A report has been posted on Philly.com by a man named Stu Bykofsky. His main point--that the U.S. is bitterly divided by political nuances and sideshows--is a good one, but his article, for several obvious reasons, is mildly objectionable. The first problem is found in the title of the article: To save America, we need another 9/11. He purports that to reunify our country, we need to be attacked on our own soil. Apparently Stu feels that unification is salvation. To save America we must be unified... we can't bicker about petty details in the political process, I guess. From what I gather, he would rather 3,000 of our fellow citizens, who are civilians working hard to support their families, become victims of barbaric murderers than have to hear political debate.
The second problem is a logical fallacy most high school sophomores learn to avoid in their writing: omitting obvious facts that might weaken one's point. The strongest argument addresses the opposition's points and refutes them. Mr. Bykofsky does not do this, and as a result, puts forth a C- op-ed. The most prominent example of this is when Mr. Bykofsky alludes to British forces finally being pulled from England, after (he italicizes) 40 years. This is not the American way, according to Mr. Bykofsky. Americans, he claims, want to be in and out of war. This may be true, but in and out isn't the American way... the American way is winning.
There are very well documented events prior to the U.S. entering WWII that occurred because Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered them. The U.S. was in WWII for several years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR send merchant ships and passenger ships to "disrupt" German submarine activity on many occasions. He struck preemptively (and covertly) in an attempt to 1) strengthen our ideological allies, and 2) provoke Germany to attack. His theory was clear--the American people wanted to restore the isolationist mentality that existed prior to World War I. Poll after poll showed the Americans largely viewed the conflicts in Europe and Asia as their problems. Having not fully brought the nation out of the Great Depression, FDR hoped that a German attack would strengthen and unify the nation behind the war--then, in turn, industry would pick up, the economy would turn around, and the Depression would be over... at long last. All in all, the U.S. military waged military assaults on enemy interests for over 6 years.
Other battles ensued that took time and lives. We still have military personnel stationed in Korea and Germany to this day. We have had men in both places, providing a secure presence for nearly 60 years. Whether or not we still need to be there is an issue to debate. But one thing is certain, we are there now because remaining in the field was crucial to the sustained success of the military endeavors we had undertaken.
There are several differences between the preemptive actions of FDR and the "take the fight to the enemy" policy of President Bush. One of them is motive. FDR knew that Nazi dominion over Europe was not sane. He also knew that eventually, Hitler's expansion and greed would spill over across the Atlantic. The third thing he knew was that he could solve the United States' domestic problems by solving the world's international problems. George Bush, on the other hand, pledged to the American people and to all "freedom loving people" throughout the world that he would hunt Islamic terrorists down wherever they might be. This pledge was a direct result of the culmination of decade's worth of attacks and bombings by terrorists topped off by the events of September 11.
I ought to mention that I understand the can of worms one might open when discussing Iraq and President Bush's motives, but it is important to clarify some theories are more sound than others. It is pretty certain that President Bush didn't just go for oil. If this were the case, we would only be paying $1.57 per gallon of regular unleaded. Also, the "Bush lied, people died" crowd do not have enough brain power to realize that Bush only said what Bill Clinton had been saying throughout his administration. It was the same line on Saddam Hussein that Al Gore used in writings and interviews discussing the Iraq issue. Members of Congress from both parties publicized intelligence reports they had read reviewing the weapons Iraq had already used and the weapons they were developing.
Without going any further into the presidential psychology of why presidents go to war and without even touching on the casualty count from this war compared to all past wars, I would sum up my assessment of Stu Bykofsky's article by pointing out his beginning and his ending. Again the title of his article was: To save America, we need another 9/11 and the last thought of his article is as follows:
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack. The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail. The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever. The first 9/11 proved that.
In addition to being disgusted by his nonchalant attitude toward an attack on America, and even more by his list of possible targets, he negates the whole point of his article; the title and the last two sentences of the article are complete opposites. (Unless that was the point--showing that, at this point, our nation's future is not worth worrying about.) If America is to be saved, that is final. A temporary rescue or a passing bipartisan resolution is not being saved. Bykofsky's proposition is that America can only be saved by another attack to remind us to be unified. Then within one sentence he points out that the saving unification of America will not last. We will get right back to where we are now. All Bykofsky's proposal gets accomplished is the death of thousands of American civilians.
To me, the whole article is absurd. The omissions, the exaggerations, the morbid suggestions that Wrigley Field (among other places) should be attacked, and some of the absolutist language (mainly from the "Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong" thought) all came together to cloud up any articulate point the author might have wanted to get across. I'm sure I am guilty of this, as well. But you won't see any of my writing in the Philadelphia Daily News.
The real way to save America is to remind ourselves of our history, take a look at the big picture and find out what is really happening in this conflict. It would certainly help to have our media painting an accurate picture of what is going on. And it is crucial to realize what is at stake. Are we a nation of defeat? Or are we willing to put aside political correctness and partisanship to bring our boys home victoriously instead of prematurely? The big issue in this whole thing can be condensed into one word, character. Do we, as Americans, have any or have we lost our character? Are we grateful for our freedom and are we willing to defend it? Or are we worried that someone might be offended if we force them to stop killing innocent people? We are no longer children, we can no longer be naive. The world is a frightening place where bad people will not hesitate to crush the weakest thing they find.
It is my hope and prayer that we do not go the way of the Athenians, who so proudly opened the doors to their country to citizens of all lands to acquire educations, military training, cultural enlightenment--all to have those people they let in find their weaknesses and turn on them.
God Bless America! And God Bless our brave men and women who fight for the freedom of even those who ridicule them and cheer for their demise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment