August 29, 2006
Answering Rumsfeld’s “Questions of Our Time”
Our Fine Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a bombastic address to the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention today. He praised the organization and made a stand for his own historic legacy declaring the importance of the times we’re living and comparing the choices we face now to those faced by Europe in the years leading to World War II.
“I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.
Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.
We need to face the following questions:
* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?
These are central questions of our time. And we must face them,” Rumsfeld explained.
I’ll help him out with some answers shortly, but first a few more interesting bits from his speech.
“But this is still — in 2006 — not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats,” he went on repeating the now tired if you do not blindly support my decisions you are hurting the country. Actually, people who disagree with the man are often trying to hurt his largely unsuccessful efforts in an attempt to help the country find a new and more prosperous direction.
He cried out against the injustice of the media stating, “the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq.” Of course he failed to mention his own dealings, buddying up with, arming and advising a younger and more power hungry Hussein during the 1980s.
He went on to explain the importance of the Legion as a watchdog for his version of reality. “This watchdog role is even more important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage — to not allow the lies and the myths be repeated without question or challenge — so that at least the second and third draft of history will be more accurate than the quick first allegations.”
Quick first allegations like the notion of weapons of mass destruction in Hussein’s hands and the direct link between Iraq and al Qaida? Or maybe he’s talking about the way we can march right in and drop a democracy down on some peoples with a small force and little trouble?
All that seemed to pan out real well, just like the rest of his plans. He called Iraq the “long war” and said, “the extremists themselves have called Iraq the ‘epicenter’ in the War on Terror. They mean it.” Sure Iraq is great for people who dislike America, they can get easy access to Americans to attack and distract us from their allies who are really building weapons of mass destruction on a nuclear scale. He concluded with “I believe the question is not whether we can win? It is whether we have the will to persevere?”
I’ll answer that one first. Don, you have the wrong question. Neither of those is really appropriate for the times we face. The question we should be asking is how can we win, because what you’ve been trying clearly isn’t working.
Now back to your “Questions of Our Time.”
“With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?”
Quite simply, no. We can not, and that’s why we should be doing more to stop Iran and North Korea from obtaining these weapons and put some effort into hunting down al Qaida’s leaders since they’re the people who’ve been attacking and threatening us.
“Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?”
Again, a simple no, Don, but I’m really not sure who’s been out there proposing that we hold a peace summit with the terrorists right now. If you know of someone who is proposing that as a solution to the global problem of terrorist violence, let me know.
“Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply ‘law enforcement’ problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?”
I’m not sure how invading a country on false pretense is a sensible approach, but I’ve got to give it to you there Don, it is fundamentally different. Of course maybe the targeted military actions we took in Afghanistan and a military approach toward al Qaida could appease your need to do more than enforce the laws and mine to stop the terrorists who don’t like us.
“And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?”
Well, again, no we can not have that view, but we should acknowledge that we have caused some problems in the world and our opulence and arrogance on the world stage inspire envy and spite, even if we don’t intend to be jerks. The enemy as you like to put it has plenty of irrational reasons for attacking us, but that does not give us license to ignore all gripes about our nation. We should address our critics and their criticism at face value. Sometimes they might have a point and maybe we should listen a bit, I’m sure there will still be plenty of times when they have no point and you can tell them to go fuck themselves as your pal Dick Cheney likes to say.
Well Donald, I hope I’ve been able to answer these big questions of our time for you. I guess in the end though, we’ll just have to disagree about what needs to be asked.