1441, Exit Strategy and Globalization

1441, Exit Strategy and Globalization

K L Marsala

The selling points of acting against the terrorist in Iraq were presented to the world on the premise of Iraq having WMD’s. Along with the blatant evidences held over from the previous history of committing heinous acts against humanity. These proved to be the main selling points to rally the public at large to go to war against terrorism- starting with Afghanistan and then on into Iraq. Whether or not there were WMD’s or Saddam Hussein was directly tied to, 9/11 is not really even the question to ponder anymore. We know that the former administrations believed them to be so, and we began debating long before President George W. Bush appeared, on what we were going to do with this mounting crisis in the Middle East. So to point fingers of whether or not the WMD’s were true or false or Saddam was directly linked is but a moot point. President Clinton believed, President Bush Sr. believed, President Chirac believed, many in Congress and the Senate believed, the current administration believed. On top of this according to Jack Yan, a student of international law and publisher/owner of Lucire Global Fashion Magazine and author of two books (Beyond Branding and Typography and Branding), points out, “in George Shultz's analysis of resolution 1441 the Iraq was totally justified. Tony Blair used a similar argument in Parliament. Every law has a punishment, and invasion was this resolution. If the other members of the Security Council did not expect it, they should never have passed resolution 1441. Not acting makes the Council look impotent, so in effect, the US and the UK saved the possibility of the entire United Nations collapsing—I really believe that. Pity Kofi doesn't realize it.”


When one truly studies, what historians and military strategist know about this time in history- clarity becomes so obvious. Cynical as it may sound, as we move forward in time, it would seem the explanation of- why we are doing what we are doing- has been laid open right before us. Globalization has been at the forefront of politics for many years, actually for decades. It seems globalization is an inevitable entity that we really cannot stop. As economies grow, along with technology how do we keep them separate and not have them collide internationally with one another? Technology has made it easier and faster to fulfill international transactions—both through trade and financial connections. Global markets are offering greater opportunities for people to tap into. Globalization means we all can have access to capital flows, technology, cheaper imports, and larger export markets. But globalization has its downfalls and one is- not all will necessarily receive the benefits of increased efficiency. All countries must be prepared to embrace the policies needed, especially in the cases of poorer countries; they will need the support of the international community. In order to accomplish this in a timely and orderly manner, there has to be stability.

Overall most people are not global supporters nor are they supporters of a one-world government- most would prefer we stay sovereign, but is that a possibility any longer? It would seem the snowball has been steadily gaining speed and is running down the hill to become globalization. We do not appear to be an autonomous nation any longer. We have been sliding down this hill too long and the speed gained cannot be stopped.

If this is inevitable, wouldn’t we want to be at the top of the snowball? It would appear already that several nations are vying for the position. Who will finish out the outer crust? Will it be the United States along with its allies, will it be a section of socialist Europe and its followers, or will it be the terrorists? If we were moving globally, then would there be anything wrong with cheering for the United States and her allies to be at the helm of directing the paths of democracy? Quite possibly, it could prove to be our own undoing, but again ask yourself how can we stop something that is already in motion. Will we fight for king of the hill or will we be squished under the snow pack? Wouldn’t we all rather have the captain of the ship be a believer in equal rights for all men? On the other hand, would the likes of a dictator who loved to gas those who were his dissenters be more palatable to those who despise the United States and her beliefs in freedom?

These are questions we must ask ourselves and debate them with others. Does anyone have all the answers? We need to ponder what has been taking place globally in the world of politics since the days of FDR. Where have we been heading, what is our agenda, how will we reach our end goal, when will it all occur, and why did we choose this particular direction?

Strategically when you look at the Middle East with an eye of military strategy… geographically, you could not have picked a better spot. Being at the heart of the terrorist fields, Iraq was the place to begin clearing away those who still live under the love for slitting innocent throats, suicide bombings and oppressing people. If we are working towards a global community with its foundational ties to a form of a republic, then we would have to cause those who hate western beliefs to be drawn to their mecca that spawns those who breed that type of abhorrence for freedom.

When people like Wesley Clark imply that our fighting in Iraq has caused more terrorists to become terrorists then what he shows is that he truly doesn’t understand what has been occurring for many years in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq did not cause a person to one day wake up and say,” Hey I really hate American ideals, I am going to go to Iraq and become a terrorist.” Wesley and others that tout his beliefs forgot terrorists were terrorist filled with hatred towards anyone that thought outside of their little box long before we came to Iraq. When the influx of terrorists came into Iraq, what it showed was that Iraq was the stronghold, the seedbed, the connection spot for terrorist worldwide. Stability is imperative for our planets survival. Even if globalization is not a part of the political agenda, the world in order to continue its advancement economically, politically and technologically must put a complete halt to all terrorists’ threats and accomplishments.

You want an exit strategy? Until Iraq is stable… and able to stand on her own with support from her allies… we will not leave. That the president has made clear. Our allies and we are now, and forever permanent fixtures in Iraq and the Middle East region. Otherwise, in the future of globalization all we will have are dictators and terrorist killing men, women and children. If we are to survive- the end to terrorism and our exit strategy is clear… we will stay until the job is done, it is essential to our survival as human beings as we move forward into a future that cannot be stopped. Globalization is here, it is what this world has become… like it or not. Bin Laden knows this, he understands this is a stand between what our global future holds.

Whose side will we be on? A line has been drawn in the sand… we must choose today. The terrorists who murder and oppress? Or the advancement of freedom, freedom to choose.


President Bush has given us all the exit strategy, “Our strategy can be summed up this way, as the Iraqis stand up…we will stand down,” it is time to listen and support our military and our allies military 100%. We need secured freedom as we move into our future- globally all of us working together.

Sources:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm#II

http://www.foxnews.com

http://jackyan.com