THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

(sigh) As promised the blog reader(s) who commented on my Cindy Sheehan post (See 10/5/2005's The Cindy Sheehan Mess and Comment section), I'm going to opine on why U. S. success in the Middle East is important to the needs of the American people.
Up front let me state the obvious: there are economic, political and social problems abounding in the Middle East, and I certainly have no greater knowledge in these areas than any of you. I CAN, however, THINK and REASON with the best of you, so what you'll get here in this post is the result of those thought processes, flawed though they may be.
It troubles me truly that we have become a nation of whiners...and it's from both Republicans and Democrats. It matters not what any sitting administration proposes...the opposing party will hand-wring and gripe regardless of the merits of the issue. That's one of the reasons most people are so turned off by politics. We absolutely refuse to give credence to the opposition whether we tacitly agree or not.
Now this hand-wringing has been never so apparent as it is over the war in Iraq, but this particular post is not about defending the administration's decision to take on Saddam. It IS, however, about the importance of our succeeding there, as well as in the GLOBAL, not just Middle Eastern, take-down of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezzbolah, et al. John McCain made an interesting statement several years ago about how Iraq had to be important to us because it is important to our enemies. At its most basic, we MUST succeed there because the consequences are so dire to the overall world view of the United States. While we do not need the approbation of the rest of the world, it is most certainly in our interests to own it.
And unfortunately, whether we like it or not, we absolutely must secure our oil interests in the Persian Gulf region and ensure that they don't fall under the control of the likes of say, Iran, or a pre-war Iraq. The leverage that those countries would have over all of the world's oil importers would be devastating to our economy and our ability to conduct business without interruption. Sad to say, oil rules. We cannot allow a scenario of that sort to wreak havoc on inflation rates and our overall economic growth and survival. Additionally, can you imagine how our national security would be jeopardized if states like Iran, pre-war Iraq, Syria, etc., controlled the oil wealth in the Persian Gulf? That wealth would allow their access to god-knows-what nuclear and other catastrophic weaponry, all of which would certainly be aimed at us. More importantly, any success the U. S. achieves in helping to stabilize the Middle East and in demolishing the terrorist groups trickles down to all phases of our economy by way of reduced oil prices, reduced defense spending, improved import/export ratios of durable goods, improved trade relations with the rest of the world...all of which translates to a better quality of life for the poor, the needy, the elderly, the rich, the famous in America. An exhaling over national security also translates to reduced defense spending which, in turn, allows for more tax dollars to be freed up for those programs of such concern to the blog commenter: education, housing, medical care for the poor and needy. And this is just the economic piece of it -- there are intangibles as well, not the least of which is knowledge that we would be safer in the world. Therefore, the bottom line answer to the question of how success in the Middle East is important to the needs of the American people is that ANY success our country has in that part of the world will be felt by every single one of us at some level economically as well as in our personal security.
And lastly, I didn't want to get into this, and there really is no need to comment about this particular statement I'm going to make because I shall address the issue down the line in another opinion post and you may state your concerns at that time. But in regard to a comment made by the blog reader in the Sheehan article concerning the fact that not everyone is well-to-do, I need to ask if the "little guy" isn't biting the hand that feeds him. All the social programs advocated by the Dems and Republicans alike have to be paid for by someone. We need to be sure that those more affluent have the incentive to continue to strive for financial success in order for their tax dollars to fill the coffers that support these programs.
Republican philosophy is simple in and of itself, and that is to allow individuals to govern and take care of themselves if they can; and if they cannot due to a true and defined need, federal help will be available. The GOP wants less federal government (states' rights), fewer handouts (get a job), more accountability for those requesting assistance (welfare reform, which Clinton advocated as well). They most certainly advocate helping those in real need, but they also advocate that the American people return to a more substantial work ethic rather than the lazy, unmotivated, gimme-types we have become.
Kevin Hasson has an excellent book, The Right to Be Wrong, which is primarily about religious diversity; but the book's appellation is applicable to any issue. Blog commenter, I believe you are wrong. You believe I am wrong. Who's right?