[Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

[pdgrand at nospam.wmis.net]

Roger,

You mention, "The presence of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq 
will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation in the Middle East."  
I once read somewhere that the basic foundation of a working democracy is 
the willingness of the defeated party to accept the leadership of the 
winning party.  Theoretically, I love the sound of democracies in the 
middle east.  Realistically, I don't see any hope of the defeated accepting 
the leadership of the elected winners.  If that happens, you'll never have 
a stable democracy.  Besides, a democracy has been in place in Turkey for 
some time and hasn't done much to stabilize the middle east.

I hope you have a good answer on this because I really hope I'm wrong.

Paul 

> Well, after watching the presidential & vice presidential debates, I wish 
to pull a flip flop & change my vote to Bush/Cheney.  Let me explain my 
thinking.
> 
> As a draftable male college student in the early 1970's, I watched 
developments in the Vietnam war & the protest movement here at home with 
great interest.  John Kerry's presidential candidacy has made me reexamine 
my own attitudes towards Vietnam.  There were a lot of mistakes made in the 
way the United States conducted the Vietnam war - presidential 
micromanagement of war strategy at the tactical level, overly restrictive 
rules of engagement, "pin-prick" strikes vs. the use of overwhelming force, 
allowing the enemy to reoccupy captured territory thus causing multiple 
battles over the same sites, over reliance on airpower in a jungle gorilla 
war, forced adoption of weapons like the M-16 assault rifle that were not 
yet ready for prime time, etc.  The US military shot its credibility in the 
foot by publishing inflated enemy "body counts" that had no basis in 
reality.  This was also the 1st war that played out on American television 
screens on the news every evening.  The Tet offensive was really the 
turning point.  You really have to give the VC a lot credit for the way 
they pulled off Tet.  Seemingly under our very noses, the VC had 
constructed extensive underground tunnel complexes within striking distance 
of strategic targets all over South Vietnam.  They had spent years building 
these tunnel complexes & stocking them with weapons and ammunition.  We 
were completely surprised when the VC seemingly came out of nowhere in a 
massive coordinated assault on something like 23 targets all over South 
Vietnam.  Yet, within a month, we had recaptured all these targets.  We 
took something like 4000 casualties, the largest US body count of any 
battle in the Vietnam war.  But, reliable North Vietnamese casualty data 
indicates we slaughtered them something like 4:1.  Some VC units were 
completely wiped out & were never again an effective fighting force.  The 
Tet offensive was pretty much an all out, one time attempt for North 
Vietnam.  Tactically, the VC got decisively defeated & it set their ability 
to wage war back by years.  But, by then, the US military had lost nearly 
all of its credibility.  No one believed the US military published body 
counts, or accounts of recaptured cities, and the US casualties were all 
over the nightly news.  The American public was horrified at the carnage on 
display on their televisions & it changed everything.  Before Tet, most of 
the American public believed the Vietnam war was winnable.  After Tet, the 
antiwar movement grew exponentially, the talk changed to "peace with honor" 
& getting the troops home.  So, even though the Tet offensive was a 
decisive tactical defeat for North Vietnam, their all or nothing gamble 
paid off and eventually resulted in total victory.
> 
> The lesson the world took away from Vietnam was the United States is a 
military superpower with no staying power.  We'll spend a fortune on weapon 
systems and training to enable our military to efficiently kill from a 
distance.  Our military has learned from the mistakes made in Vietnam & has 
fixed most of them.  We go into a conflict with overwhelming force and just 
simply roll over our enemy.  But, anyone that can reduce a conflict to a 
bloody, protracted battle of attrition, especially when it is played out on 
the nightly news, will eventually win over American public opinion & defeat 
us.
> 
> So, what kind of a president will John Kerry make?  With Bush, we have 4 
years of actual presidential record to examine.  With Kerry, we must look 
at his life experiences that have prepared him to be president.  As I 
examine John Kerry's resume, I see a rich, privileged kid that went off to 
war in Vietnam in what might be called "patriotic fervor".  In Vietnam, he 
looked the horrible face of war square in the eyes & it scared & sickened 
him.  Kerry's record since Vietnam indicates he has turned into an 
