Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Haiku--a stoned insurrection?
Here is perhaps one of the most recognizable haiku of all time, written by a man born Kinsaku and known in later life as Matsuo Munefusa. However, we all know this poet by the pen-name he adopted--Basho--which literally means 'banana tree'-- a dedication, legend has it, to the tree outside his hut where he spent considerable time crafting.
An old pond!
A frog jumps in--
the sound of water.
I've always enjoyed this haiku. Like any other genre of poetry, I am alternately bored or fascinated by any single haiku. This one has always captured my imagination. I can see the thematic progression clearly (object, action, perception) in the actuality of a pond, jumping frog, and splash. It has a stillness that is ancient and yet a carelessness that splashes pond scum on your shirt and catches you off-guard. Somehow in 17 syllables it manages to be simple, deep, playful, and philosophical...things that I usually look for in separate page-length poems.
I am beginning to practice haiku because in its formal precision and simplicity it will exercise the basic skills of poetic craft that are easy for me to neglect when writing free-form. (Not that it is just the exercise of haiku that attracts me--equally so I have always burned with a sense that poetry almost gets further from what it set out to express with each line...there is a narrowness, a limit to the poetic moment that most poetry destroys in its constructs...haiku stands a better to chance to mirror the fleeting...to be continued later.)
However, to practice haiku formally we must first define haiku formally. For my sources, I turned to The Heron's Nest and Haiku for People. Haiku did not exist until the 19th century, when the standard 5-7-5 metric was pursued as a stand-alone form. Before that, masters such as Basho, wrote 5-7-5 lines that were known as hokku and were merely the opening verses to much longer poems known as hakkai. Skipping over all the other history, the traditional form of haiku developed in 19th century Japan is supposed to include the following elements:
--simple language
--kigo: a word that locates the poem seasonally (i.e. cherry blossoms for spring, blueberries for summer)
--the cutting of the haiku through punctuation or other means into two interdependent but separate sections
--present tense verbage and
--interpenetration "of the source of inspiration (no separation between the observer and the observed)
I wrote 14 tonight. They kind of blend well and converse with each other in a series but I'll spare you. Just for asides, I was unable to contain all of the above elements in a single haiku in more than a couple cases. It's quite difficult actually to write a haiku in 17 syllables that fulfills all of these characteristics in concrete language built out of a simple moment. I am filled with new appreciation for the form. Here's one, by John--or as he will later be remembered in life, Birch--cuz he's skinny and white! I've included it, not because it is a total modern abhorration of the form that does not fulfill any of the non-metric requirements, but because it is sort of playing off binary language and is thus dedicated to our tolken computer geek, D.
children laughing out
one open window in a
series of zeros
|
An old pond!
A frog jumps in--
the sound of water.
I've always enjoyed this haiku. Like any other genre of poetry, I am alternately bored or fascinated by any single haiku. This one has always captured my imagination. I can see the thematic progression clearly (object, action, perception) in the actuality of a pond, jumping frog, and splash. It has a stillness that is ancient and yet a carelessness that splashes pond scum on your shirt and catches you off-guard. Somehow in 17 syllables it manages to be simple, deep, playful, and philosophical...things that I usually look for in separate page-length poems.
I am beginning to practice haiku because in its formal precision and simplicity it will exercise the basic skills of poetic craft that are easy for me to neglect when writing free-form. (Not that it is just the exercise of haiku that attracts me--equally so I have always burned with a sense that poetry almost gets further from what it set out to express with each line...there is a narrowness, a limit to the poetic moment that most poetry destroys in its constructs...haiku stands a better to chance to mirror the fleeting...to be continued later.)
