http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,106067,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Good topic. I've been thinking about this for the past couple days. However, I've been thinking more along the Constitutional and Libertarian lines regarding just what is the US governments responsibility to American citizens who, for whatever reason, are oversees when hostilities break out in that area. I mean, the Constitutional militia and US military were conceived with national defense in mind. That is, national defense consisting of protecting the nation at its physical boundaries, not American interests wherever across the globe they might reach.

I'm reading this morning criticisms of the US gov't's evacuation response being too slow and poorly organized and executed. Hey, this isn't Katrina, and I don't know that the US government has any responsibility, legal or ethical, to aid in the evacuation of American citizens who are in Lebanon. Further, does anyone have any idea why an estimated 25,000 Americans are in Lebanon when it is on the US State Dept. advisory list to not go there? Heck, I was in Italy in May, and if trouble began there, I'd figure it was my job to find a way out. Expecting the US gov't to come rescue me would be the last thing I would think of. Is this an example of what's wrong with Americans - a lack of self reliance?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hey Salmo,Im beting the vast majority of those people in Lebanon are not vacationers. With that in mind,IMO those who are there know exactly what the risks are, and further they know that the US Govt, will be there when things break loose. Using an Italian vacation is a difficult comparison for me. When I was there, I had enough difficulty managing my way around the country with the language barrier the train strikes etc. Picture yourself there on Vacation with your family under attack with no trains,no planes, no airport for that matter, little differnet situation.

One way,

I mentioned my Italy trip to make the direct comparison about whose responsibility a potential evacuation is. I wouldn't expect it to be the US gov't. I was on a bike tour; I coulda' pedaled that thing to the Alps if that was the direction of safety.

I did not mean to suggest that the estimated 25,000 Americans were vacationing in Lebanon. I am wondering why the h3ll they would be in a country that's on the US State Dept's "don't go there advisory list." And I wonder why anyone thinks it's the US gov't's job to evacuate them. Would you like to address that. You say they know the US gov't will be there for them when things break loose, but you didn't address why that should be, or if you think like Aunty and I do that it perhaps isn't the gov't's job.

This is a hard one Salmo. One of my mothers sisters married a lebanese man, so I have a bunch of cousins that are half lebanese. They still have lots of family that reside there and actually inherited a villa that they visit. They did not visit for years while Lebanon was in civil war, but lately have been visiting almost once a year. They felt that lately it has been very safe to visit, especially since they have family in the area to show them around and protect them. It probably is like some areas around here. During the eighties, there were parts of Tacoma that I would not venture into unless I had to. However, I also had freinds that lived in the heart of the worst area. They had little fear most of the time, as they knew what to expect. This latest event was not expected. Sure the people visiting know that it is a possibility, but they also probably feel they know the area they are in good enough to feel that they were safe at visiting.
I can't say that it the US must evacuate them, but to say they knew better is a stretch. In my opinion thats kind of like telling me not to venture downtown seattle at night, even though my Mom lives there, then refusing to help me when a gang fight breaks out down the street.
The real question, of course, is whether we should be helping people who choose to live there full time. Some of these "Americans" probably are full blooded lebanese who have moved back home, and have saved there US citizenship for moments like this. I have real problems with risking anyones life to help pull them out.
Should the Coast Guard help out people who go out in rough weather unprepared? Should we help poor people who get smoke and then get cancer?
I know that these anologies don't exactly work as we are talking about travel outside the US, but sometimes we need to go outside our required responsibilities to help people in need, rather than just say they were stupid to put themselves in that situation. I know that the times I need help the most are usually the times I brought the trouble on to myself. In someways I feel we pay taxes as a kind of full insurance, that we will be protected against our own faults, as well as those committed by others. Of course I guess every insurance has limitations, and the discussions is where those are. On that I am not fully sure.

Are we obliged to help? Perhaps not. Is it the right thing to do. Unequivocally, yes.

I highly doubt there were 25000 vacationers in Lebanon. Many I presume were there for educational and humanitarian purposes as well as diplomatic reasons.

I agree with Sard that we are not obligated but certainly it is the right thing to do and I personally would expect the government to try to help. I would feel differently if it was 10 citizens but 25000 is a hard number to foresake.

As the one and only superpower in the world I think it is embarrassing how slow our response was in comparison to other countries with foreign nationals in Lebanon. Maybe my expectations of our government is to high, at least to high after other recent events.

I believe the actions by Isreal to be to severe but have a hard time seeing how the US can assert itself on Isreal to do anything less. I mean Christ, Hezbollah IS a legitimate immediate threat to Isreal. The US set the standard that all you need to do is think/sell that there is an immediate threat and that qualifies for invasion.

