Respecting Our Flag

Basic patriotism in the form of respecting our flag is something all to easy to forget.

A few days ago, I was shopping at a major retailer, and I happened to be near a service desk when an obviously upset employee came hurrying up. "Where are they?" I heard her ask the other lady manning the desk. Soon she was digging through the wastebasket beneath the desk and pulling out several small American flags---the small 4x6 variety on a stick that you see kids waving at parades. Apparently someone in management had ordered that these flags---excess stock or something---be thrown away. And that made this employee mad. "If you need to get rid of an American flag, you burn it," she said. "I don't care what they say, you don't throw an American flag away---management be damned." To be honest, I was a little surprised. How many Americans would have second thoughts about throwing away an American flag? In this era of wacky radicals and rioting foreign protesters burning American flags as a symbol of hate and disrespect, it's far too easy to forget that the respectful way to dispose of an American flag is to burn it with honor. In fact, I think that a lot of people forget the importance of the flag as a symbol of our country and of freedom. There is a reason why so many deliberately dishonor the American flag, and that's because of what it represents. Remembering to respect our flag, whether it's in how we display it, what we do with our hats when we see it, or how we dispose of it, is actually remembering to respect all that is great and good and free about our country, and remembering the sacrifices that Americans have made for over two centuries to keep it that way. So thank you to the patriotic lady who whose respect for our flag (and anger at its dishonor) reminded me of something very important that is often overlooked in our society. Long may the star-spangled banner wave "o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Defining a War

Today I read a thought-provoking article in WORLD magazine (07/21/2007 issue) by founder Joel Belz entitled "Careless ambiguity" about how an "ongoing lack of clarity on Iraq is hurting the president and the country." Belz's main point is that due to a lapse in clear explanation from the President, and the negative misrepresentations of the drive-by media and liberal politicians, many Americans are confused about whether the purpose of the war is "mostly about defending America from further terrorism---or is... about helping the people of Iraq restore their country and building a democracy there." Belz correctly points out that there is great importance in the way that this question of purpose is answered. The people of America, by a large majority, support the defense of American soil and freedom. And, if a strong enough case is made that the war in Iraq was an invasion to remove a dangerous national security threat and is a continuing battle to defeat al Qaida and other terrorists who will otherwise harm American interests and American lives around the world, then Americans will rally strongly to the war effort. However, if it is presented as an attempt at democracy-building in a country that obviously faces major impediments to democratic rule and peace, then Americans will have an increasingly hard time supporting the continued shedding of American blood and spending of American money necessary to accomplishing this goal. For the majority, this comes down to basic human self-interest---we are willing to make sacrifices for our own security, but will eventually reach a limit if those sacrifices are depicted as benefiting another country. Others, like myself, face uncertainty because of our understanding of the American military as a weapon to protect American national security and to fulfill agreements with allies, and not, by and large, as an international police force.

I don't believe, however, that these positions need necessarily be at variance. Here's why--- today President Bush came out very strongly in an excellent speech at Charleston Air Force Base and identified al Qaida the number one enemy in Iraq and of both the Iraqi and American people. (Muchas gracias, by the way, to Rush for airing clips of this speech as I wrote this post.) The President clearly refuted the faulty logic of the ridiculous idea that Iraq is the reason for terrorism, pointing out the numerous incidents of anti-American terrorism that occurred long before the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He stated strongly that our troops are having success in fighting al Qaida and that we must give them time to defeat these and other terrorists, because it would be "dangerous for America and the world" to withdraw prematurely from this battle. He stated very clearly why Iraq is necessary to American security---

"Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.
If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.
We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it."

I whole-heartedly agree, and was gratified to hear this line of reasoning coming from the President. This is the way of looking at the war that encourages me and many other Americans to continue to support it. Al Qaida and terrorism must be defeated wherever in the world it rears its evil head, and Iraq is currently the primary battle-ground against this enemy. The war must continue there in the interests of American security. The other view of this war regarding Iraqi security and sovereignty, although it should not be the primary focus, follows naturally from promoting American interests. If terrorism is defeated, Iraqi peace and freedom will be much easier to achieve. As President Bush said, al Qaida and Islamic terrorism are public enemies numbers one and one for both of our nations, and protecting American interests in this area will have the effect of also promoting Iraqi peace and security.

In conclusion, I think that public support for the war, which is rising according to a New York Times poll released today, depends in part on the goals that are promoted by the White House. President Bush has a responsibility to continue to promote the viewpoint that he laid out today, and if he does, this leadership, along with the continuing successes occurring in Iraq, will rally the American public to the cause. If not, the issues at stake will remain blurred, and this, along with the defeatism of the liberal establishment, will lead to increasing frustration with the war and decreasing support among the public.

