True statesmanship needed from Congress on the Middle East
In the cacaphony of comment on the current hornets’ nest in the Middle East, two factors stand out. One is the relative silence of Congress. In past international crises, groups of Members of Congress, Senate and House, have sought to take constructive positions, either criticizing the incumbent administration’s management of the conflict or crisis or offering supportive recommendations. Many individual Senate and House members have issued their own statements on the Middle East, most cautious and conditioned by partisanship. But the absence of strong voices, particularly in contrast with great Senate statesmen of the past, is remarkable. “Support the president,” “support the troops,” and “stay the course” pass for statemanship these days. Cliche has become a substitute for thought, reason, experience, and depth. Republicans are cautious about separating themselves from the White House, largely out of fear of political reprisal. Democrats, as usual these days, are all over the map. It would not hurt, however, for a collection of Senate Democratic leaders, in their position as the loyal opposition, to put forward a statement demanding a sense of urgency from president and secretary of state, calling on Israel to reduce attacks on civilian targets, insisting that regional Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, pressure Hezbollah, and seeking support from Europe to close down Syrian and Iranian weapons supplies.
The other factor in the “debate” is how few Americans discuss what is in the U.S.’s national interest. Voices are heard defending Israel or condemning Israel, criticizing or praising Arab leaders, discussing what is best for Lebanon, and so forth. This vacuum in national definition would normally be filled by a president willing or able to explain to the American people what our policy is, why that policy is in our best interest, how that policy conforms with our traditional ideals and principles, and how we intend to pursue it. Perhaps that is asking too much these days.
No related posts.
That’s “cacophany”.
And it seems that part of the problem with reducing attacks on civilian targets, particularly in the south, is that Hezbollah prides itself on being “part of the community”. After all, they managed to get voted into parliament, so they must be legit!
In practice, this ends up with civilians dead, and the Humanitarian Chief of the UN, Jan Egeland, complaining that Hezbollah is “cowardly”, which is a strong term. He’s quoted as saying, “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”
Comment on July 25, 2006 @ 3:44 am
[...] In his blog yesterday on this site, former Senator Gary Hart called on President Bush “to explain to the American people what our policy is, why that policy is in our best interest, how that policy conforms with our traditional ideals and principles, and how we intend to pursue it.” That is a reasonable request, and Senator Hart is right that discussion of American interests has generally been drowned out recently. However, the Senator only posed the question — a challenge to President Bush, really. [...]
Pingback on July 25, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
The rampant corruption endemic in our government has forestalled statesmen from participating. Racketeers and thugs don’t make very good statesmen, and apart from Russ ‘token’ Feingold, and the long enduring Ron Paul, there just aren’t honest representatives.
The best for Americans is not the same as the best for the Federal Government, and the halls of Congress are full of government men. While it is advantageous for government to have access to every conversation every American has, it is not to the advantage of the Americans who are surveilled. While it is advantageous to the defense industry representatives so deeply entrenched in our government to destroy the infrastructure of other countries, and even America, it is not good for Americans.
Fascism is the new face of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is not best for the people, but for rich lawyers and corporate directors.
Comment on August 22, 2006 @ 9:59 pm