What is the Big Picture?
One thing that bothers me about news is that is often given without context. There is no history, let alone any political philosophy or over arching purpose or goal. Often the underlying assumptions are rather retarded. All war is bad. All corporations are bad. All Republicans are bad. Etc.
For example, in Iraq, the News is what happened yesterday, or maybe last week. Some battle happened. A bomb exploded. A certain number of Americans were killed or wounded.
But big questions are left untouched. What would Iraq be like today, if the America had not invaded. Would the Iraqis be better off, or worse? In what senses? Is it ever proper to invade a country to depose a dictator? What would happen to Iraq if we withdrew immediately? These are hard questions to answer. It is much easier to count bodies of dead soldiers. One, two, three . . .
What are Americas current goals in Iraq? Free elections and democracy? The Rule Of Law in Iraq? The prevention of civil war and descent into anarchy. The holding at bay of Iran, which threatens to invade its historical enemy now that it has been weakened by the U.S. I don't see any evidence that we are simply seizing the oil of Iraq, which many anti-war people assured me was the obvious and only reason we were at war in Iraq.
Few people talk about the BIG picture about anything, which is why I usually find the news annoying.
To take the Jon Stewart interview, assuming that we were mislead into going into the war to some degree, that the predictions were too rosy, this still does not address the big questions . .
what are our goals in the Mideast? Okay, we were lied to about the cost. It turns out that Hussein did not have the WMD that most people and governments thought that he had. The cost of deposing Hussein, introducing a form of democracy into Iraq has been much higher than promised.
Even so, has the result been worth the higher cost? How do you count the cost? Many more people died during the civil war or the revolutionary war. Is all war simply bad? Are we to surrender ourselves to any evil thug willing to use force, in order to save the life of one soldier? (What of the millions killed by Mao or Lenin). Do we simply stand by and watch evil being done, and do nothing because "war is bad."
Should we be isolationist? Should we embrace Islam and let it gradually take over our institutions, replacing science and democracy with religious totalitarianism? If not, how do we stand up to religious fundamentalism like Islam?
How do you deal with people who want to rule the world based upon their Holy Book, supposedly dictated by God to Mohammad, in the seventh century, which contains, frankly many ideas that were common in the seventh century, but which do not fit in well with modern notions of science and justice.
If your ultimate goal is some kind of world government, that creates the rule of law world wide just as it rules in many modern countries, how are we to make progress towards that goal? If the town is overrun by crooks, who is going to be the sheriff that cleans up the town? Frankly, our world is overrun by crooks. Do you think the crooks are simply going to hand in their guns and turn over a new leaf, on their own?
Yeah, but Bush mislead us into that war, and look at all the soldiers who died.
Sigh . . .
Comments
I understand the comment that without the "big picture", can you criticize the president for mistakes or misleading statements.
Let me first state that in a democracy I would hope that politicians don't take the approach of the colonel in a Few Good Men. I.e. "the truth, you can't handle the truth". In otherwords, except in very exceptional circumstances I don't believe our politicians have the right to "sell" a war based upon false or dubious information. Stewart made the point that there was little difference between the 3 countries call the Axis of Evil in terms of a potential threat to the United States. Stewart asks, why Iraq? Feith gives the standard montra that he supports terrorism, has used WMD's in the past, was a rouge state, dangerous, etc. I am a realist about going to war to protect a U.S. strategic interest, and don't think it is our place to topple dictators we don't like unless there is a material benefit to the U.S. By unseating Saddam, did we not make Iran stronger and more confident. How does the current quagmire benefit the U.S. If Israel was the 51st state, then I would say, we probably might have viewed his support of terrorism, an indirect attack on the U.S. Saddam had not provided WMD's to any terrorist group that was attacking U.S. interests as far as anyone can prove. The survival of Israel may or may not be a strategic interest of the U.S., but I don't think that suicide bombers, as unpleasant as they are, are likely to topple the Israeli military.
So turning back to my inital point, I do not want our leaders to believe that the American public should be lead to war based upon propaganda.
Let's both get Feith's book and compare notes.