Bukran's Blog
Guess Who's Coming to Graduation?
So Dick Cheney is coming to speak at commencement...
I have mixed feelings.
Like most BYU students, I identify myself as a conservative and a Republican. It's quite a prestigious honor to have the Vice President come--after all, it's one of only two commencement speeches he's going to give this spring.
But talk about a low point... The man Cheney and the institution he represents have never been more unpopular. Once again, BYU is asserting the stereotype that it is an ultraconservative institution that will slap the backs of the far right in this country regardless of the current national political tenor. The 60's saw the Y holding forums that encouraged students to support the Vietnam War. The 00's have seen the university maintain itself of a bastion of Bush. Some things never change...
Don't get me wrong--as an organization founded upon the gospel it is proper for us to avoid the whims of the world and be seen as a relatively unwavering place.
But just for once, can BYU not display the most egregious alliance in all the land with institutional hyper-conservatism?
In theory I should be ecstatic that the executive branch's #2 is coming. But instead, I'm embarrassed. Not because I consider Cheney to be evil, sinister, or corrupt--but because this visit only will embolden the critics of BYU. It will also certainly be a boon for a certain small contingent of anti-war and anti-Bush protesters who shadow the VP.
The time period of my college education has witnessed a total reversal of presidential fortune. Two weeks into my freshman year the attacks of 9/11 vaulted the Bush/Cheney team into a position of glory. Six years later, Bush is a lame duck and his ideology is synonymous amongst the global public with hubris and cronyism--and one of the most prominent figureheads of that ideology is speaking at my senior graduation. Karma, I suppose...
Granted, not many people in the future will ask me who spoke at my college graduation. But when I do tell folks, I suspect their reaction will include a cynical smirk indicative of history's often unkind hindsight.
What, was Thomas S. Monson or Donny Osmond not available?
My Response:
Talk about caving into peer pressure... why should you care what the global political spectrum is crying out?
So what if people say BYU is an ultraconservative bastion for higher education? Heaven forbid we actually refer to the black kettle as black...
The Bush administrations legacy may be tarnished in the world's (and in a large part the country's) eyes over the handling of the war in Iraq, but that comes from an incomplete understanding of the situation and the goals of the administration. Is America safer with Saddam out of power? Yes, so the administration succeeded. Would America be safer if any government who has ever harbored terrorists (think Libya, Syria, and the like) were overthrown and a democracy put in place? Yes, and the whole world (at least the Old World and an all its former colonies) would revert to their gossiping ways and bad-mouth the US, even though it is in the interest of the country to protect itself. Bush protected the interests of the country, and while he may not have done a perfect job (or even far from it), he did the best job he could given the circumstances and his information. Conversely, the critics are looking at everything in hindsight with the knowledge that a corrupt dictator is already removed from power (unless he comes back as a ghost to order about Nancy Pelosi...) and they actually care what the former world powers say in their left wing papers. The real world powers think much more highly of the Bush administration and its efforts to protect its own interests. There's a reason that the European gossips can't match the economy and production of the nationalistic Chinese and Japanese.
3 comments:
No one has ever accused me of caving into peer pressure before...and I don't think this is an exception. I don't picket Army recruitment centers nor do I slap bumper stickers featuring the president's face and profanity on my car in the name of the anti-war/anti-Bush agenda--all of which is pretty popular these days. Perhaps not in Utah, but go almost anywhere else (i.e. Albuquerque) and you'll see that the current administration is hated/despised/loathed by most folks.
I voice my concern because of just that--concern. Not because public opinion polls are spurring me to bandwagon and scorn the President.
Almost seven years have passed since Bush was elected. Four of these years have been mired in war. Even the backlash of hardcore Republicans like myself at this juncture should be demonstrative of the turn this country has taken for the worse.
I, of course, am not infantile enough to suggest that George W. Bush is responsible for all of the grievances of the masses. But I will go far enough to suggest that the positive direction our country enjoyed during the Reagan Revolution and the post-Cold War era has halted.
NO. America is NOT safer with a Saddam-less Iraq in the Middle East. I will only mention two of the greatest reasons why. Granted, I have the benefit of hindsight along with the fact I wasn't in the country when the war drums really began to play...
