Warning...serious politcal rant forthcoming...the dis-interested need not read on...
Let me begin by saying...I do not want our nation to suffer another attack.
Its important that I say that, because I am going to come dangerously close to suggesting otherwise as a result of my general frustration with our nation.
I am so exhausted by the state of dazed boredom that captivates our collective national conscience in the face of actual war. I am not entirely sure what to attribute it to...whether it's the information age, which moves so rapidly that a national tragedy is now either forgotten completely or is referred to as a conspiracy or a political lightening rod, or if its the nature of the enemy we face, radicals willing to fight to the death and sacrifice without personal regard, whom Americans and Westerners in general no longer understand.
Perhaps its our perpetual prosperity that is killing us from within; in spite of a national disaster and the longest sustained troop deployment in 30 years, there has been zero impact on the personal life of citizens in our nation.
Regardless of the why, the fact remains; we don't think of ourselves as being at war...having forgotten the last successful strike on our own shores, we have become convinced that the actions we are currently involved in are unrelated in the slightest to preventing future tragedies. Instead of insisting on victory, we are demanding that our "sacrifices" end before the job is done.
Instead of a government that leads us, that communicates clearly and lays out a unified plan to secure our nation, we have politicians that take every opportunity to strike at our confidence in the government as a whole by attacking each other constantly. This applies to both sides...though the radicals on the left take special pleasure in filling their attacks with venom, making reconciliation impossible. One half of this country is being conditioned to hate the other half; the left suspects the conservative Christian population of being of the same ilk (meaning religious absolutists) as those who attacked on 9/11, the Jihad extremists.
It's madness.
In the midst of all of this, during a time when the multitude of enemies that have designs against us have little or no problem working together, we divisively draw further apart. We are engaged abroad while we ignore our own freaking borders. And when Michael Chertoff, our Homeland Security Secretary, tells us that our intelligence points to a real problem, and his response is to worry that an attack is actually imminent, we mock him and criticize him, and spread suspicions that it's a scare tactic...revealing once again our complete lack of recall. The President has been roundly criticized for years now because nobody said anything about the possibility that an attack was imminent in 2001.
I am tired of trying to defend the need to take this seriously. I almost want to allow the Liberals their chance to have their way. Forget Hillary or Obama--get Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan into the White House. Turn over the Congress. The Republicans aren't leading anyways, might as well get their worthless suits out and let the surrender monkeys have their go. Let them bring our troops home tomorrow. And ultimately...let our enemies come to burn our cities. I am tired of having to urge our own people to try and prevent it. Civilizations that whore themselves out to their enemies and citizens of other nations don't last. We shouldn't have to convince our populace to fight for its survival...so maybe its time to let it die a little.
As a student of history, I can tell you its not uncommon. This Republic won't last another generation--that I predict in complete seriousness. Our nation of the last 200 years is dead, and is about to disappear entirely. The world has changed in the last 50 years, and in the meantime a way of life ended...and what will take its place is still to be decided.
In the past, the evolution of the American nation has involved a metamorphosis that promised the hope of a brighter tomorrow at the cost of a potentially more comfortable today. We evolved from a collection of colonies to a unified nation. We changed from powerful individual states to states contributing to a powerful federal government, capable of mobilizing into an amazing machine. We morphed from an open, lawless frontier into centralized, civilized city life that could prosper and create a powerhouse to challenge the ancient power of the old world. We adapted from the protection of isolation to become the greatest ally to free people on earth. We lead the globe in just about every industrial field and medicine, have the most advanced military, put a man on the moon, and could feed the world with relative ease from our abundance.
At every turn we have faced the choice of comfort, ease and popularity, or the challenge of leading towards a better world, through difficult but necessary sacrifice. Today is no different...only the stakes are our national security, possibly our general way of life, and the future. If I sound a little dramatic...good. Its my son's future. And I am exasperated that I live in an age within easy memory of WWII where the majority of our leadership and press spend all of their time trying to convince our population that we need not believe we're really at war.
