Obama in Berlin

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin, which drew a crowd of 200,000, will likely go down as one of the oddest moments in electoral history. A candidate for the President of the United States visited Europe and the Middle East, holding talks with top-leaders and delivering speeches like a foreign dignitary, topped off by a speech in Berlin, near the Branderburg Gate, discussion the destruction of walls. What’s more, 200,000 enthusiastic, American flag waving Germans showed up to listen to the speech in person, more than would ever appear (either in favor or against) for a speech by the current President Bush. Senator Obama is not campaigning for the President of the United States, it would seem, but to be the leader of the free world (or at least Europe).

A few observations are necessary. First, Obama is experiencing incredible European support—62% of German citizens, 64% French, and 60% of British voters would all vote for Barack Obama if given the opportunity. And while it is understandable that Senator Obama would seek popularity on the world stage (restoring America’s respect in the world has been a frequent topic of his campaign), his virtual super-star status in Europe makes his speech look like he is President already, making policy and traveling the world as an official ambassador of American good will and, of course, hope.

Second, his reference to “walls”:

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

Referring to cultural and social differences as “walls’ smacks of elitist multi-culturalism, and is a slap in the face to those who remember the real walls that snaked through Berlin less than 20 years ago. Soviet Communism presented a very real and dangerous threat—similar to the one currently being brought forth by Islamic terrorism. But to compare religious and cultural differences to the fundamental political differences of freedom that separated the Soviet Union from the rest of Western Europe is an unforgivable mis-proportioning of the past.

Third, his comments on terrorism are strikingly absent of any mention of Iraq.

“This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it [italics added]. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

The question remains then: how do we stand? Do we stand passively to the side as extreme terrorists reenter Iraq and create a Vietnam withdrawal-like nightmare? Or do we stand shoulder to shoulder with them again the tyranny of these networks? Do we have the responsibility to finish what we began, Senator Obama? Where do we draw the line?

And finally, why didn’t the Senator deliver his address in German? If he wants me to speak Spanish when I go to Mexico (or merely further South), I expect him to speak German when addressing thousands of adoring German citizens. Perhaps they didn’t understand what he said after all.

What a Novel Concept….

The United States Senate has come up with a novel idea for the Iraqi “issue”: federalism!

The Senate thinks that the local regions should have more authority over local affairs, as to help prevent ethnical and religious violence. These must be the only reasons to support federalism, however, as the Senate seems to have no sense of its own role and responsibilities. They certainly don’t seem to behave in a federalist manner….

More later as I can.

On Military Service

An interesting question was raised yesterday at a Mitt Romney campaign stop in Iowa. And although it wasn’t phrased the way I’m going to discuss it here, it did hint at a greater issue that is frequently referenced and even appealed to but rarely discussed. Romney was asked by a member of the local peace group why none of his sons were in the military. Romney has five sons, ages 26-37, none of them with military experience.

Romney himself does not have military experience, even though he was of service age during the Vietnam war. His excuse is perfectly reasonable one however: he had a high draft number, and was also completing his Mormon mission at that time. His sons have no such excuse, and as Romney pointed out, they are adults and responsible for their own actions and inactions.

What fascinates me about this exchange is that Romney had to defend his sons’ lack of military experience in the first place. While it is true that his sons are a visible part of Romney’s campaign team, they are not the candidate themselves, nor should their lack of military service play any part at all in his campaign. Now it is true that such decorated veterans as John McCain love pointing out that their son is going to Iraq, how personal that makes the Iraqi war for them, etc. This is all fine and good except for the fact a relations military service should have no bearing on the candidate’s own qualifications for elected office.

Now, I don’t mind people asking about a candidate’s own military service. The military is a unique institution how a person preformed in it can be a unique and useful insight into their character. But is military service a prerequisite for public service or elected office? To be sure, there are many fine Congressmen and Senators who have no military service record and still got elected, but it seems that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 candidates are increasingly emphasizing their own service or their opponents lack of service.

Most people will remember the squabble between George Bush and John Kerry over their military records, both of which
were unclear. The attack ads from Swiftboat Vets for Truth and their counter-organizations left a bad taste in the mouth of most voters, but the issue continues to come up non the less.

The reason I worry about this apparent litmus-test of military experience is personal. I am a young man of military age with a strong interest in politics. I’m also about to head off to college seeking a history or political science degree, with an eye towards law school or government work. But if I want to be a Representative or Senator at any level, or someday even President, should I enlist in the military first?

My reasons for not entering the military originally are two-fold. One, I am a physical wimp. Not unhealthy in any way, but never having taking an interest in sports or heavy recreation I am not, shall we say, fully developed. This could be overcome I’m sure, and in fact I am trying to do so, but not with the goal of entering the military. I know that not everyone in the military has to shoulder a 100-lb pack and patrol through Basra every day, but the idea was still enough to discourage me.

