Yesterday was President Obama's big speech attempting to sell to the nation his decision to increase the United States' military presence in war-torn Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Many people on both sides of the aisle disagreed with this decision, largely believing that the war is too costly and insurmountable. Mr. Obama did sway a few hearts on the issue, and even though I generally swing for the liberals, I am among those supporting Obama's decision.
First, let's take a look at an early precedent set by Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. When the situation in Iraq was as stagnant as the one currently seen in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush sold the nation on a much contested troop surge, which despite the negative ramifications, achieved its goal and put Iraq on the road (albeit the slow one) to true and lasting recovery.
It comes as no surprise to me that Obama reached this decision (after much deliberation with appropriate cabinet and staff members) considering the damage being to America efforts in the largely Taliban controlled state. I've been reading about this surge in the New York Times for weeks, and was totally prepared for this announcement.
Lots of liberals take issue with the idea of "escalation" as though adding more troops to the conflict automatically means more fighting and more death. Yes, these are unfortunate side effects of any conflict, however I am convinced that the increased presence will lead to more effective operations and hopefully root out weapons stockpiles and enemy stronghold leading to an overall decline in violence.
It is important to remember that this decision was not reached lightly, and is in fact one Mr. Obama has been stewing over since the campaign trail. I am largely a pacifist and oppose war as a rule. So how can I possibly agree with this increased military presence? Simply put, the alternative would be worse. If we, as a nation, attempted to do the job we're compelled to do in Afghanistan with the force we currently have there we would never be able to reverse the trend of violence, Taliban control, and governmental corruption (an obvious symptom of decreased security). The sad truth of the matter is that we got into this mess, and while I largely disagree with that and the handling of it for the most part, we cannot simply walk away. To walk away would not only tarnish our reputation as a benevolent nation by invading another and leaving it war torn, but it would leave massive holes into which extremists would funnel and only further decrease the security of this country as well as Afghanistan.
President Obama is not sending an imperial army to subdue the nation of Afghanistan for American profit. Let's face it, the only real product Afghanistan has that Americans are interested in is opium, and you can't even tax that. The troop surge is meant to help reign in a conflict that has gotten out of control. More American forces there will mean better containment of weapons and extremists and can only help to speed our exit from the country when the time is appropriate. I will gladly say that I wish we had never gotten into this conflict or the one in Iraq, but now that we are, we need to finish it as effectively and peacefully as possible and I believe this surge is a good way to do that.
To wrap this up, allow me to paraphrase (very roughly) a quote I read in the New York Times this morning, "I am glad Obama is increasing troop presence in Iraq, but I'm unhappy because I know he is not doing it because he wants to, he's doing it to appease Republicans." (Remember, that is a ROUGH paraphrase) First of all, I hope Mr. Obama is not sending troops because he wants to. Who honestly wants to put America's finest young men and women in harms way? Could it be that the President is taking this action, begrudgingly, because that is what the situation calls for? Yes, he may be compromising typically Democratic ideals, but there is a job to be done, and it needs to be done well, and this has worked before, so hopefully it can work again. I, like many others, am cautiously optimistic about this course of action.
-titus
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Political Discourse in a World of Hecklers
It's all over the blogosphere by now. Twitter is atweet with messages about it. I even saw a website for it. Last night was President Obama's highly anticipated speech before a joint session of Congress. Amongst all the eloquence and rhetoric that our president is known for, two words have apparently stolen the show. "You Lie," shouted by Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina in response to the President's promise that universal healthcare will not be extended to people who are in this country illegally. Mr. Wilson has formally apologized to Rahm Emanuel who accepted the apology on Mr. Obama's behalf, but the scenario speaks to the times and the division on this issue and has me wondering about political discourse in a world of hecklers.
First things first. I want to make crystal clear that I am not upset at Representative Wilson's choice to exercise his First Amendment Rights, nor his dissent with the President's ideas. I respect and value the fact that we can, and should do these things in a democracy, and in most circumstances I would be the first to applaud the questioning of authority.
The problem I have is that Mr. Wilson was just making an outburst. There was no argument, no logic and really, no forum for objections. That is what makes it disrespectful. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the President, the office is one handed over by the voters of the United States and demands respect. The military salutes the President no matter who he or she may be. Not to mention it is just plain rude to interrupt someone who is giving a speech. There is a time and a place for dissent and questioning and I fully support such discourse! The middle of a speech is the wrong time and place.