-The once relatively Islamo-fascist free Iraq has been transformed into the newest and most prolific field of jihad. The great sucking sound resulting from the invasion-induced power vacuum has been the siren song for foreign and domestic jihadists. Unless the Iraqi experiment in nation-building experiences exponential success, Iraq will be a base of terrorist operations against the United States for years to come.
-The balance of power in the Middle East between the Sunni-backed Hussein regime in Iraq and Shia Iran has been upset, giving Iran the preminent position in the region it's always desired. Just look to the bellicose positions Iran has taken since the invasion (their nuclear program, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the current standoff over the British sailors). Iran knows that they are no longer kept in check by a neighbor/enemy, and thus are flexing their muscles. Iran is not a friend of the United States!
Terrorist-backer Moammar Qaddafi in Libya was pacified through air strikes and diplomacy. We even convinced him to give the nuclear weapons he already posessed! Invasion was not required! Granted, this process took the better part of two decades but Libya is no longer a state sponsor of anti-U.S. terrorism. We will never know, but my optimistic side feels that with a healthy dose of time Hussein could have been "put in its place" without an all-out invasion and occupation.
We see that this debate is no longer about the man Dick Cheney but our current controversial president. I believe this moment to be crucial for our nation. While not identical to Vietnam, the Iraq War is similarly unpopular and unlikely to crown the U.S.A. the victor in conflict.
Perhaps Vietnam wasn't enough to learn the lessons about warfare and hegemony America needed.
That my children won't live under the guise of a Vietnam/Iraq war in their youth is my hope.
P.S. "There's a reason that the European gossips can't match the economy and production of the nationalistic Chinese and Japanese" is one of the most ridiculous non-sequiturs of all time.
For those that don't believe the world is better off:
Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq from July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003. During his tenure, an estimated 200,000 Iraqis "disappeared", 500,000 of his own people died during his war with Iran and 300,000 Iranians died, 50-100,000 Kurds were killed with mustard gas and nerve agents, there were the execution of over 10,000 political prisoners (some of them simply to show the world their prisons weren't overcrowded), and the deaths of an estimated 400-500,000 Iraqi children under age 5 thanks to his refusal to actually distribute supplies he obtained in his oil for fuel program. On top of this, countless other "smaller" atrocities were committed, but these numbers were less than 1,000 people a pop, so I won't use them in my math. In addition to this, 900,000 Iraqis were forced evacuate their homes and move to the Southern No-Fly Zone or else become political refugees in neighboring nations. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773)
Thus, by low counts, Saddam was responsible for at least one million deaths (most estimate it around 1.5 to 2 million). So, for his 24 years in power, with a low guess of 1 million dead, Saddam averaged taking care of about 42,000 people a year. Since the US invaded Iraq, high estimates say that 66,373 Iraqis (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) , 3,257 Americans (only 2,656 in combat), and 260 coalition troops (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/) have died. This high count totals 69,890 casualties (as of 4/4/2007) over the course of four years, or about 17,500 people a year-slightly less than what Mr. Hussein was pulling off. Additionally, since the US imposed sanctions of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991, there's been the deaths of the 400,000+ children, which averages into about 33,000+ deaths a year. Since the US invasion, all sanctions have been revoked, and food and medicine is actually getting to the people who have been needing it all along. By my rough figures (I'd be happy for someone to show me where I messed up), I figure that since the invasion, we've saved about twice as many lives as we've lost. Even if food and medicine are only getting to half of the kids who need it (which I'm quite confident is not the case), we're still breaking even.
Near as I can remember, we haven't had any major terrorist attacks on the US or its allies since we invaded Iraq. Even if we had a September 11th every year, the world is still a better place (judging by number of people who are actually still alive). By my calculations, we would have to uncover an average of 14 9/11's a year to equal the death toll that one dictator managed by himself.
I'm sorry, Milhouse, but your argument that the war was a good idea THEN and still is simply because fewer people are dying is pigeonholed utilitarianism of the worst kind.
There are a lot of other intangibles that must be evaluated before, during, and after war in order to justify its use.
Post a Comment