This past week, the US House of Representatives voted 246-182 to pass a non-binding resolution which states Congress’ opposition to President Bush’s proposed deployment of 21,500 more troops in Iraq. The resolution is short and to the point: “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” The Senate failed to pass the same resolution in their chamber as the result of a Republican filibuster.
While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.
The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.
Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.
While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
US Needs to be Tougher on Hugo Chavez
When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he asserted that the dire circumstances that Germany had fallen in to were problems enough for him to assume dictatorial powers. He promised to fix these problems, while at the same time allying himself with other foreign despots and rattling his saber. Everyone knows what happened after this. Unfortunately what some people do not realize is that the US very well might have a miniature if not equally scary tyrant saber rattling very close to our own border. Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has embarked on a thoroughly anti-American and anti-capitalist crusade since his rise to power in 1999. His hateful rhetoric and radical policies have given rise to a very real problem for America and one that must be dealt with before it gets out of hand.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
On January 31, the Venezuelan National Assembly gave Hugo Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18 months. Put simply, the Venezuelan National Assembly essentially gave up the few democratic powers they had maintained up to this point and has made Chavez dictator of their country. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a problem if we were talking about Fiji or some other small and discreet country, but Venezuela is a completely different situation. Although we normally associate oil with the Middle East, Venezuela is possibly sitting on the single largest oil reserve in the world by many estimates. Likewise, the US receives about 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, making it one of our largest oil trading partners.
The idea of having such a large oil producer so close to our borders should excite the US because of the possibility of cheaper oil, but President Hugo Chavez has embarked on a mission of using Venezuela’s oil as a weapon. He has begun the process of nationalizing Venezuela’s oil industry, even at the expense of foreign oil companies, and has promised to take his product to a non-American market. He has also made a request of OPEC to cut back oil supplies so the price of oil in America would increase even beyond its current astronomical rate.
But while Chavez attempts to increase prices in America, he is also playing games with America’s poor. Chavez has begun to offer discounted and even free heating oil for the winter to poor Americans who can not afford it otherwise. While this may seem like a benevolent action on his part, we must keep in mind that as he provides oil for the poor, and subsequently makes himself look like a hero, he is also purposely holding back oil in order to increase the price. Essentially, Chavez is creating a problem, and then giving the appearance of fixing it and in doing so undermining America on its own soil. If he were truly concerned about America’s poor, he would increase production of oil, thusly decreasing its price, and therefore allowing for more poor Americans to afford it.
Chavez’s actions do not stop with his oil shenanigans however. Besides cozying up with Fidel Castro and other socialist dictators in Latin and South America, he has also started a warm relationship with an avid Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. These two dictators, who are as radical as they are anti-American, have begun to challenge the US at every step, and even actively undermine it, as is Iran’s case in Iraq.
The Bush administration backed an unsuccessful coupe in 2002 against Chavez, but more must be done. Anti-American dictators with significant economic might, regional influence and powerful anti-American allies must not be allowed to go un-fettered. The US must rally the few Latin and South American countries who oppose Chavez’s burgeoning influence in their region to assert their own influence and stand up to Chavez. Likewise, as Chavez courts America’s poor, it should not be beyond the US to court Venezuela’s poor, who make up Chavez’s political base. By offering food, farming technology and other goods that could better the lives of Venezuela’s poor, America could very well better its own image and defeat the myth that has been created amongst these poor that Chavez is their way out of poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)