The Importance of Rationality

Among the incessant plaudits (final count: 62), and the unexplainable squirminess of Vice President Dick Cheney in the background, President George W. Bush delivered his sixth State of the Union Address on Tuesday night. In what analysts deemed a "historical" address, President Bush stood before Nancy Pelosi, the first woman ever designated Speaker of the House, and discussed the international and domestic issues concerning our nation.

Labeling myself as a die-hard conservative would be completely inaccurate. At the same time, I do not claim to be a liberal. Whatever the term one desires to use for my specific political standpoint: (insert here). What I do allege myself to be is an analytical rationalist, for lack of a better term, and I attempt to weigh the positives and negatives of certain political methodologies. Calling for a military personnel increase of 21,500 within the next few months, the President asserted Tuesday that more forces in Iraq will "secure it from sectarian violence" and will aid in the stabilization and continuity of a democratically-reformed government. Through the consultative knowledge imparted from military leaders, Bush calls this a step in the right direction to alleviating the atrocities caused by Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of extremists.

There definitely emerges some rationality in this approach. More personnel, in terms of stabilizing a country's government, is certainly more rational than less, especially given the current situation in Baghdad and everything that has transpired over the past months. Were the United States to pull troops out of Iraq at this given moment, the country would erupt in civil war, and considering the influence of organizations such as al-Sadr's, I have full confidence that this would become a reality. If the subsequent turmoil from the decrease in troops would occur, the Middle East would become that much more infuriated.

The Iraq Study Group, along with numerous Democrats, such as junior senator from Illinois and potential presidential candidate Barack Obama and Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson, wholeheartedly disagree with Bush's tactics. Speaking for the majority, both claim that the President is neglecting the Iraq Study Group and that an increase in troops would only heighten the already established chaos inside Baghdad. One important thing to remember is that with its bipartisanship, the Iraq Study Group should not be labeled as a purely Democratic committee. Moderates and Republicans also comprise the group and have issued statements disapproving of the President's motives for a new direction.

Bush's approach recognizes the reality that the situation in Iraq is a problem. It has been a problem since March 20, 2003, when the war officially began. Whether this problem transpired as a result of misguidance or the demand for more oil, the evidence of its complexity and hardship is right in front of us. As far as I'm concerned, the criticism from the Iraq Study Group seems to be unwarranted because of one question: what should President Bush and his administrators be listening to and what are the possible ramifications? The United States Congress established this ad hoc organization to think of possible solutions. I have not heard of any yet and cannot rationalize with their perceptions, because there are none.

Senator Obama's plan of coordinated intelligence in wiping out the financial networks of al Qaeda proves to be another rational line of attack. Although he opposes the augmentation of troops, he has ideas, and those ideas have credibility. The question to ask now is not which idea is better, but rather how can we synchronize these methodologies and create even better objectives. The Iraq Study Group started out as a rational concept but still appears to be in the process of deliberation. Disapproval ratings will always be an issue for the government, but they can eliminate the majority of it with thoughtful and collective analysis. And just to let everyone know, suggestions are not solely limited to Congress and the executive. If you seek peace through rationality, step forward and stop criticizing what you do not strive to understand.