Senator Lee again, but not what you think!

It is not often I feel the need to admit that a member of the Republican delegation from Utah has done something I can applaud. Usually, the delegation from Utah follows tea-party lines, policies that I cannot accept.

Yesterday, however, I learned that the junior Senator from Utah, Mike Lee (R), has co-sponsored a bill with  a (gasp) Democrat; Patrick Leahy of Vermont that would reign in the National Security Agency, the agency charged with collecting metadata from all Americans that use email, cell phones, and landlines.

Metadata- the information about we use our communication devices- can be used to trace who we call (or email) and where our devices are located. That information allows the NSA to listen to our private discussions. There is a huge, brand new, data center in Bluffdale, Utah that operates 24/7/365 to follow your calls and emails. The NSA currently traces who we talk to, and what we say. This is the information that the “USA Freedom Act” will not allow the government to have.

Your calls to a grandparent in Europe, or in Topeka, are recorded. Did you mention how you feel about the laws and legislation that affect you and your family? It’s all recorded for future use, under the current law. It can be used to brand you, or your grandmother, as a terrorist. Would my grandmother be a terrorist, under today’s vision? She had strong feelings about Democrats, going back to Roosevelt. God forbid the NSA had listened to those conversations; she referred to him as a dictator! (The only time I heard her use a cuss word was about Roosevelt! That Damned Democrat!)

I grew up in rural Colorado, and we had party lines. Agnes listened to every conversation my family had. We knew that, ok? Mrs. Thompson (also on the party line) subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, and sent a letter off to our congressmen almost every day! (Ok, the postmaster had loose lips.) “Everybody knew” she was a communist because of that.

But for the Government of the United States of America to listen into, record, and more importantly judge, the conversations I now have with my sister, brother, and friends? WHY? I don’t think it is necessary for “national security.”

In the early days of America, groups of people met in bars and taverns to discuss how to birth our country. They were careful as to how they spoke, and if a stranger entered into the room, they became quiet and circumspectfull in their speech. It was illegal to speak wrongly of the King and the Empire. Is it illegal today? Some would say no. I disagree.

Today, we don’t know who is entering into, or listening to, our conversation.

Today, under the current NSA policies, those discussions will be recorded. What happened, friends, to free speech?

When I was younger, I read and studied Ayn Rand. I agreed with a lot of what she said and proposed. Over the years, I have moved away from that philosophy. Does that label me as a terrorist? I don’t think so, but. . . what does the NSA think?

It is my opinion that discussion among friends and co-workers, family, etc., helps us form our opinions, our beliefs. It is the open dialogue about where our country is, and where it should be going, that will propel our country forward. We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion.

Let me repeat that: We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is what this country was founded upon. We may have to accept people who do not believe as we do, who do not worship as we do, who form alliances we disagree with.

But, this is what America was founded upon! It took, what?, 10 years, to develop our current constitution and its system of laws and regulation is still being improved upon! It is indeed a moving goal; freedom is not easy nor is it free. In the immediate aftermath of September 11 2001, the so-called “Patriot Act” was passed. Now, 14 years later, Senators Lee and Leahy are acting to correct some of its most obvious mistakes.  

Senator Lee, while I am opposed to a great majority of what you have done in the past, and continue to do so today, I applaud you for this surprisingly liberal stance.

Your opinions and comments are welcome, as always.

R. M. Bob Hartman

It's Over, We Hope

The second longest war in the history of the United States is, at least in theory, drawing to the end. The last combat brigades have left the country of Iraq, without achieving many of the goals originally outlined, save the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s government, an act which made physical living conditions worse for the majority of the civilian population; and the protection of the oil fields. President Obama has announced the end of combat operations, sans aircraft carrier and “chauffer driven” fly in.

Originally created as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia as a result of the First World War by the League of Nations in 1921, and increased to its present geography in 1925, the Republic of Iraq was granted independence in 1932. Saddam Hussein assumed the office of President in 1979 after a coup (22 July 1979) in which he ordered the arrest and eventual execution of the “fifth column”, a group of Ba’ath party members he suspected were not loyal to him.

Until the overthrow and exile of Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, and the return to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, (1979) the United States had supported Iran, financially and militarily, to be its ally in the Mideast strategy of containing the Soviet Union. Iraq, concurrently, had been an ally of Russia, receiving aid from the Soviets, financially and militarily. Saddam had begun the process of modernization of Iraq, while the deputy (vice-president) of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (whose resignation was orchestrated by Saddam and the leaders of the Ba’ath party as a result of his attempts to join with Syria to create a large Arab National state); Saddam used oil revenues created by the nationalization of the foreign business interests in 1972 to fund massive infrastructure projects and provide free education to citizens, including women. The “Energy Crisis” of 1973 greatly increased the revenues flowing into Iraq and this furthered his programs of modernization.