The second reason could almost be marked up as chance. Due to a variety of factors which I won’t bother printing here, I was offered several scholarships that made it possible to go to schools I had my eye, but not my money, on attending. I had briefly considered ROTC in fact to help me attend college, but the scholarships rendered this option unnecessary.
Having said all that, why I have always respected the military I have never thought of myself as a solider. That may be fine and good you say, but what of your duty to your country? Mitt Romeny tried to address this in a rather pathetic way in my opinion, saying that “his sons were helping him get elected because they think I will make a great President. That’s patriotic.” Okay, maybe. Patriotic in your eyes’, treason is someone else’s. But that is besides the point: it would seem that military service is the only means of patriotism respected in America today.

In support of this, I present radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, who has recently started to maintain that anyone interested in public office 10, 15 or 20 years down the road (a la me) better have military service if they hope to get elected. Hugh does view the current “War on Terror” as the modern day World War II, which may be a slight exaggeration, but I have to wonder how right is he? Career politicians are already labeled as such as if it was a dirty word, ignoring the fact that most of the Founding Fathers were themselves careerists in their service to their young country.

What am I to do? Enlisting now would be purely out of other selfish (and admittedly far reaching) plans and dreams. Not enlisting could be called unpatriotic! There is no clear victory, both ways are potential dead ends. What I finally resolved myself to was this: if there be need, I will answer it. Until then, I don’t believe my calling or path in life includes the military. Who knows, things could change any minute—a new war is never far from happening in our connected and 24/7 world. And looking back, I realize that it has always been this way. So many of our leaders in the last century were military men because so many men were in the military! World War II took every man of fighting age and ability—virtually none escaped service of some kind. The war today is not that type of war, and we may hope that it never will be.

In the current campaign, military service doesn’t seem to matter. Senator John McCain is the only Presidential candidate with a record worth bragging about, and his campaign has floundered severely in the last month, leaving the race relatively military-free. But if more and more men become military-experienced, we may face a time when military and elections go hand in hand.

The Laws of Physics

Now that President Bush has finally announced his much heralded and called for “new direction” in Iraq, we once again are seeing calls from unsatisfied citizens for a “new new direction” or an “original new direction.” Admittedly, the new plan isn’t that new: it simply calls for adding 20,000 troops (primarily to Baghdad) over the next few months to the current deployments. This of course isn’t what many people had in mind when they issued their calls for “a new way forward.”

But I am forced to ask the question: what other options are there? The only realistic power that the U.S. has in Iraq is in our troops. The only way we exercise this power is by increasing or decreasing troop levels, and actively deploying them in the streets. We have trained and continue to train thousands of Iraqi policemen and soldiers, but we certainly do not have complete control over them, nor do they have complete control over themselves. It will likely take several years for the Iraqi security forces to reach the level where they can assume the same level of force and stability as the American military.

The fundamental assumption or hope behind the President’s move is the belief that more troops means more stability. The hope of course, is that the American military presence will provide the breathing room necessary for the Iraqi state to stabilize and establish itself as a free and open society. We are told that the current instability is caused by terrorist organizations and religious fractions, who are currently killing more fellow Muslims then American infidels.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is a fairly accurate premise. It is a debatable premise of course, as witnessed by the September 11 Commission Report. Historical wisdom however tells us that in the end force almost always wins the day, in the short-term at least. Given the state of the religious terror and intra-Muslim attacks in Iraq, the chances of any other paradigm working seem indeed slim. Therefore the only seeming realistic option America has in influencing Iraq is through her military muscle. And this military muscle is exercised through the amount of troops on the ground.

When politicians, citizens and commentators call for “a different direction,” they mean the downward direction—because the only other option is up. Up or down. Just as President Bush has repeatedly called for up-or-down votes for his judicial nominees, saying that it is the only fair option, we are faced with the same situation in the Iraq battlefield. Pretending that there is a third option is the same as saying there is no option at all. There is a yes or no, not a maybe or perhaps. If people don’t like the current situation in Iraq, they must specify in which direction they would like things to head. Increasing troop levels or decreasing troop levels are their only true option, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Thus the true debate is about what type of effect these actions will have. President Bush believes that they will encourage and promote stability, others say it will increase the violence, while even more try to take some sort of higher ground, saying they want our troops out of Iraq and that there must be another way.

Unfortunately, this other way is the maintenance of the status quo. And no one seems to think that the current situation is the way things should be. But if the current strife and dangers are indeed to be defeated, it will take more then half-hearted attempts at military supremacy and non-committal rhetoric from Washington. Whether we like it or not we are now embedded in a war, and it will be our choice to win or to lose that war. Very few people seem to actually want us to lose, but many more do not want to lose any further American life. But this war has gone beyond being about us and our security, it has turned into a struggle for freedom in the Middle East, a struggle again centuries of mis-rule and unfortunate tradition. And the question we must then ask ourselves is this: if we can bring change to the unchangeable, if we can eliminate one of the cross-roads of threats to America and the rest of the free world, is that something we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for? For as the Iraqi conflict has been called part of the “global war on terror,” so this question has become the question of global duty to ourselves and to the world. That is the question that must guide our course.