The View from Thayne’s Corner

An old mind on a cold day
   As some of you may be aware when viewing this column, I spend a lot of time reading.  That may be good or bad.  At the age of 81, with temperatures in the single digits in Western Kansas, what else is there to do?
   Reading and reflection can have a way of centering what there is left of an old mind and gathering some understanding.  I don’t know that I’ve paid my dues but from what I’ve learned in the past few decades I realize there is not just one right way to live, and also many wrong ways.  No one holds the magic solution to successful living in spite of the fact that some zealous religious leaders and politicians seem to think otherwise
   My feeling is that many of my generation --- we World War II relics --- became too self-satisfied in later years, foregoing some of our civic responsibilities.  As a result, we have those of the post war generations --- WWII and Korean --- who have never experienced combat or the command of those who have, now imposing their “New World” ideas on troubled societies.  Intellectuals (and some not so intellectual) have, while many of us were asleep, gained control of the world’s most powerful nation
   We are now floundering in a 2 pt century crusade to rid the world of evil --- evil being described as those who disagree with the pseudo-intellectuals as to how the world should be ordered (not to mention concern for threats to a way of life dependent on a major natural resource).  Might makes Right.  Unilateralism and diplomacy are out-of-date, old man’s, Old World functions.  Control, exaggerated truth, secrecy and the spread of fear are practices necessary for free-world progress.
   We are experiencing different times, they say, that require different measures to protect us from terrorists or a nuclear holocaust.  Yet these new ‘we-know-best’ intellects pattern their thinking on events of the past with which they have no first-hand knowledge.
They can only visualize how it must have been.  They see themselves fighting another World War II in order to save the nation and prevent world conflagration No. III.
   Conspicuously absent from our Commander-in-Chiefs wartime rhetoric is mention of a minor Southeast Asian conflict that took place in the 1960-70s.  That’s of lesser importance I guess, since, as I recall, we didn’t happen to win it.  I may be wrong, but I thought we had learned that it’s quite difficult to change people’s minds by simply beating them into accepting our way of thinking.  Could it be that we’re fighting a war that our President missed, or re-fighting the one that his father, young George may feel, didn’t finish?
   It seems very naive to assume that we could invade a country, tear it up and dismantle all civil institutions, have nothing to replace them, and expect them to pick things up, reorganize and become our best friends in the Middle East when most of us don’t speak their language or understand their culture.
   In spite of all the violence, the retaliations for past grievances and their inability to come together, I think the Iraqis might be able to control their own destiny without the “guidance” and with a minimum of influence from outside forces.  Does it seem reasonable they would welcome with open arms al Quiada, Iran, Syria or any other strong influence?  Why can’t the Iraqis, given the chance, resist other foreign elements the same as they have the U.S.?  And they haven’t employed a strong army to do that.
   National unity, proven in many other cases, is a strong incentive when being attacked from outside (have we forgotten the Iran-Iraq war- - -where we supported Saddam, by the way!)  Also spending some of our war money, of which we seem to have an endless supply, to help reduce poverty, spur education and provide more personal opportunities, could reduce the number of recruits for the al Quiadas of this world.
   As wiser souls have been trying to point out (this includes those of WWII vintage) there must be security before sovereignty.  Rarely are lasting governmental institutions established before relative security exists.  A strong army with power to force an end to violence, most right-thinking people have learned, can overturn a weak government and install another dictator.  The British, before us, found this to be true.
   Of course, a friendly dictatorship in Iraq can suit the purposes of our war planners just as well, I suppose.  Establishment of democracy was only a secondary excuse for going to war anyway- - -oh yes, and rid the world of evil.
   Contrary to scare tactics of the neo-conservatives, Islamic extremists are not on the verge of taking over the world.  The world might be with us again if we use our considerable economic strength properly, assuming of course that we still have it.