The Presidents
Greatest Fear
By Doug Soderstrom
22 August, 2005
Countercurrents.org
It
has been said that Love hath no fear which I believe means
that if one is committed to finding the truth, that one wants to understand,
wants to know the truth more than anything else in the world, then through
such conviction one will find the courage, the fearlessness, to pursue
what must be done.
Next to the presidents
Crawford, Texas vacation compound Cindy Sheehan has indicated that she
will not leave until President Bush takes the time to meet with her
concerning a belief that he is leading our country astray. Two standing
eye to eye, neither willing to budge an inch. Titans each. One, in the
name of democracy and freedom, defending his right as the president
to move a nation toward empire, even to dominate the world, and, if
necessary, by military means. The other a mere citizen, defending her
right (even here responsibility) to question a president whom she believes
is destroying a once great nation. No doubt two very different worldviews,
a microcosm
a tiny mirror, reflecting a nation once again in a
desperate struggle to find itself.
Four decades ago
our nation was divided, torn from within. On the one side: the so-called
hippies (most of them college students with long hair), blacks (nearly
all of them poor), and white-skinned liberals most of them below the
age of 40, except for a few old men (George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy,
and Hubert Humphrey) unfortunately on their way out; the other, a more
respectable group, folks with good manners (but not necessarily
good morals), most of them old (some older than the hills), most all
republicans and likely rich (or at least well-to-do), and not a single
homosexual or black (in those days, you see, these folks apparently
had a good deal of sense!). And, of course, the backdrop for all that
was going on in those days was that of the Viet Nam War. Sure there
were other issues all of them no doubt important, but in one way or
another always under the all-inclusive umbrella of the Vietnam War;
our darker-colored brothers were well on their way to achieving a modicum
of civil rights, women in the beginning stages of comprehending their
long-held status of inferiority in relation to men, environmentalists
had just begun to understand just how terribly the world had been ransacked
by pollution. Religion in America was being toward asunder by those
who believed in a merciful God of love and understanding versus those
who sided with a Caucasian God of war-like vengeance and intolerance.
Perhaps what we
are seeing now is nothing more than an extension of the 1960s,
a continued attempt to resolve problems that have been put on
hold for the past forty years. Except this time around the world
has become much more complex and difficult to understand. The same old
problems, but framed in a world with a far different set of rules. This
time there are many more players (not simply the United States versus
Russia) with vastly different ways of looking at the world; one motivated
by expedience (a desire to win, yet subdued by an unwillingness to sustain
a significant loss of life, the other inspired by that of religious
conviction (a desire to win, no matter what the cost).
Herein lies the
problem. In their drive to rule the world, the bush administration,
with a military policy of preemption, a kind of God-given
right to attack anyone who seems to threaten their right of domination,
is leading our nation into a place it should not go, especially if it
chooses to attack Iran which it looks like it is eventually going to
do. Because such a move would likely lead to an intensification of hate
for America, an Iranian oil embargo, an exacerbation of our countrys
mounting debt, an increased influx of terrorists into Iraq, a greater
likelihood of civil war, conflict with Russia and China (nascently merging
military partners with large investments in Iran), and a spread of the
war throughout the Middle East, an attack upon Iran has within it the
potential to decimate our country. All of this compounded by an ever
increasing realization that the president has lied to the nation in
regards to why we entered the war in Iraq along with a recognition that
those who are profiting most from the war are his good buddies,
many who seem to control the purse strings of the petroleum and weapons
industry.
In his rush to war,
it seems that the president has forgotten a rather important point.
He has neglected to ask what might happen if the people of our
nation lose faith in him as our president, if they
become convinced that he has not been honest with them, if they come
to the conclusion that he has essentially lied to them, that he is,
in fact, a liar, and all of it in order to pave the way toward a war
of his own choice.
Correspondingly,
a recent worldwide poll has indicated that a vast majority of countries
around the world have more respect for China than they do for the United
States. But why? Perhaps the reason is that the world is beginning to
realize that under the Bush administration the United States has become
a rogue nation, a terrorist, one that is no doubt out of control, and,
due to its arrogance, seems on the verge of bringing chaos, in the form
of war, to the rest of the world. Consequently, in his march to war,
there is little likelihood that our president will be able to count
on the support of countries around the world, little likelihood that
they will lend live bodies in which to fight his wars.
However, even at
home, things seem no better. Because of the ever increasing slaughter
associated with decreasing morale amongst our troops, reenlistment rates
have plummeted to an all time low, while military recruiters at home
are finding it very difficult to meet their quotas due to insipid attempts
to convince young people that they should sign up to fight in a war
that makes no sense, one in which they would rather not die. So, even
though the president is unwilling to admit it, he must be in a virtual
quandary trying to figure out what to do; where in the hell he is going
to find enough soldiers to do his bidding in this, much less, the next
war. Well, believe me, the president, like it or not, knows exactly
what he is going to have to do. He understands that there is but one
avenue left to find enough soldiers (enough live bodies) to fight his
wars of planned aggression: that of forced military conscription, better
known as the draft! But, there is no way he will ever tell
the American people such a thing, because if he does he knows that there
will be hell to pay. Not only will republicans loose many seats in congress,
but even worse, shit will literally hit the fan and chaos will reign
down like fire coming to visit the streets and corners of every city,
shantytown, and village across our nation!
