Thursday, August 03, 2006

Politics -- Never Boring!

I've been a little swamped at work and home lately, and what a week.

Mike Leavitt's family charity issue was exposed even more to discover that the little charity money that the Leavitt foundation gave, went to a foundation with ties to SUU as scholarship money which was directed back to the Leavitt family in the form of student housing rents in Leavitt family owned apartments. The Leavitts not only got a deduction but they also earned income on their deductions. The Leavitt family's "altruistic" dealings seem to get shadier and shadier.

Mitt Romney made a Perot-esque faux-pax in using the term "tar baby" I had not ever heard the phrase but it apparently has a double meaning, one coming from the story of Brer rabbit being a messy situation and the other in later years used by some as a slur for a black person. Taken in context it is obvious that Mitt meant the former and not the latter definition. Black leaders in the community were outraged! Come on people he was referring to a "messy situation," and I mean its not as if he used a phrase like niggardly. American oversensitivity continues to overstretch the bounds of reasonableness. I do wonder though if tar baby , combined with Romney Mormon roots, will be used as an issue should Romney get a nomination

The commanding U.S. General acknowledged and opined before a Senate hearing that the situation in Iraq could deteriorate into civil war and that sectarian violence as at its worst level. While I have for the most part been a supporter of the decision to go into Iraq, I believe we, as a nation, are approaching a crossroads. The war against insurgency in Iraq is one that will undoubtedly be almost unceasing (Gadianton Robbers comes to mind) along with the apparent "Hatfield and McCoy" violent rivalry that seems to exist between Sunni's and Shi'a's I feel certain if U.S. involvement continues in Iraq until there is a full peace the US may be in Iraq for at least a decade. Therefore we as a nation have major ethical dilemma approaching, do we continue sacrificing American soldiers in a nation that seems bent on self destruction, and if we continue, do we continue without a system of mandatory military service. This decision is going to be a critical and difficult one.

Personally I believe that with a nuclear Iran, leaving Iraq in the middle of political turmoil would likely amount to negligent homicide on that nation. This leaves with only one alternative -- mandatory service or the draft. It has been inspiring watching and hearing about the bravery our men and women in our volunteer military exhibit. However, it would be altogether unfair for this long-term combat commitment to be shouldered by the volunteers alone. Many of these soldiers have been over there two to three times, and have spent over two years away from their professions and their families. If we are going to stay in a conflict as long-term as it appears Iraq will be, then the burden needs to be shared by all able-bodied men.

1 comment:

Part of the Plan said...

Yours is the first conservative voice I've heard admitting that a long-term American military presence in Iraq *may* require a return to the draft. (Hopefully that's what you mean by "mandatory service" and not some goofy Peace Corps kind of thing.) It's way too easy for Americans to be gung ho about a messy war half a world away when 95% of us have had no direct involvement. If we can't get more Americans to enlist and volunteer as 11B Infantrymen, we need a draft to alleviate the Army's current pain. Of course, since two-thirds of Americans now believe the War in Iraq to have been a monumental mistake, another alternative is to simply leave and allow the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds to divvy up the country a la Yugoslavia, which is really what they want.