Hezbollah was not showering Isreal with rockets EVERYDAY as you try to analogize. Have they been a major threat, yes absolutely. My point was not that Isreal does not have a right to defend itself. My point (poorly made in previous post) is that the US cannot bring anything to the table to promote peace in that region with the current foreign policy. We set the standard so low for invading another country that we have nothing to offer.

I never said 25000 citizens wanted to be evacuated. But 25000 is what I heard as the number of Americans in Lebanon.

I'm not whining about how long it takes. I was simply trying to state that wouldn't you expect the one and only super power to be able to mobilize quicker than other countries? I would! And I find it disappointing that we didn't react faster. There is a difference between whining and formulating an opinion based on observation.

As far as Americans taking responsibility for themselves well I think that is something we should all strive for. But I don't think as a country we turn our backs on Americans who find themselves in tough situations and right it off as they should have known better...

I can't argue with your points. I still disagree on many of them but at least you put forth an intelligent response.

I personally believe that not taking a stance to promote peace is the wrong approach but certainly we cannot take that approach with our own actions looming over our heads the way it does.

We have made three decisions regarding the middle east that cripple our ability to influence what takes place there.

1. Our blind support of Isreal for the past 60 years!

2. Our alignment with the Saud's!

3. The "war" in Iraq!

These three actions have severely hampered our ability to have significant influence in the region.

Peace is not possible with terrorists but by making better decisions in the middle east we might make people see there are other more peaceful methods of getting points across than terrorism!

Let us not excuse Isreal from using terror as a weapon either! Many of their actions can be construde as terroristic!

Then we can no longer call it a war on Terror and anyone who uses that term is being disengenuous.

I understand the position and would argue I fully understand that terrorists are not interested in peace any more then our President! It does not serve their agenda. I do believe that terrorists prey on the disenfranchised in thier populace and use them as tools in their system. How can we stop the supply of their tools? Ultimately that is how you defeat radical Islam, and I don't believe that should be achieved through extermination!

My point was that their tools are their followers. Radical islam preys on the poor and uneducated in the middle east. It is one of the largest providers of social/educational services in the middle east. Get em young and train them for one purpose and one purpose alone. Some of our own policies and acceptance of other countries policies (of which we do immense business with)has created the problem or at least further exacerbated the situation.

The problem with looking at terrorism like this is it is a long term effort, one that has never seriously been tried and isn't in the best interest of current business nor most administrations goals! Nor does it address the immediate threat of terrorism. Then again neither does the "war" in Iraq!

You talk about their leaders not about the dudes who strap it on and blow themselves up. They are the tools. The folks educated in the west tend not to be the ones dieing for allah they are the ones who seize upon the opportunity to grasp power. It is the ones who have no hope for a future except sleeping with virgins.

Europeans have turned their cheek as you say and the middle east has been embroiled in violence for decades but that only goes to further my feeling that trying another route may succeed. Violence begats violence and ignoring it gets you where Europe is.

Your statement about attacking the west without a threat from us is just as naive as any view I have shared. Our business decisions and foreign policy has had tremendous affect on their culture and region which I would envision they see as a threat Americans would feel the same if Chinese foreign policy and business practices altered our culture. Especially if you look into the country where the majority of terrorists on 9/11 came from. The oppressive nature of the Saud's leads to radical fundamentalism. A few benefitting at the expense of others!

If you knew any muslims you would know that THEY do not "value death". They have armed radical sects/elements to their religion. The 700 club with guns! THEY at least the THEY I think you are referring to are a minority, the majority are good people!

How do we get the majority to speak? Are they not speaking or are we not listening or even looking to listen?

Wailuku,

Moderate Muslims in the ME don't dare speak out, or they will be killed, or at least threatened, by the radicals.

Conservatives continue to bring up the valid point that most of the moderate Muslims in Europe and North America aren't condemning the violence as loudly, continuously, and strongly as they might if they really aren't on the terrorists' side.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I would agree with them!

Most of our media doesn't push them for a response either. I'd be curious to hear what they had to say. On the other hand silence can speak volumes.

I agree with Aunty M completely when it comes to dealing with the middle east. There is a reason that Arafat had an estimated worth in the hundreds of Millions while the people he supposedly was helping lived in squallor. Unless we destroy the entire lesership and religious infrastructure, we will never be able to be in a position to even influence these people.

The media was interviewing an Iraqi citizen that summed up the whole situation. He said that he didn't like Hezabolah, but since they were fighting their enemy, he felt that it was time for the rest of them to help. A clear distinction was made of Moslems,( his side) and Israel ( his enemy). The truth is, we probably can interchange the west (the christians) with Israel. This is a religous world war, even if you don't want to admit it.

You want to do something constructive in the Middle East. Take out the Mullahs. They are the teachers of hate. Their Madrassahs are the forums for instilling the 'hate the infidel' strain of insanity in their children. Take em out wherever they are. On a planetary basis.
Holy men. What insanity.