Think out Laud

Why we can't build a democracy in Iraq, nor preserve our own

I wrote my friend Curtis (who writes The Teen Conservative) that I'm not in agreement with Ron Paul that the US can "simply walk out" of Iraq. But I agree with R.P. that we never should have been there without a declaration of war from Congress. We've started something and we have a responsibility to finish it. But it was started by side-stepping our PRINCIPLES as set forth in The Constitution. And the point of my article is that we cannot preserve our democracy if we don't stand up for the principles on which it is based.

But just what IS our objective in Iraq? Initially it was "enforcing the UN resolutions." Then it was "regime change". We've done both. Now the goal is what? a peaceable democracy for The good Iraqi People? Are the Iraqis ready to spill their own blood, as our ancestors did, until they can have and deserve freedom? I sense the answer is "no". And if not, no other country on earth can walk in and give it to them.

Unless we do it the way Britian did: By overtly occupying, even colonizing Iraq (a la India) until they are subjugated for a hundred years or so and have forgotten their "barbaric and backward" culture of war. Is THIS what "victory" means? If so, why don't we call it what it is, emperialism?

I've supported Bush and the war effort until now, and still think it can be won. But no one seems to be ready to define the goal in a way that is discrete enough to be achievable. With no clear goal, there can be no clear success. With a sliding goal, victory will always be just a few more years out. This is why I think US intervention and occupation cannot resolve the conflicts in Iraq. We're making gains. But they are still killing one another. They aren't willing to compromise and live together under western law. I've listened with interest to the lively debate waged by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others. But I've decided they are towing the GOP party line (or the media networks they work for, FOX?) more than really thinking the matter through for themselves.

Now Curtis said he didn't know what to do about the problem of teen apathy---esp. apathy toward current events and politics and the election. We should start by reminding young people that apathy toward government is what made Iraq the country it is---where "might makes right" and the best one can do is "look out for himself." Our country, on the other hand, was built by men who neglected their farms and businesses each year for a month or two and went to Washington (or a state capital) and got involved in the costly aspects of democracy: self-defense and self-government. We can't change others, but we can ourselves get involved.

As for Ron Paul, the man truly understands that his participation in Congress is not a career, but a service. So he routinely forfeits perks and benefits and votes against all pay raises as well as anything that increases taxes (so I'm told). I think he has it right. I'm really inspired to believe again that standing on principles is better than popularity, pragmatism, political self-preservation (which I call Clintonism), and the apathy which leads to tyranny.

Sic Semper Tyrannis ("Thus always to tyrants") is the motto of Virginia, where I live. It goes with a picture of a citizen (Virtue) trampling a king (Tyranny). That citizen is you and me. We are the only defense against tyranny or the kind of anarchy that we see in places like Iraq. Apathy is ignoble, and lack of involvement (such as voting and serving and, yes, fighting wars) is tantamount to betrayal. (That sounds harsh. Maybe it is. But think about it before deciding.)

So to Curtis and other young people I say, Get involved. Jump in. But fight on principles. This is hard. You need faith in God first, love for your country and for its people, and guts. And all you see in the Media is power, polls, popularity, physical attractiveness---the Ipod culture had no principles (and IMHO very little taste.) These are NOT principles. You'll have to figure out your principles for yourself, though you have choices: Either you can dig them up for the next 40 years and THEN (maybe) get involved (after you've learned things the hard way), or you can follow a few trusted old-timers and "Stand on the shoulders of great men" seeing farther and "doing even greater things" than they after a little humble-time.

Here I recommend you learn Jesus Christ, then Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Ronald Reagan, etc. And for God's sake, study history.

Posted by ckelly at September 12, 2007 06:40 AM