Given the Bush-lies
that got us into the war, the fact of a military conflict that has gone
all together wrong, the deaths of so many Americans, a communal sense
of guilt associated with the killing of perhaps as many as half a million
Iraqis, along with a haunting fear that such could lead to an all out
war, perhaps even the advent of World War III, the American people have
begun to turn their backs upon the Bush administration. Recent polls
have shown that a majority of Americans are beginning to say that it
was a mistake to go to war in the first place, that the Bush administration
has not been honest with them, and that they want our troops to come
home.
Without a doubt,
the president is in a tremendous bind. He can hardly renege on his vow
to destroy those who choose not to play according to his rules, as in
the stern warning recently given to Irans newly installed president,
Mahmoud Ahmandinejad; Halt your program of uranium enrichment
or we will nuke (as in bunker busters) the hell out of you!
On the other hand, he can hardly afford to expand the war, since the
only way to find troops is through forced military conscription, which
might well lead to mutiny. Its almost as if the president has
no place to turn. Something like a scared rabbit cooking on a spit!
No matter which way the guy turns he is going to get burned! Perhaps
his brother Jeb, in helping him to win the 2000 election,
was no favor at all. Isnt it odd how such sweet grapes in the
short run can turn out to be such terribly sour lemons in the long run.
Forty years ago,
at the height of the division that separated folks who supported the
Viet Nam War versus those who did not, no more than 25% of the country
was against the war. And most of these were young people going to college,
those with nothing to loose. But in the world of Iraq II, things have
changed rather dramatically! Now that we have become so horribly entangled
in a war with virtually no support from anyone around the world, we
find ourselves in an absolute mess. This time the polls show that not
only does the rest of the world not support our involvement in Iraq,
but, at present, most of our own people have become disillusioned by
the lies of a president who forced us into war.
As a college teacher,
one who grew up in, lived through, and perhaps even survived, the 1960s,
one who has been teaching young people of draft age for the past forty
years, I see a slumbering, rather ideologically-challenged group of
folks (not altogether different from their counterparts in the 1950s
who went on to spark a revolution) with little reason to live other
than a need to make as much money as possible (or at least enough to
make a rather decent living). No doubt, a sort of sleeping giant ready
to move, but only if given a reason, a raison dêre, a cause,
something for which to live their lives. But dont worry because
such a cause may be just around the corner in the form of forced military
conscription (the draft), something with the potential to transform
this rather sleepy congregation of young people into an adversary worthy
of respect. Believe me, there is nothing that will motivate one to move
more than a gut-wrenching fear of death! Now, I am not saying that our
youth are any more afraid of dying, any less likely to give their lives
for their country, than any of the generations that have preceded them.
However, what I am saying is that no one in his right mind is likely
to put his life on the line for a war in which fewer and fewer folks
are choosing to support.
Now, back in the
time of the Viet Nam War, it was merely the kids who opposed the war,
but this time around things have changed. In the world of Iraq II it
is the parents, a group of folks who do not want to see their children
brought home in coffins, who will be just as likely to oppose the war.
So combining these factors; a rather sluggish group of young people
primed and ready for a cause, loving parents unwilling to send their
children into a war that makes no sense at all, and a commander in chief
forcing our children to make the gut-grinding decision to either fight
in a war they do not support, spend five long years in prison, or devote
the rest of their lives to hiding out somewhere in the shadows of America,
if not able to reach the Mexican border before being captured and imprisoned
by the feds, and youve got all the ingredients necessary to create
an explosion, a revolution in the making, a mutinous moment in time
that will make the Viet Nam era protests look like mere childs
play!
Can you imagine
a commander in chief having committed his country to war, but with no
one to command? You see a military leaders worst fear is not that
he will lose the war, but rather that, because he has lost the trust
of his own men, no one is willing to follow. The flip side is the rather
clever 1960s quip, Wouldnt it be wonderful if the
world gave a war and no one came! Well such a reality may come
to pass in our own country, and believe me it will not be pretty, because
if such occurs, it will expose, for all the world to see, a country
horribly divided from within by those willing to go to war and kill
for their commander in chief versus those who have lost faith in their
leader, those who no longer view war as an acceptable means to peace.
Which brings us
back to the president of our country, George Walker Bush, and Cindy
Sheehan, the mother of a son (Casey) killed in Iraq, having camped along
side a desolate road somewhere in central Texas. And of the two, who
is it that loves the truth? Who is it that wants to know the truth more
than anything else in the world? Who is it that has nothing to hide?
Who is it that has been willing to suffer indignity? Who is it that
has the conviction, the fearless courage, to do what must be done? Who
is it that we can trust and are willing to follow? Thats the dilemma.
Thats what has been vexing the soul of our nation
trying
to figure out whom to bet our future on: The man with a big stick or
a grieving mother with a big heart?
Thats the
question isnt it!
Doug Soderstrom,
Ph. D.
Psychologist
Wharton, Texas
August 21, 2005
Email: [email protected]