The shift in the Mideast balance of power in 1979 as a result of the Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the United States to re-examine its relationship with Iraq, and diplomatic overtures were successful. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke with Hussein in Iraq in 1980, telling him “we see no fundamental incompatibility between the United States and Iraq..we do not feel American-Iraq relations need to be frozen in antagonisms”, which resulted in a strategic alliance between United States and Iraq, with aid flowing from the United States to Iraq. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the aid exceeded $80 billion during the two president’s terms, (1) including “dual-use” chemical and biological materials.

For seven years, 4 months, and 30 days we have been involved in a foreign civil crisis of our own making. We helped put the Ba’ath party into power in 1963, following an unsuccessful CIA- backed coup in 1959, in which Saddam Hussein was a major player. His failure to wait until the President of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, was in a position to be shot- by Saddam- and Saddams’ capture thereafter, put Saddam in jail. He was released in 1962; and began his immediate rise to power in the Ba’ath party. In 1963, again in a move backed by the CIA, the Ba’ath party executed a coup, successfully, and they came to power. In exchange for CIA help and money, the United States received models of soviet MIG fighters and tanks, which we had not seen before; these models helped us develop new anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Abd al-Karim Qasim was dead, his senior advisors executed, and the Ba’athists were in control of the government of Iraq.

The United States, however, was more focused on its puppet, the Shah of Iran, and Iraq fell out of the window of US operations. Iraq approached the Soviet Union for aid and assistance, which Moscow was more than pleased to supply, to counter the American-friendly Iran. Until 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the return of and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States played the Iran card to the hilt. The game changed with the taking of hostages during the Carter administration, and we (the US) felt we needed a new ally in the Middle East. We turned our attention to Iraq; at a very fortunate time, as the USSR was in its death throes, and Iraq wanted to continue modernization, even westernization. Saddam opened his arms, and we opened our treasure chest, to the tune of $80 BILLION in aid and military supplies, which Iraq desperately needed during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This aid included so-called “dual-use” chemical and biological materials such as nerve gas, West Nile Virus, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin and VX.(2) Meantime, in a strange, convoluted action, the United States supported the Iranians with arms in the Iran-Contra movements to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua (3). At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had depleted most of its financial reserves, and needed money to support itself; it looked at Kuwait and its relatively large oil reserves as an appropriate source of revenue. The US government, when made aware of Iraq’s intentions, instead of telling them NO, sent April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein on April 25, 1980. Here is the pertinent portion of the official transcript of that meeting:
“Transcript from Hussein/Glaspie meeting
Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?
Saddam Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab, our strategic goal in our war with Iran, we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Secretary of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?. (Saddam smiles)”

This resulted in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the first incursion of coliation forces into the Middle East (in the current time period). So why did we go to war with Iraq a second time? Was it the “possesion of weapons of mass destruction”, which was refuted by the US-led Iraq Survey group, the alleged financial support of Palestin suicide bombers, the human rights issues, to obtain the oil and gas supplies, or to install a democracy in the Middle East, or all of the above? We, the general population of the United States, are left to draw our own conclusions concerning the true cause of the invasion.

Here are some hard facts about this war:
The cost of human lives has been staggering: over 4,600 coliation servicemen/women killed as well as 1,300 plus contractors; over 42,000 soldiers and contractors were wounded. Iraq military casulities range between 68,000 and 100,000. An unknown number of civilians were killed, although estimates from various sources point to civilian death toll ranges of 95,000 to 103,000.

Why? And what have we gained or learned for this conflict? We did succeed in removing from power a dictator who abused human rights, and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, allegedly corrupt government that does not have the support of the population at large. Additionally, we secured the oil fields and put into place long term agreements with this new government that should allow US and British oil-based interests to profit for years to come. We should have learned that the Middle East is a region historically bound in conflicts of religion and tribal control; as westerners, we have no appreciation or understanding of how these important these conflicts are, how they play out in this region. In our attempt to install democracy, we have downplayed the significance of tribal and religious influence on the lives of the population, and have again made the same mistakes of the colonial rulers; we have taken populations that are not inter-related, interconnected, and imposed upon them our view of how they should relate and connect. Is this not supreme ignorance on our part, an arrogance that we know what is best for other peoples, and they should follow our example? We failed, miserably in my opinion, to learn from history: no foreign power has ever been suscessful in control or rule in the Middle East, therefore we repeated the same mistakes. I won’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, or that he should not have been removed from power, but given the ability and willingness of the population to revolt, as has occurred there many times, I have no doubt that he would have fallen without our intervention.

Saddam is gone, to be a footnote in history. I hope that our leaders, now and in the future, learn from this tragedy and never repeat this type of error in judgement. I hope..but I am not holding my breath.

Sources
1 Peter W. Galbraith ; 2006 (31 August 2006). "The true Iraq appeasers - The Boston Globe
2 New York Times, August 18, 2002
3 Tower Commission report to the President, February 1987