However, to practice haiku formally we must first define haiku formally. For my sources, I turned to The Heron's Nest and Haiku for People. Haiku did not exist until the 19th century, when the standard 5-7-5 metric was pursued as a stand-alone form. Before that, masters such as Basho, wrote 5-7-5 lines that were known as hokku and were merely the opening verses to much longer poems known as hakkai. Skipping over all the other history, the traditional form of haiku developed in 19th century Japan is supposed to include the following elements:
--simple language
--kigo: a word that locates the poem seasonally (i.e. cherry blossoms for spring, blueberries for summer)
--the cutting of the haiku through punctuation or other means into two interdependent but separate sections
--present tense verbage and
--interpenetration "of the source of inspiration (no separation between the observer and the observed)
I wrote 14 tonight. They kind of blend well and converse with each other in a series but I'll spare you. Just for asides, I was unable to contain all of the above elements in a single haiku in more than a couple cases. It's quite difficult actually to write a haiku in 17 syllables that fulfills all of these characteristics in concrete language built out of a simple moment. I am filled with new appreciation for the form. Here's one, by John--or as he will later be remembered in life, Birch--cuz he's skinny and white! I've included it, not because it is a total modern abhorration of the form that does not fulfill any of the non-metric requirements, but because it is sort of playing off binary language and is thus dedicated to our tolken computer geek, D.
children laughing out
one open window in a
series of zeros
Bon Voyage
By the way, everyone wish Jesse and Damian happy trails in their European romps. Hi Caitie! Peace.
|
Sunday, October 24, 2004
"What war does, even if it starts with an injustice, is multiply the injustice. If it starts on the basis of violence, it multiplies the violence. If it starts on the basis of defending yourself against brutality, then you end up becoming a brute." -- from Just and Unjust Wars
Unfortunately, for the American people who morally and intellectually rejected war against Iraq as a solution to any problem, we've been screwed in political vices from the beginning. The war took place without our consent on grounds that washed away like deforested hills in a tropical hurricane. Additionally, we are now penned in by an escalating level of violence and partitioning of Iraqi society that requires further justification of bloodshed in order to protect the "half" of Iraq that relies on us for security from the enemies we've created. No exit peacefully, we are left endorsing strategies to deal with Iraq that are--like some of our elections--merely the lesser of two evils. Excepting the use of mass murder, the biggest difference between military invasion and international pressure/diplomacy in regime change is that the former is a one-way road while the latter is a new and ever-changing map of possibilities. It keeps the solution open to our creativity. For comparison, during the dissolution of the Yugoslav state, national/international diplomatic forces organized and reorganized non-violent solutions to the situation of (multiple) regime change. As each plan failed a new one was worked out, which could've provided a cease-fire window in which society firmed up its shores organically, internally, in time. Eventually, boundaries, political systems, civil and economic relationships would have been agreed upon, stabilized and respected. Unfortunately for the masses of Yugoslav citizenry who envisioned a peaceful re-formation of state, territory-hungry, right-wing nationalists assumed political and media monopoly and mobilized their militaries instantly, erasing any chance of forming relationships based upon mutual respect and equality. I believe we are currently creating a similar scenario of civil war in Iraq. When will the insurgency stop? When we've invaded Fallujah for the third, fourth, fifth time? When we've shown enough force that the remaining insurgents cow in fear? When a new government is successfully(?) elected through the mechanisms of an interim government which is rejected as illegitimate and hostile by the insurgency and is the target of more of their attacks than the US itself? This might work if the insurgency was foreign and finite, based on external assistance in personnel and material, rather than internal and infinite, self-sustaining. The seed of violence and division is already planted. Can we not undig it? I felt complete sympathy for President Bartlett in the last couple West Wings: Ishmael in a sea of Ahabs. I'm tired of defending positions and actions supporting ends I rejected using means I believe will fail. We need to hold our government accountable to more ingenious methods of relating. In fact, one could argue entirely new methods of relating. If you take a quick look at longer American history, it's no suprise that our foreign policy is not exporting democracy but war--for territory, spheres of influence, money. It will be fascinating to see how Kerry stears this occupation after he beats the snot out of W at the polls 9 days from now (!) Will we see an improvement in Iraq: a decline in insurgent attacks against civil and military institutions, legitimate self-election, a secular constitution? Or will Iraq echo Vietnam-- the cycle of violence passed through 4 presidents without improvement only retreat? At our W's-Kicked-Out-By-Kerry-Kick-Off we need to brainstorm other ways to facilitate the transition to Iraqi democracy under the leadership of John F. Kerry. For the sake of ingenuity and determination. For the lives of soldiers and citizens. For humanity.
|
Unfortunately, for the American people who morally and intellectually rejected war against Iraq as a solution to any problem, we've been screwed in political vices from the beginning. The war took place without our consent on grounds that washed away like deforested hills in a tropical hurricane. Additionally, we are now penned in by an escalating level of violence and partitioning of Iraqi society that requires further justification of bloodshed in order to protect the "half" of Iraq that relies on us for security from the enemies we've created. No exit peacefully, we are left endorsing strategies to deal with Iraq that are--like some of our elections--merely the lesser of two evils. Excepting the use of mass murder, the biggest difference between military invasion and international pressure/diplomacy in regime change is that the former is a one-way road while the latter is a new and ever-changing map of possibilities. It keeps the solution open to our creativity. For comparison, during the dissolution of the Yugoslav state, national/international diplomatic forces organized and reorganized non-violent solutions to the situation of (multiple) regime change. As each plan failed a new one was worked out, which could've provided a cease-fire window in which society firmed up its shores organically, internally, in time. Eventually, boundaries, political systems, civil and economic relationships would have been agreed upon, stabilized and respected. Unfortunately for the masses of Yugoslav citizenry who envisioned a peaceful re-formation of state, territory-hungry, right-wing nationalists assumed political and media monopoly and mobilized their militaries instantly, erasing any chance of forming relationships based upon mutual respect and equality. I believe we are currently creating a similar scenario of civil war in Iraq. When will the insurgency stop? When we've invaded Fallujah for the third, fourth, fifth time? When we've shown enough force that the remaining insurgents cow in fear? When a new government is successfully(?) elected through the mechanisms of an interim government which is rejected as illegitimate and hostile by the insurgency and is the target of more of their attacks than the US itself? This might work if the insurgency was foreign and finite, based on external assistance in personnel and material, rather than internal and infinite, self-sustaining. The seed of violence and division is already planted. Can we not undig it? I felt complete sympathy for President Bartlett in the last couple West Wings: Ishmael in a sea of Ahabs. I'm tired of defending positions and actions supporting ends I rejected using means I believe will fail. We need to hold our government accountable to more ingenious methods of relating. In fact, one could argue entirely new methods of relating. If you take a quick look at longer American history, it's no suprise that our foreign policy is not exporting democracy but war--for territory, spheres of influence, money. It will be fascinating to see how Kerry stears this occupation after he beats the snot out of W at the polls 9 days from now (!) Will we see an improvement in Iraq: a decline in insurgent attacks against civil and military institutions, legitimate self-election, a secular constitution? Or will Iraq echo Vietnam-- the cycle of violence passed through 4 presidents without improvement only retreat? At our W's-Kicked-Out-By-Kerry-Kick-Off we need to brainstorm other ways to facilitate the transition to Iraqi democracy under the leadership of John F. Kerry. For the sake of ingenuity and determination. For the lives of soldiers and citizens. For humanity.
Friday, October 22, 2004
More Pieces of Paranoiac Puzzles
Michael Ruppert--UCLA Political Science honors graduate, former LAPD narcotics investigator who's crusaded publicly since 1977 to expose CIA drug smuggling-- since 1998 publisher of From the Wilderness, available online and by mail (at a fee, of course;) which is now read by 16,000 in 40 countries, including 40 members of congress as well the intelligence committees of both. Fyooooh, that was some long-winded ass-kissing! Refreshing. (That just doesn't sound right)
That's my plagiarized from the web introduction of Michael Ruppert, who has been outspoken and scholarly on a whole range of issues for 26 years, but has really been dissecting 9/11 since, well, 9/11. I gotta get my copy of his docu-speech "The Truth About 9/11" back from my mom's friend. Whatever it is, it's a well-structured friggin argument.
Anyway, one of the stories on FTW right now is an article taken from Jackson, Mississippi's The Clarion Ledger. According to several of the soldiers' family members, a 17 member platoon is being held in military custody for disobeying an order to deliver a fuel convoy to a nearby base--sure suicide in the minds of the 17 insubordinates. So far, according to family members who have communicated by phone, they haven't yet had access to a military lawyer. (The legal deadline for behing held incommunicado is soon expiring)
The list of complaints (similar to claims made elsewhere by others) :
--Armored humvee and helicopter support, customary....absent.
--the mechanical problems the trucks had earlier............. unfixed.
--top speed of vehicles........................................................... 40 mph.
It should be added that one mother has stepped forward who claims her son has not contacted her yet and a month earlier reported everything to be great, just like home. ONe of the other soldier's in the weeks leading up to the defiance asked his mother what penalties he could face if he got physical with an officer.
Is it possible that the architects of this war--Cheney, Haliburton, CIA, ? , ? , ? , ? --are skimping on equipment and procedure for our soldiers, our good ole girls and boys, because they want to keep down overhead as much as possible?! Are you kidding me?
There's a lot of other stuff out there on the FTW web-site and related Michael Ruppert links (he's quoted/interviewed elsewhere) for browsing. I won't chunk up this lovely cyber chalk board with my drawn-out synopsi.
|
That's my plagiarized from the web introduction of Michael Ruppert, who has been outspoken and scholarly on a whole range of issues for 26 years, but has really been dissecting 9/11 since, well, 9/11. I gotta get my copy of his docu-speech "The Truth About 9/11" back from my mom's friend. Whatever it is, it's a well-structured friggin argument.
Anyway, one of the stories on FTW right now is an article taken from Jackson, Mississippi's The Clarion Ledger. According to several of the soldiers' family members, a 17 member platoon is being held in military custody for disobeying an order to deliver a fuel convoy to a nearby base--sure suicide in the minds of the 17 insubordinates. So far, according to family members who have communicated by phone, they haven't yet had access to a military lawyer. (The legal deadline for behing held incommunicado is soon expiring)
The list of complaints (similar to claims made elsewhere by others) :
--Armored humvee and helicopter support, customary....absent.
--the mechanical problems the trucks had earlier............. unfixed.
--top speed of vehicles........................................................... 40 mph.
It should be added that one mother has stepped forward who claims her son has not contacted her yet and a month earlier reported everything to be great, just like home. ONe of the other soldier's in the weeks leading up to the defiance asked his mother what penalties he could face if he got physical with an officer.
Is it possible that the architects of this war--Cheney, Haliburton, CIA, ? , ? , ? , ? --are skimping on equipment and procedure for our soldiers, our good ole girls and boys, because they want to keep down overhead as much as possible?! Are you kidding me?
There's a lot of other stuff out there on the FTW web-site and related Michael Ruppert links (he's quoted/interviewed elsewhere) for browsing. I won't chunk up this lovely cyber chalk board with my drawn-out synopsi.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
In Plane Site
In Plane Site -- a documentary I found on Suprnova yesterday and just watched it. And it has absolutely left me stunned. This short film, 52 minutes long, raises pointed questions, arrived at from closely analyzing video used by the major news networks, about the events that occurred on 9/11, both at the Pentagon and the WTC. In one video clip taken from CNN before the towers collapsed, there is clearly seen a large plume of smoke rising from the north of the towers. We hear interviews of firefighters and newsmen describing accounts that contradict what we have come to accept - and then never hearing them again after that day.
Now, its been a long while since I was reading books about aliens called the Nephilim procreating with humans 75,000 years ago, or ancient Mayan predictions about the Earth passing through a celestial energy beam that will transform human consciousness in the next 8 years. I feel as though I've cultivated a healthy skepticism during my education (though D may still claim I'm as naive as ever).
This video, however, is well worth the time and indeed, I feel the questions it raises should be dealt with thoroughly. The director, while having a distinct opinion on the matter and claiming that a conspiracy has in fact been played out, does not make accusations or direct claims of guilt. I left the documentary feeling that more questioning absolutely needs to take place; that specific questions need to be addressed in a formal and public arena.
|
Now, its been a long while since I was reading books about aliens called the Nephilim procreating with humans 75,000 years ago, or ancient Mayan predictions about the Earth passing through a celestial energy beam that will transform human consciousness in the next 8 years. I feel as though I've cultivated a healthy skepticism during my education (though D may still claim I'm as naive as ever).
This video, however, is well worth the time and indeed, I feel the questions it raises should be dealt with thoroughly. The director, while having a distinct opinion on the matter and claiming that a conspiracy has in fact been played out, does not make accusations or direct claims of guilt. I left the documentary feeling that more questioning absolutely needs to take place; that specific questions need to be addressed in a formal and public arena.
The Now and The Whence
I've been waiting all week to say something optimistic. It finally found its way out of my mouth.
In These Days
I want to write something beautiful
for people, who are beautiful
I want to write something caustic
for people, are right to be angry
I want to write something practical
for people, who work cuz they love to
I want to write something nonsensical
for people, sated with unfathomables
I want to write something perfect
for people, who are people
October, '04
D--do you remember back in high school when you were formulating your unawarded but brilliant theory: people r people? Do you remember that? Memory Lane.
...Remember all those teenage dreams of rappin
writing rhymes on napkins
All that was visualization make this here actually happen
It's like something coming through me
that truly just consume me
speaking through the voice of spirit speaking to me
I think back in the day I absorbed everything like a sponge
Took a plunge in the past to share with my son
~T.Kweli
|
In These Days
I want to write something beautiful
for people, who are beautiful
I want to write something caustic
for people, are right to be angry
I want to write something practical
for people, who work cuz they love to
I want to write something nonsensical
for people, sated with unfathomables
I want to write something perfect
for people, who are people
October, '04
D--do you remember back in high school when you were formulating your unawarded but brilliant theory: people r people? Do you remember that? Memory Lane.
...Remember all those teenage dreams of rappin
writing rhymes on napkins
All that was visualization make this here actually happen
It's like something coming through me
that truly just consume me
speaking through the voice of spirit speaking to me
I think back in the day I absorbed everything like a sponge
Took a plunge in the past to share with my son
~T.Kweli
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
What does England think of Dubya?
In my so far limited experience of the UK's view of Bush....he's an idiot, he's dangerous, a cowboy, a bully. Pretty much what most of us who read this blog site feel. The only problem is that they think we all (Americans) support him. All of our orientation leaders (who are supposed to be 'up to date' with American young adults) assumed we'd be Bush supporters and were really surprised when we all (with one or two exceptions) expressed horror at the very thought. They all love Kerry over here--I don't even know if they know much about him, they just love him b/c he's not Bush. It's going to be very interesting being over here, watching the election from afar--getting the British spin on everything, newspapers, the bbc....
The British media has even gotten to the point where respected news anchors (bbc types) openly mock Bush--no veiled sarcasm at all!
It's interesting to set such stereotypes straight....no, i don't support Bush....no, i don't own a handgun....yes, everything is huge in America....
signing off...
|
The British media has even gotten to the point where respected news anchors (bbc types) openly mock Bush--no veiled sarcasm at all!
It's interesting to set such stereotypes straight....no, i don't support Bush....no, i don't own a handgun....yes, everything is huge in America....
signing off...
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Taking the lead
When Bush speaks of "some international group" making decisions about the United States' national security, he is, of course, talking about the United Nations. During the build-up to war in late '02 and early '03 there were many meetings, discussions between the European leaders, and at least two UN conferences that dealt directly with Iraq and concluded with passed resolutions. The jist of both of them had to do with turning over illegal weapons and allowing the inspectors access to specific facilities, to which both Saddam complied. (Well, there might've been some ambiguity going on, but turns out, that was mostly to impress Iran)
A resolution never passed for the UN to go into Bahgdad and remove the Baath regime from power. I'm pretty sure that the US proposed one to the floor, negotiated around it, revised it, and still it got rejected. England, Italy, Poland, and Spain are in; France, Germany, Russia and China are out.
When Bush ordered the preparations and then the strikes he further undermined a well-respected, large, somewhat powerful, and, (maybe) most importantly, peaceful international institution. Had he been right, he would have grown hugely in power, and done the world a service because then nations would have rallied together in the effort to rebuild and create stability and democracy in Iraq. But he was wrong, and if for nothing else, our nations' people should vote him out of office; truly, we should be demanding his resignation.
The isolationist tendencies I mentioned earlier are important because they'll have serious consequences.
1. Culturally, the US appears to be seen as the world's bully, and nobody likes a bully. To be sure, we spend billions every year in economic aid and military aid. However, there has also been a massive rise in Islamic terrorism throughout the arab world, and there's nothing they hate so much as American pluralism. Even in friendly places like England, I get the feeling that Bush is particularly despised. Caitlin, maybe you could comment on that or do an entire post?
