In just a few short weeks we will decide the future of our country. We will decide which party will control the reigns of our foreign policy and party will act as a counterbalance to that very policy. Contrary to popular belief I am not a person who supports a single party system of governance. I believe quite strongly in the roles both parties are to play in our modern democratic process. I understand fully that the original intentions of our fore fathers was not to have to dominant parties playing off of each other, but is has evolved so to speak on its own to this point at this time.

 

Why I openly admit to being a conservative I see the current Democratic Party as having an important role to play. They are to be the mirror held up to our collective body politic in which we see the reflection of the virtue of our policy. As both Parties are currently diametrically opposed to each other at the moment I believe that the Democrats have lost a clear view of their role. Jiminy Cricket was a voice of reason to Pinocchio by reminding him of the virtue of his thinking and then redirecting his energy in a positive direction. Today’s Democratic Party seems to think that there is no virtue at all in the Republican thinking and that only a negative end can possibly come of their deeds. This is important to keep in mind as we move forward.

 

There are three major issues that will be shaped by this midterm election. In an odd twist of history repeating itself those three issues are countries. Like Italy, Germany and Japan during the midterm elections in 1938, we find ourselves in the midst of a similar decision to make on Iraq, Iran and North Korea. I realize that in 1938 we were not yet at war with any of these former foes, all of which are today allies to one degree or another, and undoubtedly that prospect lays open for these current foes in the near of maybe not so near future.

 

Iraq is the major current issue of the day. Above healthcare, women’s reproductive rights, the environment, education, the economy and even taxes, there looms in our future a decision to be made on Iraq. This decision will be pivotal when placed side by side with the future of our countries foreign policy for the future. A “stay the course” policy lead by President Bush will not appease the masses in the United States much longer. We expect our country to be victorious in our military pursuits and we expect this to be done in a quick and efficient way. Currently we are not moving forward at a pace that can conjure up images like those of returning hero’s from the European Theater near the end of the Second World War. Yet the body count of American soldiers can not, after three and a half years be held up to our population as a mirror of the sight of countless bodies returning from the Vietnam Theater during the Vietnam War either. So what should we do? This is one of the questions that will be answered soon after the midterm election. Either President Bush will still have the majority of both houses of congress to allow him to continue this war by “staying the course” or he will have a larger majority demanding victory in a hurry, or he will have a new balance of power where Democrats control at least one house of Congress and by doing so will undoubtedly draw President Bush into a defense of his decision making thus pulling some of his attention from the current problem.

 

 

The outcome of this otherwise minor battle for control will impact greatly our policy on Iran. Iran has a bigger military than Iraq with an estimated 345,000 to 420,000 troops under arms and as many as 350,000 reservists. This is only one of Iran’s military. They have two. The other military in Iran is the Basij. The Basij have approx. 90,000 specially trained troops under arms with up to 1,000.000 reservists. It is important to note that of the 345,000 to 420,000 regular troops most are 18 month conscripts with limited training. They have a good number of midrange missiles that can hit Israel, and they have a real tank force and air support system or several hundred planes but lack a navy to really speak of. They have recently admitted to be researching nuclear capability reportedly for electricity production but we all know that this can easily be moved from domestic energy production of military bomb building in relatively short order. They also have some strong ties with both Russia and China. The question becomes after looking at this information, should we engage them militarily? If we did would be engaging the other two real powers behind them? We are the United States of America, and we have a military that is light years ahead of theirs either way, but should we engage?

 

 

North Korea is a bird of an entirely different feather. Here we have a country that evolved out of military conflict with the U.S. and South Korea where over 700,000 troops, 2000 tanks and 8000 artillery systems are staged for the most part just 90 miles from South Korea. Over 4000 bunkers are loaded with these forces and they can deploy with minimal preparations according to General Thomas Schwartz former head of the U.N. and ROK-U.S. in South Korea. This is a country full of paranoid leaders looking for a fight. In recent weeks they have claimed to have exploded a nuclear bomb making them just the 8th country to admit to having done so (Israel is believed to also have the bomb but has never been open about it) and now having joined the ranks of the U.S., England, Russia, Pakistan, India, France and China they are a real military force that must be looked at as such. North Korea too has a long history of relations with Communist China. Again the question that begs to be answered is, should we engage?

 

Here’s the point about the election, the Republicans seem to be making inroads with six party talks. However, until North Korea really comes to the table and starts talking about dismantling its nuclear bomb making industries the U.S. is in no position to guessimate their real desire for peace.

 

The people we elect in November will have to deal with these very real issues. They will have to weigh out the options in front of them and make decisions based on sound logic and fact vs. emotion and the misguided belief that peace can be gained from such talks, and chose a leadership that they best believe will do no harm to the U.S. and its allies. These are not decisions I would want to have to make.

 

When you go and vote I urge you to think about these three problems we currently are faced with and think for yourself, “Which party is best suited to deal with nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq”. Bush has shown his intentions to talk to North Korea over a straight up military assault. He would have done the same I believe if Saddam would have ended this anytime.

 

But what would I know; I’m just and Average American.