Yet the Republican Presidential candidates all criticized the President for being
"too soft" on Iran. Each and
every one of them declared that they would not be pushed around. Either Iran discontinues its nuclear program
all together or a pre-emptive strike by the United States is in order.
How I shudder when I hear those two words used
together. Pre-emptive strike. Don't these guys get it? President George W. Bush used the same
authoritative claim to launch us into a ten year war in Iraq. The United States, he told us, had to make a
pre-emptive strike against Iraq to prevent that evil nation from deploying their
Weapons of Mass Destruction against us.
The day was coming when it would be us or them, so why wait. Old Tex believed that the first to draw his
gun would win the shootout. But I'm not
so sure.
George W. Bush drew first, alright. In his own words he was intent on
"smokin' Saddam Hussein out", and eventually he got his man. But at what price? Ten years of
fighting in the desert. $3.7
trillion dollars (according to Reuters).
An estimated 1.5 million people dead.
And, of course, the humiliating reality that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction,
nor were they even close to developing any.
In light of the cost of that war, together with the ongoing
War in Afghanistan, it should come as no surprise to understand that the United
States is in a serious financial crisis.
$15.4 trillion in National Debt. A
$1.2 trillion Federal Budget deficit.
The worst recession since the 1930's and a sluggish economy that
celebrates growth in increments of less than half a percent. This is the legacy of America's first major
use of Pre-emptive Strike, also known as "Shock and Awe".
Philosopher George Santayana once wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." It
would seem as if this is where we find ourselves today. Once again we feel threatened by another
country that we believe is actively pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, only
this time the threat is nuclear rather than chemical or biological, as was the
case with Iraq. Again we are basing our
information on satellite images and "intelligence". Again, we have no documented proof of
anything. Again, we are talking about Pre-emptive
Strike. The whole thing is much too eerie
for me.
There are a few differences between 2003 and today. In 2003 our economy was much stronger, our
military was well rested, the pain - and anger - over September 11, 2001 was
very fresh in our minds, and the National Debt was $6.2 trillion - less than
half of what it is today. In short, the
United States was better prepared to go to war then. Today one would have to severely question our
war-readiness.
Nevertheless, the larger issue confronting us is the
rationale behind another Pre-emptive Strike.
Can we - should we - afford to commit our national resources, our
crippled economy, and most importantly our men and women to yet another war
effort based on speculation and undocumented reports? In other words, is there truly a threat to be
reckoned with? We eventually found out
in Iraq that there actually was no threat.
The results were nearly devastating to our nation. We have yet to fully recover from it. We must act more responsibly this time.
President Obama is correct in stating his desire to continue
to pursue a diplomatic solution to this crisis.
He is wrong to suggest that military action will be taken in the event
we are not satisfied with the answers we receive. As for those who call for a tougher stance,
let them study the past and the words of George Santayana. They might just learn a valuable lesson.
GDGehr March 7, 2012
Comments welcome below.
No comments:
Post a Comment