2. The European Union has become a huge and powerful force that has not yet had to deal with a war, but I suspect that their present economy and their alliances make them the number two force in the world next to the US; they are our natural allies and we are quickly losing their support. China and Russia have an alliance that makes them enormously significant. And then there's a bunch of others with nukes and stuff.
What I am saying is that we should be doing everything in our power to win our friends back and bring as many nations back to the talking table. The best forum to do that in is under the United Nations umbrella. Admit our error and, god forbid, ask forgiveness. Give up our unilateral operations and take the lead in guiding UN police operations where they are needed. Pay political reparations by slinging Dubya to the political whipping post and try getting the world to work together. Undoubtedly, political power is more than just one person and Kerry doesn't seem to have the fire under him the way Dean did. I think Dean could have done exciting things internationally because he was opposed to the war from the beginning; that would have a struck a chord with the world. Still, anything can happen, and at the very least, I'm optimistic that a major change will begin on November 2nd.
(Geo-educational, multi-ethnic, Bush-whacking Party on November 5th at the Brooklyn place, yo, tell your friends)
|
A resolution never passed for the UN to go into Bahgdad and remove the Baath regime from power. I'm pretty sure that the US proposed one to the floor, negotiated around it, revised it, and still it got rejected. England, Italy, Poland, and Spain are in; France, Germany, Russia and China are out.
When Bush ordered the preparations and then the strikes he further undermined a well-respected, large, somewhat powerful, and, (maybe) most importantly, peaceful international institution. Had he been right, he would have grown hugely in power, and done the world a service because then nations would have rallied together in the effort to rebuild and create stability and democracy in Iraq. But he was wrong, and if for nothing else, our nations' people should vote him out of office; truly, we should be demanding his resignation.
The isolationist tendencies I mentioned earlier are important because they'll have serious consequences.
1. Culturally, the US appears to be seen as the world's bully, and nobody likes a bully. To be sure, we spend billions every year in economic aid and military aid. However, there has also been a massive rise in Islamic terrorism throughout the arab world, and there's nothing they hate so much as American pluralism. Even in friendly places like England, I get the feeling that Bush is particularly despised. Caitlin, maybe you could comment on that or do an entire post?
2. The European Union has become a huge and powerful force that has not yet had to deal with a war, but I suspect that their present economy and their alliances make them the number two force in the world next to the US; they are our natural allies and we are quickly losing their support. China and Russia have an alliance that makes them enormously significant. And then there's a bunch of others with nukes and stuff.
What I am saying is that we should be doing everything in our power to win our friends back and bring as many nations back to the talking table. The best forum to do that in is under the United Nations umbrella. Admit our error and, god forbid, ask forgiveness. Give up our unilateral operations and take the lead in guiding UN police operations where they are needed. Pay political reparations by slinging Dubya to the political whipping post and try getting the world to work together. Undoubtedly, political power is more than just one person and Kerry doesn't seem to have the fire under him the way Dean did. I think Dean could have done exciting things internationally because he was opposed to the war from the beginning; that would have a struck a chord with the world. Still, anything can happen, and at the very least, I'm optimistic that a major change will begin on November 2nd.
(Geo-educational, multi-ethnic, Bush-whacking Party on November 5th at the Brooklyn place, yo, tell your friends)
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Sooner than Later
There are two things beside weapons that fuel a fundamentalist terror organization's seizure of a national election-- one is an ideology of the righteous truth oppressed by the falsley righteous; the other is dead bodies to back it up. There are currently estimates of 13,224-15,292 civilian casualties, i.e. relatives, friends, neighbors, countrymen, innocents. Contemplate that fire. The insurrection is garnering cooperation between previously oppositional forces and will only continue to gain support. We are morally responsible for preventing an armed insurrection waging a coup on Iraqi demo-cracy because we created the potential for both free elections and a fundamentalist takeover. However, we must balance this with political responsibility for the consequences of regime change and nation re-building, which are widely seen in Iraq and around the world to be the lethal force of imperialism not protection. We walked in "alone", we bid out contracts "alone". The United States does not have legitimacy in Iraq and must accede power to a representative international force for secure Iraq to stand a chance. Otherwise, I hate to say it but I fear it in my heart--you are looking at a potentially deadly, downwards spin to this confilict. I was looking for an exact number the other day to no avail, however I am 99% confident that there were less than 1000 dead in the first year of Vietnam. (Based on when you define the beginning of the war unlike the situation in Iraq.) The situation is not politically the same in Iraq but there are ominous similarities militarily . The way we are dying. The way we are retaliating. To not make a plan for an American withdrawal is to postpone the inevitable and ignore the terrible. A short-term plan to surrender coalition authority and reduce troop presence is necessary for free elections to occur in a secure Iraq. Otherwise, we fight fire with gasoline.
