Mission Creep ?

The picture above is a Department of Defense picture of one of the last U.S. military vehicles to leave Iraq in 2011. At the time, the American public was breathing a sigh of relief -- believing that we were finally through with at least one of the two unnecessary wars George Bush got us into. It took 8 years and accomplished nothing (except to destabilize that country and destroy much of its infrastructure), but at least our troops were coming home.

Unfortunately, the joy of finally extricating ourselves from the occupation of Iraq was a bit premature. Recently the violence in that country has increased substantially -- as the rebel group ISIS is now trying to overthrow the Iranian-supported government of President Maliki. And as crazy as it sounds, the neocon elements in this country are now wanting us to re-engage in Iraq -- putting ourselves in the middle of their religious civil war.

Most Americans don't want our military to again become involved in Iraq, but that hasn't seemed to affect the politicians of either political party. While the Democrats don't want to jump back in with both feet again (like many of the GOP neocons want), most of our politicians seem to agree that we must do something to help the Maliki government (in spite of the fact that their closest friend is Iran).

President Obama originally said we would not be sending soldiers back to Iraq, but might use drones and war planes to do strategic bombing. Even that seemed silly to me, since neither side is really a friend to the United States. However, it only took a few days for President Obama to change his mind, and agree to send 300 special forces troops into Iraq as "advisors".

Now we learn that an additional 200 soldiers will be sent to Iraq -- to protect our embassy and the Baghdad airport. And they will be using Apache helicopters and drones (both offensive weapons). Frankly, this is starting to look like "mission creep" to me -- just like in Vietnam, where we started with a few advisors and eventually wound up with hundreds of thousands of troops in that country. How long is it going to take before it is announced that a few hundred more soldiers are needed in Iraq, and then a few thousand more to accomplish whatever mission we have there?

We need to put a halt to this right now. We shouldn't have a single soldier in Iraq, since we have no mission in that country that makes any sense. We are the cause of Iraq's current problems (with our ridiculous invasion and occupation), but no matter how many troops we send to that country (or how much bombing we do there) we are not going to solve Iraq's problems. They must do that for themselves. Involving ourselves back in Iraq may make some politicians happy (thinking they are doing something), but it is a bad mistake -- and it will do nothing but create more enemies for this country.

We need to disengage again -- and bring all of our troops back home.

What We Should Have Learned From The Bush War In Iraq

(The image above is by Chris Helgren of Reuters, and was found at the Business Insider.)

In May of 2003, only a couple of months after invading Iraq, President Bush declared "mission accomplished". We now know that was nothing more than a sick joke. The war continued for many more years -- killing 4,488 American troops and injuring another 32,223. It also caused the deaths of more than a half-million Iraqis, and turned more than two million others into displaced refugees. And what did it accomplish?

We now know it accomplished nothing except to re-ignite sectarian religious divisions in the area -- divisions that have now erupted into a renewal of the fighting. While American ground troops are no longer in Iraq (and hopefully won't be sent back), this renewed fighting has President Obama considering re-entering the ongoing conflict through the use of air power. I sincerely hope he doesn't do that, because neither the ISIS rebels nor the Maliki government (which is becoming an Iranian puppet) are going to be friends of the United States. We caused the current mess, but there is no longer any rational place for us in the conflict.

Over at Daily Kos, Jon Perr has written an interesting post. He calls it "10 Lessons From Bush's Fiasco In Iraq". I list his 10 lessons below, and if you want to read his more in-depth analysis of each point you should go to the Daily Kos website. They are pretty self-explanatory though.

1. Don't Fight Wars on the Cheap
2. Don't Uncork Bottled Up Sectarian Divisions
3. Al Qaeda Thought It Was Better to Fight Us There
4. Sectarian U.S. Allies Can't Be Bought, Only Rented
5. Don't Hitch the U.S. Wagon to the Wrong Strongman
6. The Enemy of Our Enemy is Not Our Friend
7. U.S. Forces Should Never Be Deployed Permanently in a Civil War Zone
8. Regime Change is a Recipe for Disaster
9. Democracy Promotion Can't Come from the Barrel of Gun
10. Preventive War is an Idea Whose Time Has Never Come

I am not very optimistic about whether anything was learned from that invasion and occupation, so I call it what we SHOULD have learned from Iraq. And frankly, we should have learned some of these things from Vietnam many years earlier.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders don't want to learn anything (especially the neocons). That's because, regardless of the cost in lives, war is very profitable for corporate interests. And the neocons will always love war as long as there is profit in it.

