Part 1

Conservatives need to be more cynical... their optimism that the government is sincere in their pronouncements about ending terrorism and promoting democracy worldwide is misplaced (and on a sidenote, he hardly helps his case by dismissing anyone who would disagree with him as "fucking far left liberal scum"... I expect that kind of salty talk from the NY Post, but not from the internet!).

On the cynical issue, let me provide a few examples, starting with the conservatives' beloved Saint Reagan. The writer is correct that Iran's first act of war against the U.S. was the taking of hostages in the Embassy in '79. Jimmy Carter, who was by no means a great President but not the total abomination conservatives claim he was, failed in his efforts to facilitate their return. It is a widely-held belief that Reagan worked to prevent this, knowing that Carter's failure to free them would help Reagan in the 1980 election. The theory goes that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages until after the election, in exchange for weapons, etc... And George HW Bush, as former CIA head, was also in a prime position to thwart Carter's attempts to free the hostages. The fact that the hostages were released as he was inaugurated supports this as well. To those that don't believe that Reagan would make such a bargain with the Iranians, one should remember that later Reagan would be implicated in a larger scandal in which the U.S. gave weapons to our enemies in Iran because it served their political ends. It was also during this administration that emissaries (including Rumsfeld) were sent to make deals with Saddam's Iraq, even after the U.S. was well aware that he was using weapons on the Kurds. Moving forward to the post-9/11 period, we have continued to give passes to countries who harbored terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates) because we can benefit from our relationship with them. The Bush 'with us or against us' line on terrorism was never serious... if he was just a rhetorical way to get countries to stand by us as Bush secretly planned for war with Iraq.

Bottom line... except in major cases (ie. Japan/Germany after Pearl Harbor and Afghanistan after 9/11), people tend to only become our 'enemies' when they stop being useful to us. You correctly give France/Russia shit for dealing with bad countries, but we're just as bad as they are on that front. My apologies if that makes me a "fucking far left liberal scum" who "cares nothing about our country", but that's the reality that every Bush supporter needs to realize before they start defending his failed foreign policy. They're not interested in world peace, they just have a preset Mideast agenda that they use the blood of 9/11 to sell.

I do not like that that is the case, but there you go. I love this country and that is why I hate to see such madmen running it.

Part 2

Getting back to the main issue of Iran, Hezbollah, etc... I just want to first state that I don't believe the comparison of Ahmadinejad to Hitler is apt. Yes, he's insane and hates the Jews, but what with challenging Bush to TV debates, it seems to me that his main cause is just egomania. He's no Nikita Khrushchev. When he makes threats toward our country, then he will have a problem. We should be keeping a close eye on his country and their nuclear program. We should. But we have to try diplomacy before we talk of war. Mock sanctions all you want, but they clearly had an effect in Iraq. Diplomatic means may not work, but you have to give them a try. I have never seen an administration that so openly prefers war to diplomacy. Look where it has gotten us. And even if we as a country decide Iran is a threat that we need to deal with military, how do we intend to do that? We have few allies left, our military is beyond depleted (at this point, they're forced to recall thousands of troops to active duty just to keep the two wars we already have going, not to mention lowering all recruiting standards across the board), our treasury is bankrupt after years of tax cuts and increased spending, and this administration has proven they can't be counted for a long-term strategy for victory. To start a war with Iran now would be suicidal.

So maybe we should explore other options, no?

You say that "We could deal with Iran with one easy step. Wipe them out." That is a pretty radical statement. How would we do that? Use the nuclear bomb? Commit mass genocide in Iran because we lack the imagination to find a third way to deal with them? Talk of bombing countries "back into the stone age" because you are frustrated with current events is frighteningly Coulter-esque and I pray is not a battle strategy that will ever be adopted at the Pentagon. That will hardly help 'secure the peace' in the Middle East.

Part 3

Moving on to Hezbollah, yes there is no question that Israel is right to defend themselves and to attempt to remove Hezbollah from the Mideast equation. But, much like our Iraq strategy (or lack thereof), they went about it in the wrong way and lost worldwide support almost over night. When Israel first began their campaign, most people were shocked, but in general understood where Israel was coming from and understand what their goals were in terms of strangling a long-time enemy once and for all. Call it a 'ripping off the band-aid' foreign policy approach. But after weeks of constant bombing and attacks (maybe they were adapting a 'bomb them back to the Stone Age' approach to the Lebanese people?), much of which seemed to lack any specific purpose in light of all the civilian deaths, most of the world gave up on Israeli knowing when to quit or what they are doing. That's when calls for a ceasefire began. This isn't to say, of course, that anyone was sympathetic to the state of Hezbollah, but it just seems it was the Lebanese people who were being most punished there and not that terror group. The long-term goals still make sense, but we saw little evidence that their actions in that war would achieve anything other than cyclical destruction.

Israel's failure to communicate with Lebanon (and the world community at large) to simply articulate their long-term strategies cost them support and sympathy in a struggle where they normally would've had it with little question.

Sadly, Hezbollah is an entrenched part of these countries, not some rogue militia that can be bombed away. The path to marginalizing them is a question of reaching out to the average people living in these countries, recognizing they have legitimate concerns, allowing for some level of compromise with them, and encouraging them then to take back their countries from the radical elements that control the region and lock them in circular violence. Easier said than done, especially with the Lebanese government refusing to disarm Hezbollah or accept responsibility for them, but that seems to me the right direction to move toward. Responding with force when necessary- and not in an undefined way as was occurring- can be argued for, but you cannot truly defeat Hezbollah so long as it retains this level of cult hero status among the people there.

Win over the Lebanese people and you're on the path to defeating Hezbollah. Yes, this may involve the type of 'carrot and stick' diplomacy the war-hungry neocons hate so much, but considering they have no victories and only quagmires to show for their supposed brilliance, I'm not too concerned with their position. Israel and the U.S. want a war, but maybe they should look first at the weapon Hezbollah has succeeded with- propaganda. If they can't even win that war, then all the katyusha rockets in the world will do little but pile up more bodies.

Conservatives are so sure of themselves in the area of foreign policy. Yet we have not succeeded in their goals and have only radicalized the world further. Perhaps if they could stop pounding their fists for just a minute, they'd see that maybe it's time to rethink their world approach.

All Feedback can be sent to jeremywilcox@declarationofindependents.net

BACK TO JEREMY WILCOX ARCHIVES