Action and Inaction
Activists for Restraint and Talking Heads for Action
I find it incredibly interesting and disturbing this time-tested observation of mine, one I cannot escape. Bringing this observation to the point of action, i.e., writing about it, are two C-SPAN programs aired today, October 29, 2006.
-----------
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change
Scott Ritter
Description: In "Target Iran" former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter warns that the next phase in the war on terror could be with Iran. While in conversation with New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh, Mr. Ritter criticizes the Bush administration for its claims that Iran is a major threat, and insists there are no production facilities to bomb. This event was hosted by the New York Society for Ethical Culture in New York City.
Author Bio: Scott Ritter served as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq 1991 to 1998. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein," "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All."
and
War By Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
John Yoo, Kenneth Starr, Jeffrey Rosen, Gary Schmitt
Description: In "War By Other Means," John Yoo argues that the traditional balance of powers must shift to the executive branch when America is at war. The author, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, details his involvement in the Bush Administration's war policies. Mr. Yoo is joined by George Washington University School of Law's Jeffrey Rosen, Pepperdine University School of Law's Kenneth Star and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute to discuss presidential authority during the current war on terror.
Author Bio: John Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkley School of Law. He worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace."
----------
Ritter speaks with passion but more importantly he speaks to hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the clarity of Ritter's message as presented on the program named above.
Ritter, an activist by any definition, encourages restraint. Restraint is a form of inaction. Inaction in American culture often carries a negative connotation. However, in a more universal sense inaction is revered as an exercise demonstrating wisdom. Ritter, a Marine and former UN weapons Inspector, is certainly no stranger to "action" yet he encourages, rather emphatically, restraint when concerning the use of U.S. military force to achieve Bush administration stated objectives. Ritter more comprehensively and clearly than all the droning talking heads combined explains his position of restraint.
John Woo, Kenneth Star, Jeffrey Rosen, facilitated by PNAC's Gary Schmitt have just spent an hour wallowing in an academic and esoteric discussion of U.S. political history and use their completely disjointed discussion to "explain" why current president Bush, with his preemption policy, should be given expanded war powers. Their discussion is so incredibly disjointed it is impossible to even attempt to refute it... and this is precisely their goal. Confusion is the mainstay of neo-conservative politics.
Friends, these neo-conical, motionless bodied talking heads are yapping like Chihuahua's to incite military action, knowing they will have no self-endangering part in that action. They will yap and yap until the door is opened and then run and hide in the dark, comfortable safety under the cushy couch to which they have become so accustomed. They, unlike Scott Ritter, have not peered down the barrel of an AK-47 in Iraq while literally putting their lives on the line to find WMD. No... the neocons, from the safety of U.S. prestige and position, rattle sabres for war and to give Bush more authority to declare and implement such.
I find it incredible that sit-there-and-talk talk talking heads promote action, even preemptive military action while a real man of demonstrated military action pleads with Americans to call upon Bush and our Congress to restrain themselves from seeking military solutions to problems, i.e., threats, that do not really exist. In essence, Ritter, a man of action pleads for inaction.
There is an irony in this observation. Privileged intellectuals discuss "what to do" in an atmosphere of historical politics having no bearing on the conditions of the day much less anything to do with present day world affairs. They quote Jefferson, Madison, and a host of long dead men in an almost comical stream of reference to nothing. These men would likely turn in their graves if they heard their sentences uttered as pretext to yet another war on Iran. They would have to ask themselves, "where is Iran?" The ancient nation of Iran was historically known to the West as Persia until March 21, 1935. The neocons routinely create an academic blizzard made of political rhetoric to disguise their list of meaningless facts. Their discussion does not relate to real time, real life's day to day realities on the ground in Iraq and Iran. The discussion among the neo-conservative talking heads offers absolutely no hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. This time, I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the meaninglessness of the neocon message as presented on the program named above.
Friends, stuffy academic heads having never truly experienced the fears, and relentless horrors of war lack at least two qualifications to present themselves as experts on war and the execution of war.
1) The obvious: Firsthand and personal experience with the fears, and relentless horrors of war.
