Filibuster, Schmilibuster
Or War, Snore
What do a senate filibuster and our current war in Iraq have in common? A lot more than one might think. First, let’s look at the two.
A senate filibuster is when some one stands on the floor to deliver continuous speeches in order to obstruct the legislative process. The filibuster can only be broken by a 3/5 vote for cloture (60 votes). These days, there is senate rule 22, which allows for a ‘procedural filibuster.’ This is a virtual filibuster, where the opposition merely threatens to filibuster the legislation, without actually having to sit there and make the extended speeches.
War. We all know what this is. It is bad, it is horrible, it is destructive, a means to bring your enemy to his knees in surrender. Right?
Here is where the similarity comes in. Our war in Iraq has a kind of “Rule 22”, which is crippling our military and has turned the Americans against the War on Terror. The policy of this administration has been a pulled-punches war. Iraq has been managed in such a way to minimize structural and collateral damage. This was a pretty decent idea when the war started in 2003. We had little to no problem with the citizens of Iraq when this started, so precision strikes and surgical attacks were a good idea. The problem is this war has not evolved into what it needs to be: nasty, brutal, swift, and severe. And this is NOT the fault of any one in uniform, but the fault of the politicians on these shores. This war has, in fact, turned into Rule 22. Our politicians are threatening to do something, while doing nothing. This war is the exact opposite of what a war needs to be. With insurgents hiding wherever they please in Iraq, the time has come to broaden the war. I don’t mean more soldiers in the streets, or more marines checking house to house for bad guys. I mean, pull those forces back, and start pounding the areas. HARD. Will there be civilian casualties? Yes. Will the infrastructure be destroyed? Probably.
War is meant to be so terrible that we don’t want to do it regularly. The problem is these terrorists have dragged us into their style of war, face to face, rather than the style of war that we have developed. Our technology is being used to a limited extent. What is killing our troops, a technologically advanced enemy? Hell no. It is a ragtag enemy who puts improvised bombs under a pile of garbage on the side of the road.
If rule 22 was revoked, and senators were REQUIRED to actually filibuster, not merely threaten, I think we would see a more functional senate. The same goes for the war. If the war would turn brutal and terrible, we would see a faster end to it. War and the senate are both a battle of wills; whoever has the strongest will at the end of the day will be victorious. Where is the will to truly go to war?
The Hungarians “tell Soze they want his territory- all his business. Soze looks over the face of his family. They he showed these men of will what will really was.” (Shoots 2 of the 3 gangsters, and then shoots his own wife and three children). Letting the last Hungarian go, “He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents’ friends. He burns down the houses they live and the stores they work in, he kills people who owe them money.” – Verbal Kint, from “The Usual Suspects”
Is this the brutality needed? Who knows, but something else needs to be tried.
What do a senate filibuster and our current war in Iraq have in common? A lot more than one might think. First, let’s look at the two.
A senate filibuster is when some one stands on the floor to deliver continuous speeches in order to obstruct the legislative process. The filibuster can only be broken by a 3/5 vote for cloture (60 votes). These days, there is senate rule 22, which allows for a ‘procedural filibuster.’ This is a virtual filibuster, where the opposition merely threatens to filibuster the legislation, without actually having to sit there and make the extended speeches.
War. We all know what this is. It is bad, it is horrible, it is destructive, a means to bring your enemy to his knees in surrender. Right?
Here is where the similarity comes in. Our war in Iraq has a kind of “Rule 22”, which is crippling our military and has turned the Americans against the War on Terror. The policy of this administration has been a pulled-punches war. Iraq has been managed in such a way to minimize structural and collateral damage. This was a pretty decent idea when the war started in 2003. We had little to no problem with the citizens of Iraq when this started, so precision strikes and surgical attacks were a good idea. The problem is this war has not evolved into what it needs to be: nasty, brutal, swift, and severe. And this is NOT the fault of any one in uniform, but the fault of the politicians on these shores. This war has, in fact, turned into Rule 22. Our politicians are threatening to do something, while doing nothing. This war is the exact opposite of what a war needs to be. With insurgents hiding wherever they please in Iraq, the time has come to broaden the war. I don’t mean more soldiers in the streets, or more marines checking house to house for bad guys. I mean, pull those forces back, and start pounding the areas. HARD. Will there be civilian casualties? Yes. Will the infrastructure be destroyed? Probably.
War is meant to be so terrible that we don’t want to do it regularly. The problem is these terrorists have dragged us into their style of war, face to face, rather than the style of war that we have developed. Our technology is being used to a limited extent. What is killing our troops, a technologically advanced enemy? Hell no. It is a ragtag enemy who puts improvised bombs under a pile of garbage on the side of the road.
If rule 22 was revoked, and senators were REQUIRED to actually filibuster, not merely threaten, I think we would see a more functional senate. The same goes for the war. If the war would turn brutal and terrible, we would see a faster end to it. War and the senate are both a battle of wills; whoever has the strongest will at the end of the day will be victorious. Where is the will to truly go to war?
The Hungarians “tell Soze they want his territory- all his business. Soze looks over the face of his family. They he showed these men of will what will really was.” (Shoots 2 of the 3 gangsters, and then shoots his own wife and three children). Letting the last Hungarian go, “He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents’ friends. He burns down the houses they live and the stores they work in, he kills people who owe them money.” – Verbal Kint, from “The Usual Suspects”
Is this the brutality needed? Who knows, but something else needs to be tried.
posted by AmeRickan | 6/22/2007 10:12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home