But we are actually at war. And I almost wish something would happen to remind us of that inescapable fact. Its a war I doubt we can "win" in the conventional sense. Our enemy doesn't consider death a defeat. The best we can do is endure...but we hate enduring.
I really am tired of the news. I really do almost think we need to bleed to remind us of the danger that wants to hurt us. It just seems wrong to accept such a fate. What do you do when your nation no longer cares to defend itself? To whom do you turn when the majority of the leadership denies the need for action and ignores the reality of our enemies and vulnerabilities, both foreign and domestic? It's too much. Is this what it felt like to live 1600 years ago in Italy? I wonder...
Well...that's done. I warned you I was going to rant...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Here's Jon Stewart's perspective on why Americans have a hard time taking the problems in Iraq seriously. I tend to agree with him.
The current American leaders and pundits have spent their credibility (as far as most Americans are concerned), so why should be believe that we really are threatened just because they say so? Nobody has the authority to convince us that we are in danger.
First, why should anyone need to convince us of danger after 2001?
Second, our leadership may have dropped the ball at times...but they have also been sniped at by those supposedly looking out for the population at large--Stewart being a great example of one of those whose wit manages to make light the very idea of our government. We need humor...but comedians also have to be careful that they don't lead us to contempt...and that time has come and gone, IMHO.
As I read your post, I was strongly reminded of Cornelius Fudge in HP, and his denial that Voldemort had come back. While HP is fictional, I can't help but look at what happened because he refused to take the danger seriously, and it makes me fear for our nation.
Yes, I can never quite tell what J.K. Rowling thinks of all of this. One the one hand, the people stubbornly ignoring real threats are the government. On the other hand, their mantra is that we needn't actually do anything. I don't know if she's trying to make a statement...I hope not, actually...but it is interesting to watch. Its also very similar to a magical version of the years in the 1930's leading up to the rebirth of a German threat to the peace of Europe and the world. A British Prime Minister who refuses to acknowledge a threat as a threat, who promises peace in our time, etc. I cannot wait till Saturday!
I think the answer is that radical secularism/scientific naturalism has devoured the "old image" of Western Civ. and America. There is nothing for us to fight for if we buy into the belief that all there is is a meaningless cocktail of matter degrading slowly into void. The highest good in such a world-view becomes pleasure and amusement, and since many Americans believe that that is all there is they will pay any price to keep their trivial amusements and luxury as long as they possibly can. When they do wage war, then, they do so as play-ground bullies who strike only when they can quickly overwhelm their opponents and get what they want without any real resistance or cost. If they can't have their way, then they become sore losers who massage their thwarted hedonism with a "well then I'll just take my marbles and go home" mentality, taking a petty-tyrant's satisfaction any pain and suffering that then ensues.
well, there is some danger. the question is whether it is significant enough to be worth the price we're paying. we're not just paying money (that we don't have) and soldiers, but we're squandering political and moral global influence and losing personal liberties at home.
and it's debatable what we're getting out of it.
and it's debatable that we're going to "win".
Stewart's point is that the perceived danger needs to be exaggerated to meet the cost. the way he knows this is because we haven't instituted a draft.
the reason why we the people appreciate Stewart is because we feel that he provides at least some measure of accountability from public figures. in numerous interviews, he has indicated that he holds a lot of respect for the office of the president.
Well, the danger we face is quite real, and we need only look at other nations not strong enough or globally located in the midst of our enemies to see what they'd like to do to us. They want mayhem and havoc, death nad destruction.
And the question isn't whether we can afford to win...its can we afford not to fight, regardless of the outcome. I believe the answer is clearly no. Look at Israel. Unless we want that to be us, we have to fight.
