Who Sez?
In my day Sunday morning TV used to be fun - Wonderama, wrestling, cartoons. Now it's evangelists and political analyses. So while channel-flipping bright and early, I came across an interview with Duncan Hunter, a Republican Rep from California. He was a scary looking sort of fellow with an even scarier rhetoric. Simply, he spouted the too commonly held American belief that America has a duty to spread Freedom and, thus, our presence in Iraq is justified. In addition, he said, with regards to Islamo-fascists it's better to fight them now and over there, that the confrontation was inevitable. We've heard that before too.

But both logics are twisted and dangerous.

Taking the latter idea first that it's better to fight a (perceived) enemy now rather than later is an insane basis for a foreign policy much less any other type of social policy. Are we too fight anyone who disagrees with us? We'd be fighting half the world. Is our enemy based on potential economic threat? Then China should be our next target. Military threat? China's right there. By all logic, we should be gearing for war against China. It sure looks like they're doing the same for us.

But we're in the Middle East. Why? 9/11 was an attack from al Qaeda. Yet the War on Terror has expanded to nearly all groups of Islamic origin that, well, disagree with what we think. That's the same attitude from Wordl War II that all Germans were Nazis and vice versa. It isn't true. Where Bush has failed is keeping the focus on the target. He didn't finish the job with Osama. Iraq not only distracted from that pursuit but split our forces, wasted billions, emboldened Iran, strenghtened the "Islamo-fascists"...

If you're going to fight, isn't it better to fight an enemy one at a time, rather than all at once? But looks at Bush has brought us to: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia. And those are the fights we know about. The War on Drugs (remember that one?) is still being waged. Yet THAT War is being cannabilized for for the War on Terror. So now you have a War on Drugs where, before we moved in to Afghanistan, there was little Opium being produced to now it's the major world supplier. And arguably we're behind it.

All because of...what?...will we ever now the real reason Bush dragged us into Iraq? It's wasn't al Qaeda or WMDs or Hussein being a threat to our National Security. But Iraq shoudl have taught us that fighting an imaginary enemy can turn real in a very ugly way.

For most of the life of the U.S. there has been this notion that we must spread Democracy to the rest of the world, that somehow our political system is so inherently superior that it must grow, not natural, but forcefully. Who sez?

We do have a great political system albeit one that is quickly being undermined by corrupt and self-serving politicians. But however great our system is its greatness should spread by example not by force. Our way of life should be an illustration of what Freedom entails. That illustration should market and merit itself. By forcing our system on other countries is wasteful, disrespectful, dangerous, and potentially self-defeating. Some call it Imperialism. But however called Freedom must be gained from the inside not forced from the outside.

Look at North Korea. The people are in terrible straights while their Leader has all his Western toys. How long before the discrepancy drives the populace to revolt? It's a matter of time. (Of course, if North Korea has any oil reserves we'd be more attentive.)

The point of this rant is that America's greatness should come by example not by force and our current leaders don't see or understand this. Our greatness can't shine through with a President who can't distinguish between your average Islamic follower and one who's burying the mine trap. But then again our President isn't know for his powers of reasoning or diplomacy.