Can Do--- A Good Perspective from Newt Gingrich

I just finished reading a great article entitled "Can Do" by Newt Gingrich at National Review Online. Speaker Gingrich gives a forceful reminder of what has made America great--- free-enterprise, capitalism, and American ingenuity; and also warns against the governmental incompetency that drags us down. He writes very accurately that

"More small businesses and scientific breakthroughs are produced in America than anywhere else in the world. However, there is a growing gap between the world that works - the innovation and efficiency that (with some notable exceptions) we see in the private sector - and the world that fails — the exponentially expanding parade of waste and incompetence with which we suffer from our government bureaucracies."

Unfortunately, many Americans, while they have a general dislike of "big government" and may even realize why they dislike it and decry its inefficiency, do not have the will to give up the government handouts and benefits that they enjoy for themselves. Humans are by nature greedy, and will seek to fulfill their needs through the easiest route possible. Many see the legalized redistribution of wealth from the rest of society through government as that easiest route---but fail to realize that the basic inefficiency of government and the dependency that its programs create are ultimately of great harm to the prosperity of a nation and its individual citizens. I am generally wary of "gloom-and-doom" reporting and editorializing, but I whole-heartedly agree with Gingrich when he says that "It is clear that the machinery of government is broken. It’s been so corroded by red tape and the bureaucratic self-preservation of members of permanent government that we are reaching a crisis of competency in our government’s capacity to execute its core functions."

For America to remain a leader in the world, both economically and politically, it must return to those principles that have made it great and set it apart in Western civilization. As Newt says, "We must bring the principles that have built America and made it great — hard work, entrepreneurialism, innovation, and optimism — to our greatest national challenges." And this change will only happen when the individual voters of the country return to these great principles themselves and speak their convictions through the ballot box. The bureaucracy that forms a large (and often illegitimate) part of government "of, by, and for the people" will and cannot fix itself--- it requires the intervention of those who compose it if change is to occur.

More weakness from the US Senate

Hello again everyone. My sincere apologies for the LONG delay between posts--- other priorities have kept me from writing. It's great to be back at the keyboard again.

Once again, debate has erupted in the U.S. Senate over a proposal to force the President to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of this year. What this really means is that so-called "moderates" and liberals in the Senate continue to advocate surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida and Iran, to returning the Iraqi people to a reign of terror and oppression, to portraying America to the world as a gutless nation that can't stomach war or keep its promises, and to rendering the sacrifices in "blood, sweat, and tears" of the American military effectively useless. A lot of liberals accuse President Bush of playing politics with the global war on terror, of lying about intelligence, and of trading "blood for oil." It is liberal anti-war politicians, however, who are really playing politics with this war, with our national security, and even worse, with the lives of our men and women in uniform. The majority of these politicians have never had a principled position on this war, as is evidenced by the fact that many originally voted for the war, and then changed their positions as it became politically expedient.

I guess what really angered me today was a statement from Senator Dick Durbin where he asked rhetorically, "How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had? [wondering whether they would make it home alive]", and then had the cheek to suggest that U.S. Senators could spend at least one similar sleepless night considering the latest withdrawal resolution. What an insult to the American soldier! First of all, I do not deny that American soldiers and their families have spent sleepless nights in connection with this war. I have nothing but respect for these heroes and I honor their sacrifices. For a U.S. Senator, however, to suggest that our armed forces are a lot of poor soldiers quaking in their foxholes, waiting hopefully for the end of the war, is disgraceful. I know I shouldn't be surprised---after all, our troops have been referred to as Nazis, have been labeled as the losers in this war (Sen. Harry Reid), and have been falsely accused of terrorizing and abusing innocent civilians (in the dead of night, no less!) on a regular basis (Sen. John Kerry). Second of all, it is pure ignorance to even compare an all-nighter in the posh confines of the Senate to a sleepless night in a war zone. The Senator's self-proclaimed sacrifice is nothing compared to what our soldiers go through.

Many politicians refer to our troops as heroes because of the dangers and hardships that they are "forced" to face by an incompetent administration. I and the majority of Americans salute the members of America's armed forces as heroes because they volunteer to face these dangers, because they volunteer to defend their country no matter the cost, and because the majority of them are fighting hard and fighting to win because they want victory! The American military does not want to retreat in defeat, and they will win this war if they are not hamstrung by weak-kneed, weak-stomached politicians back home.

Support our military---Support the War on Terror!

Over and out for now.