Where Are The Real Conservatives ?

I really have to wonder what has happened to the Republican Party. There was a time even recently, when they had beliefs and a philosophy that, although I disagreed with it, could be defended. They had leaders with political ideas -- leaders that loved and revered the Constitution, like Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater (pictured), William Buckley and others. These men would argue political ideas and political realities, but they did not indulge in the politics of hate, and they actually wanted a better America for all its citizens.

Those former Republican leaders were true conservatives. They would never have stood for many things the modern party has engaged in. Here are some of the differences between the "true conservatives" and today's new or neo-conservatives:

1. Real conservatives honored the constitution and considered it the supreme law of the land, while neocons would like to replace it with their religious beliefs.

2. Real conservatives believed American soldiers should participate in foreign wars only as a last resort to defend America, while neocons believe that American ideas can be forced on other nations through military power.

3. Real conservatives would never have countenanced the spying on American citizens without a search warrant, and revered the rule of law and the concept of habeas corpus, while neocons are willing to spy without warrants, deny habeas corpus and ignore the rule of law.

4. Real conservatives believed in an adequate government with limited powers, while neocons believe in a small government with unlimited power.

5. Real conservatives believed in fair and open markets where everyone had a chance to better themselves, while neocons willingly tilt the playing field to benefit their corporate masters (while talking about, but not helping small business).

6. Real conservatives knew how to compromise for the good of the country and its citizens, while neocons consider compromise to be defeat -- it's their way or no way.

I think if some of the real conservatives of the past were to come back and look at today's Republican Party, they would be horrified. Conservative author, thinker and ex-congressman Mickey Edwards agrees. He says:

"The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

And, watching, I suspect Ronald Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak."

Although I didn't agree with them (and still don't), I miss the real conservatives of the past.

Where Are The Real Conservatives ?

I read an interesting post yesterday over at Texas Liberal. He made the assertion that Barry Goldwater was the impetus for the re-emergence of conservatism, and was responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in with Bush and Cheney.

I love Texas Liberal as a blog, read it regularly and consider it's author to be a friend. However, I have to disagree with him on this subject. While Goldwater was the impetus for the re-emergence of conservatism, he is not responsible for the modern bastardization of conservatism. I give Ronald Reagan credit for that.

During the Reagan era, the conservative movement was co-opted by two groups whose views have little to do with traditional conservatism -- the neocons and the theocons. They took over the Republican party and have virtually shoved out the real conservatives.

Real conservatives, including Goldwater, believe in the Constitution, but the neocons do not. To them the Constitution is just a tool to be used when convenient and discarded when it would prohibit what they want to do.

Real conservatives believe in a small federal government, but the neocons (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, DeLay, etc.) don't mind a large federal government at all. In fact, I think they prefer it so they can use it to press their agenda upon the world. Neocons believe they can impose their beliefs on others by military means (so they can enrich themselves and their corporate buddies). Real conservatives believe our military should only be used in self-defense.

Neocons believe it is acceptable to spy on Americans and trash their civil rights to achieve their goals. Real conservatives believe the federal government should respect the rights of ordinary citizens and stay out of their lives.

The theocons (Bush, Brownback, Robertson, Falwell, etc.) are just as bad. They are also willing to use the Constitution as a tool to help accomplish their goals, but in the final analysis they really want to replace it with the Bible. They want to replace our democracy with a theocracy.

Real conservatives oppose the mixing of church and state, because they know that religious tyranny is just as wrong as any other form of tyranny. They would never approve of an Office of Faith-based Initiatives (really just an office of religion) being established within the executive branch.

Real conservatives support civil rights for all citizens. Goldwater spoke against the denial of rights to homosexuals. He believed government should stay out of our bedrooms and our private lives. Theocons are perfectly willing to deny civil rights to anyone they disapprove of.

Barry Goldwater is not responsible for the mess we're in. He was a real conservative and an honest man who revered the Constitution. I disagreed with him on many points, but I respected him. Bush and other neocons and theocons are neither honest nor worthy of respect.

I am left with only one question. Where are the real conservatives?