But I am curious at your general acceptance of Stewart's quips about the government and his sharp witted pokes at the "inflated" threat level. He brings up good points, but there are always more than one reason for the way things are. He suggests that if the threat were actually serious we would have a draft. The draft is generally unpopular (thank you media), and in a conflict that will involve a truly long, grinding, sustained offensive that is already unpopular, do you honestly think we COULD institute the draft?
Everything that Jim mentioned stands as very good reasons why our society wouldn't stomach it...so how could we institute a draft when it would only give the Left the fire they need to revolt completely against our offensive on a global threat?
And there is another issue as well--draftees don't generally make great soldiers. We are making recruitment quotas in spite of the oppressive anti-war mantra of the left, and those volunteers will the best army in the world. With the technology of our army and the nature of this conflict, its better to run on volunteers if we can, and right now we can. It does mean longer deployments, but I would wager that those longer deployments by volunteer, professional soldiers result in fewer casualties on the whole, since the soldiers we do have are generally very good at their jobs. If you think this sounds far fetched, think about the majority of the casualties thus far--by and large they have come from reserve units (generally less trained soldiers). So, once again, a draft may not actually solve any problems.
I am also intrigued by adhereing to Stewart as accountability. Its this perception of a comedian that makes me worry about his influence. He has even said, he's only supposed to be a comedian. Comedians have an incredible power to speak to the souls of the people--and they can, under the cover of laughter, influence us more than nearly any straight-faced, serious minded politician. We listen to politicians with guarded minds; we listen to comedians to relax and "turn our minds off", which means we're incredibly vulnerable to their suggestions that our leaders are idiots, that this war makes about as much sense as a fridge in the artic, and that everything is ridiculous. Which means he needs to be careful, and we should be much less interested by what he has to say, and pay more attention to history and the straight world around us.
you've made some good points. but alas, i'm leaving for camping in a couple hours (in big sur!) so i'll have to respond when i get back.
Wow, frustrated much, Chris? :)
I hear you on this issue, but I can't say that I agree with you. We don't need something else to remind us, the general public, that we're at war. We need something to knock sense into the heads of those making decisions in the White House and the Pentagon. For crying out loud, how can we be so irresponsible in Afghanistan, the place that everyone agreed was a justifiable invasion? I don't want to get into the Iraq war thing. Yes, I think it was a bad decision, yes, I think it's hurting our ability to defend ourselves both in alienating longtime allies, dividing the nation on the issue, becoming a political pawn (not just in aspiring potus's, either, but in our own as well - he's using it as a barometer of his stubbornness, not an important military decision), and damaging our credibility among our enemies. We're showing our underbelly, and it's white and soft - and I say that having a friend over there. I know the troops are trying. They're not miracle workers.
What I don't get is how this administration can be so monumentally thick, and how its supporters can be so, well, supportive when it's betrayed the very things it said it was doing in the first place.
I don't think America's stupid. I don't think we're complacent in the face of a six year old tragedy. I think we're sick of imbeciles mishandling opportunities to go after the people responsible. They're too busy chunking rocks at the hornet's nest to defend us. I felt much safer when we were invading Afghanistan just after September 11 than I do now, and not because Al Qaeda has had time to gather force, but rather because our leaders have foolishly and bullheadedly afforded them that time and motivated otherwise reluctant populations to join them.
It's not that the cowboy approach didn't work, it's that we had an incompetent cowboy and his cronies calling the shots. I'm all for the sheriff riding into town - let's just get a good one. Sadly, I don't really see any on the horizon.
But on the bright side, Chris, I wouldn't worry. The Republic won't fall. It's weathered far worse than this. It might not be fun, but it won't fall.
I was wondering where you were. :)
Unsuprisingly, we disagree; though I think its telling that the thing we agree on is the thing most of America agrees on--we are really tired of those in power. 14% approval rating for the Congress. The only thing that makes me laugh more is the threat of Cindy Sheehan running again Pelosi--I would die happy if she beat her in 2008.