appeaser.  His voting record in the US Senate is especially revealing in 
this regard.  Just like the United State's reputation in the world, Kerry 
makes a lot of blustering tough statements about fighting terrorism & 
finishing what we started in Iraq during the campaign.  But, when the 
rubber hits the road & the body count starts climbing, Kerry wants to 
fold.  After listening to the debates and considering Kerry's record, there 
is no doubt in my mind; that, if Kerry is elected, the US will make a 
speedy withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the side effects.
> 
> Some of you may be saying, "So what, we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq 
in the 1st place!"  Well, that depends upon what you believe the war on 
terrorism is.  Is it merely a "law enforcement" issue against groups of 
isolated radical Muslims?  Or, has it become a life & death struggle 
between ideologies?  I would argue it has become the later.  The presence 
of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq will go a long way towards 
stabilizing the situation in the Middle East.  Yes, the war is not going 
well at the moment; but, to quit now will only confirm the world's view of 
us.  The damage to our credibility with our allies might be irrepairable.  
The terrorists realize how big a defeat it would be to have stable 
democracies in Afganistan and Iraq.  That's why they are fighting so hard.
> 
> Originally, I thought a Kerry election would permit other nations to join 
our coalition in Iraq without losing face.  Since the debate, both France & 
Germany have been asked that question & both said, "Huh, no way?"  No one 
will follow Kerry's leadership when his conviction regarding the mission in 
Iraq is so weak.
> 
> I do not expect the Republicans to lose control of congress in this 
election.  Therefore, Kerry's chances of passing his domestic agenda are 
slim to none.  So, as much as I dislike the Bush administration's domestic 
policies, it is a vain hope to think a Kerry administration would have any 
significant impact.  More likely, nothing would happen.
> 
> So what is it that I expect or want from a Federal government?  Well, I 
guess 1st & foremost I want the country to be as safe as possible from 
attack.  Terrorists exploding a nuclear weapon or biological weapon in the 
midst of a large city is a truly frightening proposition.  Bush is clearly 
a better choice on this issue.
> 
> The 2nd thing I want is a stable supply of critical resources.  Keep in 
mind the United States uses about 50 million barrels of crude oil per day & 
about 50% of that is imported.  This is a staggering amount of crude oil, a 
number so big it's hard to come to grips with.  Modern civilization has 
become so interconnected that interuption of this resource would be simply 
devastating.  Think about what happened in New York City in July, 2003 
during the power outage.  That was from just one day of power interruption 
to a major metropolitan area!  A few years ago, James Burke did a series of 
shows that aired on PBS and The Learning Channel.  I think the television 
series was called "Connections" and he also published a companion book with 
the same title.  In this series, Mr. Burke documents how interconnected & 
intrinsically fragile modern civilization has become.  Basically, our 
civilization has become so specialized and interconnected that we need to 
start thinking of critical resources like crude oil in the same category as 
air, water, & food.  Those of you that live in big cities, just remember 
your entire lifestyle is enabled by a nearly invisible technological life 
support system that is massively interconnected, intrinsically vulnerable, 
and totally dependant upon a stable global flow of goods and services.  You 
should be very nervous.  At the very least, stop saying things like, "No 
oil for blood!"  Get real people, in modern civilization, oil is blood!  
We're in a global competition for scarce resources.  If we lose this 
competition; then, our population is much too large to be supported without 
these resources & the consequences will be real bad.  I would argue this is 
a really good reason to go to war.
> 
> Although the outcome is by no means certain with Bush's vision for Iraq, 
at least there is a chance of a good outcome with this president.  I see 
little or no chance for a good outcome in Iraq with Kerry.  If we lose the 
country to a terrorist attack or can't get the resources to sustain our 
civilization, the domestic issues have to take a lessor priority.  Besides, 
I don't think Kerry would be able to get his domestic agenda passed anyway 
because of congress.
> 
> That's why I've changed my mind & I'm voting for Bush/Cheney.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium   
>   
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> 
> 
>