This
one classifies as an op-ed political type that doesn't have too much bearing on
my recent activities but something I thought I should share with you all (y’all
is not a legitimate word). I write this from the eyes of someone that has not
yet had the chance to do my part in contributing to the resolution of this
conflict but I look forward for my chance to go. One of the reasons I joined
the Army was because I wanted to be a part of this. I realize these words come
from one whose best idea of war is described by those who have been, and I am
speaking about something I have yet to have firsthand experience about.
I
read an op-ed a few months ago I think was one of the best pro-war op-eds I
have read in a long time. It was Right
Invasion, Wrong Explanation, by Jonah Goldberg. Many of the author’s
points brought up in the op-ed I agreed with, but I had some of my own thoughts
and elaborations I thought I would like to share. I wanted to start off to
acknowledge I personally do not care nor have I ever cared about the notorious
WMD's. I don't care the President's State of the Union mentioned the "16
words" that supposedly rallied much of the support for the initial action.
Actually, I have seen some interesting new articles which obviously were not
widely circulated throughout the media showing the alleged WMD's were present
up to a week before the beginning of the invasion and Russian Special Forces
moved them to neighboring Syria. I don't think that was made public because it
was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the public’s eye, in
addition to allege Russia having something to do with working with the former
Iraqi regime would be such a blow to our foreign relations with Russia it was
not worth it to pursue. In addition I am inclined to believe that certain
methods of gathering such evidence were better off not mentioned.
This
is regarding the recent article published by the NY Times based on classified
documents (This
is the closest I could find). For those
of you that know what part of the Army I serve, you know that I know about the
protocol with such information. The very definition as pertains to the US
government and classified documents is quiet self-explanatory, in fact if
anyone wants to read AR 380-5, it lays it all out there, but I warn you it is
deathly boring to read. The definitions of the following levels of
classification are: “Secret” if it can do danger to the United States if the
information is revealed. “Top Secret” is differentiated that the information
can do grave danger to the United States. For news organization to spill the
beans and publish such material is what I consider espionage and or sedition.
Well, that is what we call it if one person delivers the same material to
someone from another nation who does not have the clearance to view such
information.
The
NY Times in my eyes committed the worst form of espionage, they made it open
source, available to the general public. Those who argue the information in
itself does not directly endanger the US have no clue what they are talking
about. The content of the information is not always the important part; it is
how it was collected. That being said, I think it would be perfectly legal and
completely appropriate to charge the NY Times editors and journalists that were
associated with the leak of information.
Many
argue we did not do enough peace talks to find out if Iraq had complied with
the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War in 1990. Well, for me I think
we did more than enough, in fact, the UN proved itself to be impotent in my
eyes and I favor withdrawing from the organization altogether. They are not
worth the billions we spend to be in the council and I do not believe they act
in the best interest of Freedom and Justice. I remember watching the clips from
the UN meetings when the US appealed to the UN asking for action. It went like
this: they agreed Iraq was not in compliance with the original resolution which
ended the first Gulf War, in fact they had been in violation of that resolution
for over 10 years; after agreeing Iraq was in violation of their resolutions
with another resolution, a resolution for military action was proposed and
failed.
I
am not one to jump the gun on important decisions, but, I think that was a
clear example of refusing to solve the problem. If I make a deal with someone
and the conditions of the deal are not honored then either the conditions prior
to the resolution ought to be reverted or the agreed penalty for violating the
resolution should be paid. In my opinion, military action is the reasonable and
logical course of action, it was deemed appropriate in 1990 as a result of the
invasion of Kuwait, from which the Allied forces were about to overtake Iraq
after liberating Kuwait but it was that same resolution which halted the
coalition forces in 1990.
One
may ask how Iraq violated the resolution from 1990. Although the politicians
focused on the unaccounted chemical agents and equipment possible for making
WMD's I think they left out a major detail when considering invading Iraq.
Since the conclusion of the Gulf War one of the conditions was a no-fly zone
the United States and other countries were to patrol. For the entire duration
of the patrol it was common for Iraq to fire missiles at the military jets.
Correct me if I am wrong but, when one country attempts to shoot down another
military’s aircraft that is an act of war? There was never an instance when a
coalition warplane was ever shot down in that duration, but it does not excuse
being shot at without retaliation.
I
am curious as to why there are so many people against the war at this present
time. I know the American people are fickle and loose interest in things that
last more than a month. I find it rather sad the change in popular support of
the war. The initial invasion in 2003 there was close to 70% support for the
military action, after the lack of discovery of the WMD's the public support
was around 50%, and now it is somewhere in the 30% range. Many people attacked
President Bush for his action on what was believed to be correct intelligence,
but since everything didn't go as planned, the majority of the initial support
has left the cause. I am most perplexed by those who advocate instant
withdrawal. Did they not understand what happened in Afghanistan? The Soviets
took over the region, essentially conquered it and then left with the fall of
the Soviet Union. Upon the exits of the previous government the Taliban took
control of the nation. Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat
it; I didn't think 20 years was that long to remember.
Epilogue: This was
interesting to read so many years later. I do not think at the time I
considered the differences in types of classified information leaks, that or
these statements were made prior to my embrace of certain Libertarian
sentiments. For the sake of Liberty, I find criminal acts like those of
Snowden, were not done in malice but from a patriot’s heart. Given that the
Director of National Intelligence outright lied to a Congressional Oversight
Hearing, I have a hard time explaining how Snowden was not vindicated by that
overt act of deception.
I truly wish the post
war plan was conducted better, not by the military but the State department.
The de-bathification
policy was the most disastrous policy that directly lead to the less than
satisfying conclusion.
In light of the Syria
mess, who knows where Assad got his chemical weapons?
Also, note that in
2006, it was easy enough to predict the rise of an organization like ISIS from
nothing more than a history lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment