Bush seems to be beating Kerry over the head for his comment in an NYT article about how he views terrorism. Kerry I think rightfully says that "we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance". What is wrong with that statement? I think that is stating the truth. I don't think we can ever hope to root out the menace of terrorism, atleast in my lifetime. To believe that is to live in a fantasy world. Every time we take out one terrorist, there will always be twenty more ready to take his/her place. That is reality.
That NYT article is a great read. It very succintly puts into perspective the differences between the two candidates and their respective worldviews.
2 comments:
For a complete explanation of what is wrong with what Kerry said read MY blog.
I went and checked out Angela's blog. It is worthwhile to go read a completely different point of view.
Personally, I believe that 9/11 was a declaration of war against America. I fully supported the war in Afghanistan without reservations. I thought it was the right thing to do. Afghanistan was a country in shambles with no form of government and there was documentary evidence that it was a training ground for terrorists.
I have however, always been uneasy about the war in Iraq. Yes Saddam was a bad guy who had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and indulged in various shenanigans. When Colin Powell went to the UN and laid out the evidence against Saddam, I was persuaded to support the war. But I remember telling friends that I thought it would be a long hard war, the ramifications of which would take years to pan out. In hindsight, I think it was the wrong decision. The invasion has been undermined by faulty intelligence and more importantly the absence of WMD's that Saddam was supposed to have harbored. Critics cite inspector reports and point out that some small arsenal was found and therefore claim that WMD's were found. Who are we kidding? Even Tony Blair admits that WMD's of the sort that we anticipated have not been found and may not be found ever. In the aftermath of the war, I wanted the U.S to desperately find the WMD's so that we could silence the critics. Apparently the weapons inspection team was the most organized team in Iraq, but they have so far failed to find WMD's.
Trying to spread democracy in the Middle East by successfully implanting it in one country is a worthy dream, but according to me it is just that - a dream. Change has to come from within. Imposing it from outside seldom works. It is especially difficult in a culture that over many centuries of existence respects authority. We may still succeed, but it will take some 10-15 years to come to fruition. Are we prepared to devote the requisite resources and make the necessary sacrifices for that long a time? I don't believe people who say that we can get out of there in a year. If we do, I think chaos will reign supreme and in the end we will get blamed (fairly or unfairly) for their ills. Just think about the irony of Iraqis who we liberated (at the cost of immeasurably precious lives) shooting and killing our brave soldiers. What a way to say thank you? Yes, some of this has been instigated by foreign insurgents. But logically, can one argue that it is solely foreign insurgents who operate without the wilfull assistance of Iraqis? I think not.
I vehemently supported the war in Iraq among my friends, but even I realize the tenuousness of my arguments now. I try to frame it within the context of the larger war on terror, but am unable to justify that this was a necessary war and that in the end it will lead to less terror around the world.
This election poses a choice between Bush and Kerry whose only mantra seems to be that he is not Bush. That is no way to win an election. You have to be for something. What does "I will do exactly the same thing as Bush, but only better" mean? I am uncomfortable with the choices Bush has made, but on the other hand am uncomfortable trusting a candidate who has failed to put forth a vision of his own. It probably will boil down to a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Post a Comment