|
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Rebuilding a UN and a US
Because I have waited 2 weeks for a response to my post "Rebut", I feel encouraged to continue my argument that the U.S. needs a broader short-term plan for handing over authority to Iraqis and reducing troop size there.
Dispite what Kerry has said about starting the removal of troops in one year and completing the pull-out within four, I agree with Damian that this is an unrealistic goal for the following reasons. The violence that continues to ravage the nation appears to be the result of suicide bombings and shellings; the former primarily by Iraqi Sunnis and the latter by a combination of Islamic fundamentalist groups. While there is widespread support for the occupation's goal of democracy amongst the Shiites and especially the Kurds, there are 5 million Sunnis living in Iraq that seem to be the main force undermining security and reconstruction efforts. The sheer size of the resistance, both in numbers and in geography, just overwhelms the US' capacity to maintain any semblance of peace.
While both presidential candidates scoff at any notion of letting some international group determine the US' ability to defend itself, we should be moving in a direction of greater cooperation with other nations rather than the isolationalist tendencies of the past few years. With recent bombings in Egypt, Pakistan, and India (not to mention the daily occurances in Iraq, Israel and Palestian areas) I feel that foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than force is what is needed in the next several years. The Islamic groups that take credit for these bombings do have specific complaints about the West, but the West's image can be bolstered if the United Nations is the group that takes the lead.
What we lack in Iraq is international legitimacy - the world now knows the U.S. was wrong to invade in March '03. If we concede power to the UN, bolster its funding, gather funding also from other nations, we would not only begin the healing of relationships that have been damaged, but we could put more emphasis on rebuilding America's foundation in health care, education, and manufacturing that have all been outsourced in the last decade.
First things first; let's get us a new president.
Update: Not to be outdone by Bush's dizzying intellect, Rumsfield now says that although the situation in Iraq is likely to get worse in coming weeks, not to worry, after elections we can probably start bringing troops home.
Dispite what Kerry has said about starting the removal of troops in one year and completing the pull-out within four, I agree with Damian that this is an unrealistic goal for the following reasons. The violence that continues to ravage the nation appears to be the result of suicide bombings and shellings; the former primarily by Iraqi Sunnis and the latter by a combination of Islamic fundamentalist groups. While there is widespread support for the occupation's goal of democracy amongst the Shiites and especially the Kurds, there are 5 million Sunnis living in Iraq that seem to be the main force undermining security and reconstruction efforts. The sheer size of the resistance, both in numbers and in geography, just overwhelms the US' capacity to maintain any semblance of peace.
While both presidential candidates scoff at any notion of letting some international group determine the US' ability to defend itself, we should be moving in a direction of greater cooperation with other nations rather than the isolationalist tendencies of the past few years. With recent bombings in Egypt, Pakistan, and India (not to mention the daily occurances in Iraq, Israel and Palestian areas) I feel that foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than force is what is needed in the next several years. The Islamic groups that take credit for these bombings do have specific complaints about the West, but the West's image can be bolstered if the United Nations is the group that takes the lead.
What we lack in Iraq is international legitimacy - the world now knows the U.S. was wrong to invade in March '03. If we concede power to the UN, bolster its funding, gather funding also from other nations, we would not only begin the healing of relationships that have been damaged, but we could put more emphasis on rebuilding America's foundation in health care, education, and manufacturing that have all been outsourced in the last decade.
First things first; let's get us a new president.
Update: Not to be outdone by Bush's dizzying intellect, Rumsfield now says that although the situation in Iraq is likely to get worse in coming weeks, not to worry, after elections we can probably start bringing troops home.
