Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Myth of the Bush Administration Being Strong on Homeland Security

By       Message jerryL     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

As the political campaign ramps up, the McCain cohort is trying to shape the debate of American politics around the single issue of Homeland Security.

However, there is no objective reason to believe that the current administration's policies are the way to go.

There are two conflict hypothesis based on which the current two-front war is being conducted:

1. Fighting the enemy overseas to prevent regrouping

2. Democratizing the Middle East to generate good will towards the America People and isolate her enemies

Unfortunately for us, both hypotheses have proven to be false. The American People have been patient and have given the proponents of this foreign policy the benefit of the doubt. Up to 2004, it was possible for the administration to make the case of being "almost there.” Nowadays, but for the results of the "surge" there is no much the administration can show for our efforts. However, despite the ebbs and flows of the conflict, the trend is against the American efforts. Let's see why.
Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has not weaken the terrorist network and it may have strengthen it
The terrorist's attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 are proof that fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan did not weaken them in any way. Unfortunately, that traditional war strategy will not help when fighting against small groups of people willing to die in battle. If we were fighting a regular army, by now they would be disbanded, without access to supplies and demoralized. In the case of small terrorist cells, that is not the case.

The best argument it could be make is that "at least is not making things worst". That argument, I am afraid can't me made either because our activity in Iraq and Afghanistan provided fuel to the arguments of the extremists.
The democratization of Iraq was a failure, and the democratization of Afghanistan is a myth
Not much to say on the first point. There are many historical reasons for our failure in Iraq, which I will not cover here, but if you look at the history of Iraq since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, you will see that the only sustainable governments were brutal dictatorships. Unfortunately the only way to establish a stable government in Iraq will be imposing a brutal dictator sympathetic to American interests, or to force the Iraqi people to accept the control of the United Nations in order to keep the internal peace. There is a third alternative, which is withdrawing all the American troops and leaving a small number of strategic bases protecting the oil fields and the Basra port.

In any way, the hypothesis of democratization of Iraq has proven false and should not be pushed any further.

Afghanistan's democracy is nothing but a myth. Anyone who has followed or has studied the Soviet invasion will recognize that despite the ebbs and flows of the conflict we are not in a better position the Soviets were circa 1986. There is democracy in the capital city, and there is democracy in the provincial capitals today, much as there was a socialist government then. The parallels are staggering and scary. So far, there is no evidence of another big power providing weapons to our enemies and that may never happen, but that is where the differences stop.
The two-front war is draining America's economy much in the same way the Afghan invasion drained the Soviet economy

Were we to follow this path under the illusion that the strategy of democratizing Afghanistan is effective; we would see high inflation in America's economy within two years, and further destruction of our production capacity. It may take us a little longer than the ten years it took the Soviets to drain their last resource and fall, but we will get there.

As our deficit increases, so will the prices of imports and commodities, spilling over the rest of the economy causing deeper discontent among the American people. Were the current economic policies and current deficits continue, we would be seeing riots in the streets due to the increase in food prices. Soon, and I mean within a year (many municipalities are doing it right now) we will see reductions on the police budgets and an increase in crime and violence. As the dollar loses further value, the prices of imported goods will rise beyond the means of the working and lower middle classes and our high standard of living illusion will crumble under the weight of our out of hand deficit.

So, this is the result of staying our course:

· Hunger for the poor and privations for the middle class

· More crime

· Double digits unemployment rates

· More internal discontent and violence

· Destruction of cities due to failing infrastructure

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

http://services.thebankruptcynews.com/blog/
Former journalist

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Myth of Republican Fiscal Conservatism

Mystery of Atlantis Solved

A primer for living in a totalitarian state

Most Americans Don't Like the Republican Party

The Myth of the Bush Administration Being Strong on Homeland Security