Bum's Bluff

The Double Negative

Who would have thought that our city could become polarized over a national/international political issue? School Referendums - sure. Mandatory sidewalks - you bet! The real cost of a mill rate - damn straight!! But the current war in Iraq?

First we have the Soglin-esque referendum from CUUE (Citizens United of Union/Evansville) calling for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves. It was predictably met with accusations of being unpatriotic and treasonous - funny, isn't that what Thomas Jefferson was called by his Torie neighbors?

Then comes Pastor Gay with his referendum calling for support of the President's leadership and for troops to not quit this fight until unquestioned victory is clearly won. While it smacks strongly of a Rush Limbaugh feel, I have to credit Pastor Gay and Tony Ryerson for acknowledging the legitimacy of our democratic system known as the referendum rather than taking the easy route of simply attacking CUUE.

Evansville now has to give conscious thought about the issue. They have to either check a yes or no box on their ballot or counsciously choose not to decide (this assumes the person votes of course!). That is democratic tradition at its finest and I wholly applaud the efforts on both sides of the issue for bringing this to the ballot.

For myself - I get to cast two "No" votes. Although many will tout this election as a choice between two points of view, the reality is that each referendum must stand on its on merits, not as an alternative to the other. Both fail on their merits.

The CUUE referendum calls for immediate withdrawal and specifies which portion of the military should be withdrawn first. As noble as that may sound, I think it very presumptious of the electorate to pretend that they somehow know that now is the strategic military/political opportunity to withdraw. The argument from conservatives that this would create a 'power vacuum" is unfortunately very correct. One need only look at the bloody history of the British withdrawal from India in the 1940s, the French withdrawal from Vietnam in the 1960s, and the Balkan situation in the 1980s and 90s to see the vacuum that is created when a large occupying force leaves abrubtly from an unstable region without a stable sustainable local regime in its place. Iraq would likely become a place of anarchy and a battleground between Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish minorities.

The Gay/Ryerson referendum calls for two things that I can not vote in favor of:
1) the support of the President's leadership. I can support the President's right and privilage to lead - that is our government. But the wording implies that I tacitly support the current results of that leadership, which I do not. I am guessing that Gay and Ryserson didn't support Clinton's leadership either.

2)that the troops not quit this fight until unquestioned victory is won. Guess what? Any claimed victory in this war will always be questioned, therefore this referendum would state that we don't want the troops to be withdrawn, ever. Ick.

What would I propose? I support the orderly and planned withdrawal of troops using a timeline that is reasonable and prudent (whatever that means!). I also support the men and women who have sacrificed themselves to the cause known as the United States of America.

So for any readers who are wondering which side to support on this issue, I propose that there is a third side: None of the Above!

posted by Walton @ 2:53 PM