Blogging from the road, from a big truck — relax, I’m parked, not driving — is a new experience and a work in progress for me. I’m having to get used to a new computer and have just had to figure out a way to get comfortable doing this. I already found out that the way my truck is set up doing it from the driver’s seat does not work so well. I’m propped up with a pillow in my sleeper, and this seems to work.
Just took a scan of the news and I see pretend Democrat, Independent or wannabe Republican Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (and to think he ran for vp awhile back — all I recall is him doing some type of comedy monologue in a t-shirt) apparently wants us to go to war in Yemen because that guy who apparently tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit the other day has some connection with terrorist groups there.
As I wrote in a previos blog post I’ve been almost, not totally, out of touch with much of the news for the past several months, and now I realize from reading a newspaper (yeah a newspaper, real paper, that we’re already waging military strikes, supposedly secret, in Yemen. And while I would not care to see the U.S. start up new wars or military campaigns anywhere and everywhere there might be folks plotting against us or thinking bad things about us, I do have to say that once we are committed to a war it seems only logical that we go after the enemy (which should be clearly defined) where the enemy is. For example, if we are to continue our fight against the 9/11-related forces in Afghanistan and they have moved to the hills of Pakistan, then it seems logical that there we must go. Pakistan can hardly call itself our ally if it harbors our enemies. So it can either help us or get out of our way. I’d have to go back and read my history (even though I was around at the time), but I never could understand why Nixon was condemned for going after the Viet Cong and/or NVA forces in Cambodia. If the object is not to go after and defeat the enemy, then what is the point of a war? As I recall he did it on the sneak as I guess Obama is doing in Yemen now. I never was a fan of Nixon’s politics, his domestic politics and dirty tricks in particular.
And yes I know we are already taking on the enemy in Pakistan with drones although we don’t officially comment on that or that is the government does not. I see that there has just been another strike reported. While I think there is room for debate as to whether we should continue to fight a war with seemingly no end, if we are to fight it at all, the Pakistan attacks must continue as long as the enemy stages its forces there.
Meanwhile, columnist Charles Krauthammer is writing that Israel may have to attack Iran to detroy their budding nuclear capability if we don’t. He’s tired of Obama’s nice nice talk and what he said was Obama’s reference to the “Islamic Republic of Iran”, thus legitimizing the violent and dictatorial regime there.
And to stray for a second, I note the reports of more bold protests from the opposition in Iran, even in the face of police who are firing live bullets at them and the report that a nephew of the main opposition leader was killed in the demonstrations.
Krauthammer says that Obama’s nice nice talk and recognition of the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, especially his use of its full name, is wrong, that the opposition needs his support.
In some respects I see Krauthammer’s point. And while I like the diplomatic tone Obama uses when addressing the Islamic world, I agree that he could be careful to not give too much support to the current Iranian regime, other than to recognize the obvious, that they currently hold the power there. I’m also not fond of apologies to the world for things I did not do, for things even Obama did not do. And while I detest the ways of the former president Bush, I don’t think it does much good to dwell on what he did or did not do.
And wouldn’t it be ironic if the Islamic revolution in Iran was brought down by a new Islamic revolution. I note the news reports said the protestors were using support from Islamic religious beliefs as they interpret them. And isn’t that what organized religion is all about — someone’s interpretation?