2) An ability to sympathize or even approach empathy for those who do personally experience the fears and relentless horrors of war.
Our retiring generals, in droves, are now speaking out about both the wrongful invasion and incredibly incompetent and corrupt execution of the war on Iraq. Whether or not they should have resisted their Commander in Chief while in service, they are now speaking out.
Whether or not active generals should resist their Commander in Chief while in service is, however, an important matter when considering Bush's intensifying effort to invade Iran. As this effort grows and becomes a greater presence on the news please remember that silence from our military leaders is NOT a sign of their approval to invade Iran. These military leaders are simply honoring their oath.
Think about this. Do you want generals faithfully serving their Commander in Chief only because of an oath they had taken? Whether or not you believe in war at all would you not rather have your military leaders and their troops on the ground fighting a war they believe in rather than one they are simply sworn to fight? Human nature teaches us those fighting for principle are much more loyal and effective fighters than those fighting simply to honor a signed contract. In the context of war, the latter reason for fighting is a shallow one indeed. Our enemies, our real enemies, are definitely fighting for principle. When we send our troops into battle and they go simply to honor their contract (and/or with hope of getting part of their education paid for) we bestow upon them a critical disadvantage from the beginning. To me, this a cruel thing to do. We become Americans exploiting Americans.
Please think about this. I hope you will remind friends and family to ask themselves, "is restraint or inaction necessarily a bad thing? Is action always a good thing? Remind them, "anyone chanting or drumming or cheering for war should search their soul and determine if they too wish to fight and place their physical well-being on the front line; if they too, are willing to pull the trigger or push the button that leaves an innocent ten year old child limbless, perhaps lifeless. Cowards allow and even cheer on others to fight their battles. Someone you send to war will kill kids. It's their job, stated so or not. Don't be a coward. Don't be an accomplice. Don't deny reality.
Don't just act to be acting. Do nothing when nothing is warranted. We know Iraq warranted doing nothing. Iran warrants doing nothing. If you must act, act to convince those itchy, nervous gotta-go- do-sumpthin' leaders in our White House and Congress to restrain from military action Iran.
I find it incredibly interesting and disturbing this time-tested observation of mine, one I cannot escape. Bringing this observation to the point of action, i.e., writing about it, are two C-SPAN programs aired today, October 29, 2006.
-----------
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change
Scott Ritter
Description: In "Target Iran" former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter warns that the next phase in the war on terror could be with Iran. While in conversation with New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh, Mr. Ritter criticizes the Bush administration for its claims that Iran is a major threat, and insists there are no production facilities to bomb. This event was hosted by the New York Society for Ethical Culture in New York City.
Author Bio: Scott Ritter served as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq 1991 to 1998. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein," "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All."
and
War By Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
John Yoo, Kenneth Starr, Jeffrey Rosen, Gary Schmitt
Description: In "War By Other Means," John Yoo argues that the traditional balance of powers must shift to the executive branch when America is at war. The author, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, details his involvement in the Bush Administration's war policies. Mr. Yoo is joined by George Washington University School of Law's Jeffrey Rosen, Pepperdine University School of Law's Kenneth Star and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute to discuss presidential authority during the current war on terror.
Author Bio: John Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkley School of Law. He worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace."
----------
Ritter speaks with passion but more importantly he speaks to hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the clarity of Ritter's message as presented on the program named above.
Ritter, an activist by any definition, encourages restraint. Restraint is a form of inaction. Inaction in American culture often carries a negative connotation. However, in a more universal sense inaction is revered as an exercise demonstrating wisdom. Ritter, a Marine and former UN weapons Inspector, is certainly no stranger to "action" yet he encourages, rather emphatically, restraint when concerning the use of U.S. military force to achieve Bush administration stated objectives. Ritter more comprehensively and clearly than all the droning talking heads combined explains his position of restraint.
John Woo, Kenneth Star, Jeffrey Rosen, facilitated by PNAC's Gary Schmitt have just spent an hour wallowing in an academic and esoteric discussion of U.S. political history and use their completely disjointed discussion to "explain" why current president Bush, with his preemption policy, should be given expanded war powers. Their discussion is so incredibly disjointed it is impossible to even attempt to refute it... and this is precisely their goal. Confusion is the mainstay of neo-conservative politics.
