Mission:Accomplished?

In March of 2003, in the shadow of the attacks on New York and Washington, DC, the United States, and coalition countries invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. In August of 2010, the last military troops, primarily belonging to the United States, left the once again sovereign nation of Iraq.

With the troop withdrawal, a number of questions remain. And while these questions are different from the questions that were asked when the coalition invaded in 2003, they are no less demanding of answers. Answers that, like the questions of 2003, are still lacking.

In 2003, shortly after the invasion, the entire invasion was questioned. What, exactly were the coalition forces doing in Iraq. The party line at the time was seeking weapons of mass destruction, although a number of people believed, and still believe, that it was because of Iraq's involvement with the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite evidence to the contrary. During the early days of the invasion, a number of us, including myself, kept asking "where are [the weapons]?" And the continuing answer was "They're there, we just have to uncover them." In fact I got into several arguments with those who know that if the weapons were there, they would be splattered all over the front page of the Washington Post. Especially at that time with an election coming and positive PR being in short supply for the Bush II administration. As we now know, there never were any weapons of mass destruction.

Failing to find justification...er...weapons, the Bush II administration said they were going after the Axis of Evil. For me, that never held water. Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, no question, but so is North Korea, and they actually have nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and an unstable enough leader to actually use them. For all that Saddam Hussein was, unstable he was not.

Now, as we enter the latter part of 2010, the question of why the United States was in Iraq is seldom asked. What is asked is what has been accomplished, now that the mission is concluded. Of course, calling it a mission begs the question, because a mission implies a goal, and clearly, there never was a goal. OK, the cynics, myself included, would say the goal was to secure the Iraqi oil, but even that seems to be a half-assed effort.

So what was accomplished? Democracy was brought to the Iraqis? OK, I can support that. Unfortunately many of the soldiers that rammed democracy down the throats of the local population are coming back to a nation less democratic than when they left and while Iraq may not, in 2003, have been terribly democratic, it had a governmental structure more stable and more secure than the one that is being left behind. And then there is the infrastructure, battered by over seven years of war and guerilla actions, to where now it is barely stable enough to keep the lights on. Who is going to stand up and take responsibility for at least restoring it to pre-war levels? The United States? Nope, their job is done.

Clearly the mission, undefined and unarticulated, was known only to those that started it, if anyone knows what it is. And several generations of both American and Iraqis will have to live, not only with the death and damage, but the clean up costs, both in terms of aid to Iraq as well as to the troops that have returned broken and unable to hold normal jobs. It is these hidden costs that ten, twenty, thirty years from now we will be debating and arguing over. When the shadow of history looks back at the Iraq war and wonders why it happened. The historians might be able to better formulate, what today is a mystery for many people: What exactly was the mission? And did it really get done?

Another Crisis of Faith

Less than a year ago, I mentioned the crisis of faith I was having. A recent visit to the book store over the weekend caused me to have another one.

Over the next few weeks, most of the kids in the United States will have returned to school for the 2011 school year. Where they will be tasked, worked, instructed and very occasionally challenged.

Yet, while I walked through the book store, I saw compete sections, full of books on how to pass the test, and certainly more tests than I even thought existed, on everything from elementary Standards of Learning to graduate level entrance exams. But what baffled me is the section on test prep books was, like the section on religion, so much larger than the sections for the base knowledge that goes into the tests. The sections on Math and Science were only slightly smaller than the section on how to start a home business on Ebay. The history section was larger than most sections, yet how many of these exams actually test history to any degree? And how accurate is the testing of history? Especially in Texas?

There were plenty of dictionaries, but most were more interested in the latest video of pabulum than actually reading the story behind the movie.

We lament the degradation of the minds of our children, yet we do not demand of our education system that they actually challenge our children. They are tested, with the most basic of tests, yet cannot think rationally, challenge in a structure manner or draw a rational conclusion that can stand up to any scrutiny.

But they can tell you what Team they are on. And if you do not know what I am talking about, then you probably actually know what the impact of an increase in the Solar Wind means.

When Religion is More Important Than Governing

This morning, a retweet from one of the Fox News stations opined, out loud, if the President should not be more open about his religious position. This follows a number of surveys that indicate as many as a quarter of Americans think he is Muslim. This is probably the same group of people that think Iraq had something to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, but I digress.

On another site, I found this interesting evaluation:

United States Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Of course, this begs the question. If the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be required then the issue is moot right?

If only it were that simple. Let's face it, most in the United States choose to hide behind the Constitution when it suits them, such as the issue of gun rights, but choose to ignore it when it is less convenient, such as the issue of being granted citizenship at birth. And those that are screaming loudest for the President to reveal his religious beliefs are those that are also most willing to shred the Constitution when it is inconvenient to their argument.

Religion is a personal issue. To make it more than that is to devalue the entire purpose of religion. Who you worship is between you and your god, and who the President worships, is completely and utterly not the business of the American people. Sadly, most seem to feel this is not the case.