicorns or something. Being a good soldier,
I improved my tactical camo to better blend into the environment and visit destruction upon the enemy. My platoon thought it was amusing, but they were nowhere near as entertained as our Brigade Commander (a Major, I think) and his Command Sergeant Major. We drove right past them before I realized that they were there, so I just left it.
I improved my tactical camo to better blend into the environment and visit destruction upon the enemy. My platoon thought it was amusing, but they were nowhere near as entertained as our Brigade Commander (a Major, I think) and his Command Sergeant Major. We drove right past them before I realized that they were there, so I just left it. I had another interesting experience in the back of a truck on the way back from taking our showers one night. Our sergeant had told us that it was fine if we wanted to come back from the showers in our PT clothes, so I took shorts, a tan t-shirt, and sandals to come back in. Those were pushing it a little bit, but since we'd already been dismissed for the day, I figured I would be ok. Unfortunately, my sergeant had a bit of a change of heart and decided that it would be safer for all of us if I looked like I was in full uniform. So I put my unifor
m blouse on, along with me Kevlar helmet. From the waist up, I looked perfectly normal, but fro the waist down, I was definitely out of uniform. Well on the way back, we happened to drive past a group of kids ranging from 14 up to 18. There are groups like that on Camp Williams all the time as a PR/community outreach gesture by the top brass, and they LOVE seeing real soldiers. They started whooping and cheering when we appeared on the road rolling toward them, so we all waved back. One notable Specialist who should have known better happened to stand up and inadvertantly let them all see that he was only wearing shorts with the rest of his uniform. I sat back down pretty fast!
m blouse on, along with me Kevlar helmet. From the waist up, I looked perfectly normal, but fro the waist down, I was definitely out of uniform. Well on the way back, we happened to drive past a group of kids ranging from 14 up to 18. There are groups like that on Camp Williams all the time as a PR/community outreach gesture by the top brass, and they LOVE seeing real soldiers. They started whooping and cheering when we appeared on the road rolling toward them, so we all waved back. One notable Specialist who should have known better happened to stand up and inadvertantly let them all see that he was only wearing shorts with the rest of his uniform. I sat back down pretty fast!
Ok, a couple more pictures: I was role-playing for one of our excercises, making assaulting soldiers in a paintball excercise deal with COB's, Civilians On the Battlefield, and I got dressed up as a woman in a Burka. Burkas are hot. I was sweating within a couple of seconds. The actual excercise was a dissapointment because the soldiers completely ignored me (which they shouldn't have), but I have a couple pictures of myself dancing for the other soldiers. Which is not gay in the Army as long as nobody asks and you don't tell, right? And finally, 
I went through a Combat Life-Saver class, which is like really advanced First-Aid, including how to perform needle chest decompressions (releiving a tension pneumothorax), advanced airway clearing techniques (inserting a nasal pharangeal), and how to set up IV's (starting the saline lock immediately, and knowing what fluids to give each type of casualty), along with some REALLY basic information on how and when to prescribe basic meds. I loved it! This is me getting my IV from my friend PVT Howald, right before I gave him one too. I got it on my first try!
I went through a Combat Life-Saver class, which is like really advanced First-Aid, including how to perform needle chest decompressions (releiving a tension pneumothorax), advanced airway clearing techniques (inserting a nasal pharangeal), and how to set up IV's (starting the saline lock immediately, and knowing what fluids to give each type of casualty), along with some REALLY basic information on how and when to prescribe basic meds. I loved it! This is me getting my IV from my friend PVT Howald, right before I gave him one too. I got it on my first try! Anyway, that's pretty much it. I'm sure there will be questions about this, and I have a couple more pictures, so I'll post more later. Good night to all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