Friends, these neo-conical, motionless bodied talking heads are yapping like Chihuahua's to incite military action, knowing they will have no self-endangering part in that action. They will yap and yap until the door is opened and then run and hide in the dark, comfortable safety under the cushy couch to which they have become so accustomed. They, unlike Scott Ritter, have not peered down the barrel of an AK-47 in Iraq while literally putting their lives on the line to find WMD. No... the neocons, from the safety of U.S. prestige and position, rattle sabres for war and to give Bush more authority to declare and implement such.
I find it incredible that sit-there-and-talk talk talking heads promote action, even preemptive military action while a real man of demonstrated military action pleads with Americans to call upon Bush and our Congress to restrain themselves from seeking military solutions to problems, i.e., threats, that do not really exist. In essence, Ritter, a man of action pleads for inaction.
There is an irony in this observation. Privileged intellectuals discuss "what to do" in an atmosphere of historical politics having no bearing on the conditions of the day much less anything to do with present day world affairs. They quote Jefferson, Madison, and a host of long dead men in an almost comical stream of reference to nothing. These men would likely turn in their graves if they heard their sentences uttered as pretext to yet another war on Iran. They would have to ask themselves, "where is Iran?" The ancient nation of Iran was historically known to the West as Persia until March 21, 1935. The neocons routinely create an academic blizzard made of political rhetoric to disguise their list of meaningless facts. Their discussion does not relate to real time, real life's day to day realities on the ground in Iraq and Iran. The discussion among the neo-conservative talking heads offers absolutely no hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. This time, I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the meaninglessness of the neocon message as presented on the program named above.
Friends, stuffy academic heads having never truly experienced the fears, and relentless horrors of war lack at least two qualifications to present themselves as experts on war and the execution of war.
1) The obvious: Firsthand and personal experience with the fears, and relentless horrors of war.
2) An ability to sympathize or even approach empathy for those who do personally experience the fears and relentless horrors of war.
Our retiring generals, in droves, are now speaking out about both the wrongful invasion and incredibly incompetent and corrupt execution of the war on Iraq. Whether or not they should have resisted their Commander in Chief while in service, they are now speaking out.
Whether or not active generals should resist their Commander in Chief while in service is, however, an important matter when considering Bush's intensifying effort to invade Iran. As this effort grows and becomes a greater presence on the news please remember that silence from our military leaders is NOT a sign of their approval to invade Iran. These military leaders are simply honoring their oath.
Think about this. Do you want generals faithfully serving their Commander in Chief only because of an oath they had taken? Whether or not you believe in war at all would you not rather have your military leaders and their troops on the ground fighting a war they believe in rather than one they are simply sworn to fight? Human nature teaches us those fighting for principle are much more loyal and effective fighters than those fighting simply to honor a signed contract. In the context of war, the latter reason for fighting is a shallow one indeed. Our enemies, our real enemies, are definitely fighting for principle. When we send our troops into battle and they go simply to honor their contract (and/or with hope of getting part of their education paid for) we bestow upon them a critical disadvantage from the beginning. To me, this a cruel thing to do. We become Americans exploiting Americans.
Please think about this. I hope you will remind friends and family to ask themselves, "is restraint or inaction necessarily a bad thing? Is action always a good thing? Remind them, "anyone chanting or drumming or cheering for war should search their soul and determine if they too wish to fight and place their physical well-being on the front line; if they too, are willing to pull the trigger or push the button that leaves an innocent ten year old child limbless, perhaps lifeless. Cowards allow and even cheer on others to fight their battles. Someone you send to war will kill kids. It's their job, stated so or not. Don't be a coward. Don't be an accomplice. Don't deny reality.
Don't just act to be acting. Do nothing when nothing is warranted. We know Iraq warranted doing nothing. Iran warrants doing nothing. If you must act, act to convince those itchy, nervous gotta-go- do-sumpthin' leaders in our White House and Congress to restrain from military action Iran.
posted by Duane Short | 10/29/2006 03:28:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home