I read today that Cindy Sheehan, the woman who recently said she was giving up anti-war activism, has vowed to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if the Speaker does not introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush. You'll recall that Ms. Sheehan's son was killed in the Iraq war and she has since turned her grief and anger into a campaign against the war and the current Administration. Her crusade has cost her a marriage and gained her a certain level of celebrity and, unfortunately, influence.
Now, I'm no Bush apologist. Anyone who knows me knows that I think this President is at best irresponsible and at worst a buffoon. I was as upset as any American after the terrorist attacks on New York City. I supported the attack on Afghanistan because there was convincing evidence that Al Quaida and Bin Laden were using that country as their base of operations. I was never in favor of invading Iraq because I just couldn't see the direct threat to us or the connection to 9/11. More than 3,000 families have now lost loved ones. Thousands more have been maimed and psychologically scarred.
No one is happy about the casualty statistics and I feel awful that Ms. Sheehan lost a son when she shouldn't have for a cause few of us understand. Unfortunately, we did invade Iraq. The invasion went pretty well but what has followed has been a mess. The enemy has been more stubborn and clever that we gave them credit for. The general population has been less willing to fight for their freedom than we expected. We've spent billions of dollars and while there have been some gains over there, the country remains embroiled in what appears to be an intractible civil war.
Most of America is tired of this conflict and wants us out. The problem is that we can't do this according to Ms. Sheehan's schedule. She's calling for Bush's impeachment. That's not going to happen and it's naive to think it will. It also won't change anything and would just involve spending more time and money on impeachment proceedings at a time when we need to focus on a reasonable strategy to get resolve the Iraq mess. I also think it's ridiculous for Ms. Sheehan to label Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats as failures already. We simply cannot just issue an order to bring all the troops home tomorrow. Much as we would all like that, it would be a disaster.
We may not like to admit this in America but we caused the mess in Iraq. We invaded the country when there was scant evidence that they were a threat to us. We took down a regime that, while brutal, provided the structure that the citizens were used to. People were brutalized and oppressed in Iraq but the country functioned. I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but if we agree that his demise is ultimately good for the world, we have to be willing to deal with the aftermath of removing him. The Iraqis could help more than they are but we have to give them a little compassion. We've have over 200 years of practice with our democracy and we're far from perfect. You can't just give people the right to vote and expect them to become America.
Cindy Sheehan irritates me because I don't think she has a clue about what she's talking about. She wants us to get out of Iraq immediately because this is how she's dealing with the pain of losing her son. It doesn't matter that pulling out tomorrow would destabilize the country and possibly the region. It doesn't matter than doing so would lead to thousands more deaths. It apparently doesn't matter to her that leaving Iraq without a proper plan would undermine everything her son fought and died for.
Unless Ms. Sheehan's son joined the military only for the free clothes and some college tuition, he probably believed in serving his country. She obviously knows her son's thoughts better than I do but I think most of our soldiers, even though they might disagree with this particular war, signed up to serve the country and believe in what they are doing. To flee the situation now with no viable plan to help the country will make all those lost lives seem like a waste. I think that Ms. Sheehan's personal crusade has blinded her to the reality of the situation. She's also started to believe that because she's had 15 minutes of fame and can really a few thousand people with no jobs to follow her around on protests that she has some kind of real influence or political acumen. In the end, she's been a devisive force at a time when Americans keep crying out for unity.
I was grateful when Cindy Sheehan said she was leaving the protest forefront. Now after only a couple of months she is inserting herself back into the public realm. Big surprise. Frankly, given Ms. Sheehan's ignorant rantings, I'd rather hear more about Paris Hilton. Her public persona is also that of a self-obsessed idiot but at least she's not trying to weaken an entire region of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You are very good at gracefully taking what otherwise might be considered an unpopular stand.
As badly as I want to be out of this war myself, there is no question that a massive and sudden pullout of US troops, as fragile and unsupported as they are, would be a calamity.
Cindy Sheehan is devastated. Any of us might be if we lost a child to war or for any other reason. She needs to examine her intention.
The other night as my colleague and I were driving back from a business trip, we heard snippets of a debate on CNN, or so I think it was, between a couple of senators. It was maddening. The Democrat was urging a troop reduction. The conservative just kept coming back at him with some unfounded mantra about not supporting the troops, taking away their supplies. This of course was a huge joke: even the host said, 'What supplies? You haven't given them any. And they won't need them if they're here, will they?' But the guy persisted, having been given his 3 minutes at the mic.
When the debate is controlled by crackers like The Honorable But Relentless and Evidently Deaf Senator Chevron or whoever the hell he was, there's nothing Cindy nor anyone else can do.
Mando - Thanks for the comment. I agree that Cindy Sheehan is devastated but as I get older, I determined that dogma, in all its forms is not helpful. I agree more with Cindy Sheehan than I do with President Bush but that doesn't make her position correct. Like I said, I think she could do a lot more good if she tried to adopt a reasonble position but I think that she has staked out a position and the opposition from both sides has only steeled her resolve. Sometimes that can be a good thing but in her case, I think the solution she proposes would be harmful to a lot of people in the world and that is not justified just because she lost a son.
Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
Post a Comment