I'm with you on not rehashing all the facts. We both know that US policy changed--and that means that our priorities (international approval, etc) also altered. And we also both know that there were a myriad of legal justifications for attacking Iraq. We also agree that mistakes were made. But this is where I am increasingly frustrated; its not as if every other war has been mistake free.
Lets go to our finest hour, the greatest generation in the defining act of the 20th Century; WWII. America's first major battle against the Germans was a huge bust--we got our butts kicked, to the tuned of huge casualties, loss of important equipment, etc. We continued to make a mixed bag of decisions through campaigns in Italy and the South Pacific. Even when we won, our victories frequently came at huge costs--more than we have lost in the entire length of this sustained offensive. Heck, come the Winter of 1944, when we were literally congratulating ourselves on having the game sowed up, the Germans punched through the Ardennes and once again kicked our butts.
Now, I know you know all of this...so why do I mention it? Because, unlike the 1940's, today we are suffering relatively light casualties (that's of course not to say that they're not tragic loses, but that they are actually quite few) and we have zero capacity to endure even these loses. We want victory to come without work. Its what Jim said--our comfort is the premium commodity we're concerned with. And that infuriates me.
As to the fall of this Republic...I am sorry, but I cannot be convinced of our salvation. We hate each other. The tension between cultures hasn't been this bad since before the War of Suscession. I don't expect a war to break out...I am on the lookout for an Octavius to come along and offer the promise of peace and happiness, through a stronger government that can finally bridge the rifts of our society. It'll happen...you know it will. Republics only last until the right dictator comes along. We've had 230 years...not bad...
That should have read Octavian, not Octavius. That's what'll happen to you when writing at 1AM.
Something else I wanted to address: the surge is working. Listen to the troops on the ground, listen to Patraeus' insight--things are moving forward. But instead of listening to the generals and allowing troops time to work, our politicians are putting on a show.
Here's why I say the problem is the populace at large--politicians generally don't act against the winds of popularity. The immigration fiasco recently would be a good example of one of the freak times they ignore the public, but by and large the Congressional leadership is pandering to their voters. They are ignoring facts, they are ignoring results. They don't care about those--they want to paint the picture as the fringe left sees it so they can expel all Republicans from office. Heck, during the Senate's sleepover, Dems were actually belittling the reports and opinions of the generals, because it wasn't all failure, doom and gloom. Oh, but they support the troops...whatever that means.
Now...the Republicans have their own problems, of course. But in general, they are paying attention to the facts too--probably because their base are in favor of listening to the troops. Regardless of why they do it, when we DO listen to the troops, the reality established by the Congressional leadership is shaken and disturbed. Instead of defeat, we're looking at a workable situation.
But we have a populace that by and large fixes on soundbytes. And the Dems have great defeatist soundbytes. And that really makes me tired. I listened to Chris Matthews on Leno last night and almost gagged--he was simply lying to the nation about the situation currently in Iraq, and was getting applause, because its popular to bad mouth the President and its "brave" to accept defeat in Iraq. But the troops are succeeding, and if we would listen and think, as citizens of a Republic must do if its to survive, we would discover that the world is not as Pelosi and Reid would have us think it is.
This deadness of mind is yet another reason I am convinced we are living in the last days of our America.
we should be much less interested by what he has to say, and pay more attention to history and the straight world around us.
How much should we rely upon Fox Noise to get our information on the "straight world" around us? :-P
Increasingly, we are seeing "news" as simply a vehicle to communicate political agenda. The entire political spectrum is involved. Stewart uses news mostly to communicate comedy, which in my opinion is slightly more reliable because its biases are more readily identifiable.
it's the "free market" ideals in play. the fields are ripe with absurd statements from politicians. if "conservative comedians" think they too have material, then let's hear it, and we'll compare their revenues with the Daily Show.
******
by and large the Congressional leadership is pandering to their voters
i really hate it when leaders pander to their voters. it undermines the "Octavian" ideal!
:-P
Post a Comment