Discussion of BadWinds: Ballad of An American
Heresy
Contrary to common perception, most defined
"heretics" in the history of western culture have been well-meaning and even
noble in their goals - not nefarious. They have also abstracted "an aspect of
truth" beyond proper and intended balance, producing "false doctrines".
Then, the fruit of this labor has typically produced very negative consequences.
There is an ideology & movement in our current culture
that shares these characteristics. They believe a strong (& even aggressive) America
is what's good for America and for the world. Since democracies don't cause wars
(generally speaking) and dictators do, let's replace dictatorial regimes with democratic
governments in the trouble spots of our world. This will further global security and world
& human prosperity, they argue.
The rush to war in Iraq was a manifestation of this belief
system, while the global war-on-terror was a more appropriate & symmetric response.
Arguments to equate the two are becoming less and less credible. Furthermore, there is
mounting evidence that this administration has (as do heretics) systematically
"exaggerated" the present bona fide & credible threats posed by certain
extremists. And anyone who disagrees with their positions is then accused of "not
being patriotic". Fact: Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations are not capable
of bringing down the United States and the free world, as was the former Soviet Union, for
example. Hence, why should current policy & expenditures proceed at a similar level of
intensity? Why has the U. S. spent c. $ 1.7 trillion to date on this effort? (Someone
somewhere is getting rich).
BuyBack is not alone is this view. Eric Haney, a retired
command sergeant major & a co -founder of Delta Force, and Exective Producer of TV's
THE UNIT, articulates a similar position (see www.erichaney.com). Clearly, Mr. Haney is a
credible source and needs to be heeded. There are many others - in fact, most Americans
now.
Unfortunately, this current American heresy has also
yielded sour fruit, with thousands of dead and wounded, and a host of other negative
consequences. And for what? The positive objectives achieved early could have been
sustained, yet at a fraction of the human and economic cost (via clandestine strategies
without overt ground troops, for example). The only sensible explanation as to why this
has been allowed to persist for over five years is that it serves the purposes of those in
power (calling the shots). It's about money tied to ideology. And those rich few are just
getting richer. In this manner this is reminiscent of the Vietnam scenario.
Another dimension of negative consequence is the erosion
of privacy of the US citizen by an ever-expanding ever-intrusive government. A
"perfect storm" of communication & IT advancement, further bureaucratic
maturation, and the local and inductive bottom-up nature of the new terrorist treats
requiring a similar response has come together to seemingly give the government
justification to proceed in an almost unbridled manner to protect us ( it's rightful &
appointed task). This would be reasonable if the threat against us was as real and as
harmful as we have been brought to believe. But this would not be reasonable if indeed we
were giving relative "mountain status" to a "molehill" (for the
benefit of a small few), especially if this activity seriously threatened the fundamental
ideals of our nation. These are:
- The preclusion of ever allowing a central government to
gain power whereby it could oppress it's citizenry (because if it could, it eventually
would).
- The preeminence (above government) of each (law abiding)
individual citizen in that society - as protected by freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, etc.
- The right to privacy.
- The balance of powers via checks & balances.
- Etc.
Clearly, this present administration has consistently
attempted to negate the checks and balances placed upon it's power, and has ignored even
more. Attempting to equate their crisis to the magnitude of that faced by President
Lincoln, they seek to justify their actions. In reality (after the hype of their media
campaigns), their crisis pales in comparison and there is no justification.
Furthermore, their unilateral actions are thereby
ultimately opposed to those foundational principles that we as a people have decreed as
"sacra sancta". Accordingly, they are American heretics.
These foundational principles are what make us us! We are
unique as a people, and as a nation, and in the history of nations because of these
principles. Thus, every thought, every discussion, every policy entertained by a citizen
of the United States must reflect and safeguard these principles. Any government can
figure out ways to protect it's citizens from enemies of the state; that's not difficult.
But to do so while concurrently safeguarding these beloved principles; that is the
challenge. And this is exactly what we must do.
The wise have long observed that the great nations of the
world have crumbled, not from without, but from within. Will this be our fate? Is this now
occurring?
Such is the burden of BadWinds.
Gratefully
K Berry
Writer - Producer,
BuyBack
January 2008
02/11/2008