As I've said, I fully agree with the ideas that we should question and even harbor a healthy sense of doubt over our elected officials, whether or not we agree with them. It keeps us our toes and helps make sure the people we elected to represent us are doing so and have to answer to someone. I am all for forums and debates and town hall discussions to dissect and understand the policies the elected are supporting or opposing. But really, where are these conversations? Lately, we have had nothing but shouting from both sides. What start as attempts to impart information become shouting matches where people leave bitter and more embattled than ever as opposed to open and willing to work. The healthcare issue is a serious one and requires some serious conversation, and we have had little to none on a national level, and probably less on a personal level.
The yelling matches and the heckling have to stop. This issue cannot be solved by the left alone or the right alone; I cannot think of a single political issue that can, or has been. We need an honest an open conversation with each other and with our representatives. Let's stop name calling, fear-mongering and over-simplifying each other. Those on the left are not socialists trying to take away your individual freedoms, and those on the right are not special interest bellboys with dollar signs in their eyes. Both sides want to do something to help resolve this crisis, but we need to talk to each other to fully understand what and how.
Let's have spirited conversations if we have to, let's raise our voices if we have to, but let's do it civilly and over the right channels: blogs, tweets, coffee shops and dinner tables. Not during speeches, not bombastically with nothing but a T.V. camera or a radio mic, and let's try to discuss this without shouting each other down or disrupting the flow of information.
The heckling has already hi-jacked the conversation. I'm blogging about a distraction from the speech not the speech itself; someone made a website making fun of Joe Wilson instead of a website about the finer notes of President Obama's plan. We need to just let the issue of who yelled what die and move on to talking about the issues.
Credit to the New York times for the back story to this blog.
First things first. I want to make crystal clear that I am not upset at Representative Wilson's choice to exercise his First Amendment Rights, nor his dissent with the President's ideas. I respect and value the fact that we can, and should do these things in a democracy, and in most circumstances I would be the first to applaud the questioning of authority.
The problem I have is that Mr. Wilson was just making an outburst. There was no argument, no logic and really, no forum for objections. That is what makes it disrespectful. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the President, the office is one handed over by the voters of the United States and demands respect. The military salutes the President no matter who he or she may be. Not to mention it is just plain rude to interrupt someone who is giving a speech. There is a time and a place for dissent and questioning and I fully support such discourse! The middle of a speech is the wrong time and place.
As I've said, I fully agree with the ideas that we should question and even harbor a healthy sense of doubt over our elected officials, whether or not we agree with them. It keeps us our toes and helps make sure the people we elected to represent us are doing so and have to answer to someone. I am all for forums and debates and town hall discussions to dissect and understand the policies the elected are supporting or opposing. But really, where are these conversations? Lately, we have had nothing but shouting from both sides. What start as attempts to impart information become shouting matches where people leave bitter and more embattled than ever as opposed to open and willing to work. The healthcare issue is a serious one and requires some serious conversation, and we have had little to none on a national level, and probably less on a personal level.
The yelling matches and the heckling have to stop. This issue cannot be solved by the left alone or the right alone; I cannot think of a single political issue that can, or has been. We need an honest an open conversation with each other and with our representatives. Let's stop name calling, fear-mongering and over-simplifying each other. Those on the left are not socialists trying to take away your individual freedoms, and those on the right are not special interest bellboys with dollar signs in their eyes. Both sides want to do something to help resolve this crisis, but we need to talk to each other to fully understand what and how.
Let's have spirited conversations if we have to, let's raise our voices if we have to, but let's do it civilly and over the right channels: blogs, tweets, coffee shops and dinner tables. Not during speeches, not bombastically with nothing but a T.V. camera or a radio mic, and let's try to discuss this without shouting each other down or disrupting the flow of information.
The heckling has already hi-jacked the conversation. I'm blogging about a distraction from the speech not the speech itself; someone made a website making fun of Joe Wilson instead of a website about the finer notes of President Obama's plan. We need to just let the issue of who yelled what die and move on to talking about the issues.
Credit to the New York times for the back story to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
