I've decided that I don't get nearly enough hate mail, so this morning I've decided to ruminate on the latest screed from Ted Rall. Of course, Rall's opinion's are his and his alone. My acknowledging them is not an endorsement of his opinions, merely an act of poor judgement on my part. Sometimes this whole "Free Speech" thing seems a hell of a waste.
Rall has decided to bless us with his reasoning for why we should not support our troops in the Middle East. This is why, when I think of Ted Rall, the first words that come to mind are "human shield".
This is an understandable impulse. As patriots, we want our country to win the wars that we fight. As Americans, we want our soldiers--young men and women who risk too much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. But supporting our troops while they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is misguided and wrong....
Iraq has never attacked, nor threatened to attack, the United States. As his 1990 invasion of Kuwait proved, Saddam is a menace to his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel--but he's their problem, not ours. Saddam's longest-range missiles only travel 400 miles.
Numerous countries are ruled by unstable megalomaniacs possessing scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States and, unlike Iraq, the nuke to put inside it. Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile. If disarmament were Bush's goal, shouldn't those countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets than non-nuclear Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts. And no matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
That leaves freeing Iraqis from Saddam's repressive rule as the sole rationale for war. Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much? You be the judge. I wouldn't bet on it.
I can understand where Rall is trying to go with his argument, but his suggestion that we not support our troops is patently absurd. These folks are simply following orders. Does he expect us to return to the way Americans treated their troops during the Vietnam War? Our anger (if such exists) should be directed at those who gave the orders that our sons and daughters are following. Let's not kill the messenger here.
Ted Rall may be a good card-carrying Liberal, but he is not one I would choose to be associated with. To be honest, I'd written him off since his "Terror Widows" cartoon. Too many people have paid far too much attention to this cretin. Yes, he has a right to voice his opinions; I just don't need to give them a forum.
Oops; I just did. Sorry....
