I got a very nice flame war to start with my last post on Iraq, so I think this calls for another! (Sue and I measure success of a post by how many comments we get. So if you are reading our posts and not commenting, then know that you are directly contributing to making us feel like losers).
From the comments, it's obvious that I need to clarify something here before continuing my discussion. At least for me, when I say "we", as in "we need to stay in Iraq", I mean we as a country, or as in the soldiers that are executing public policy as set forth by my democratically elected representatives. I'm not saying we should all move to Iraq and build Wal-Marts and turn all of Saddam's old palaces into really great band camps (with all the ensuing sex-ed and braces and that chick that played Willow on Buffy being naug...er...you get the idea).
Not speaking for anyone else, but I would be willing to tell any war-widow or war-mother out there that their husbands/sons were fighting and dying for a greater good. Invading Iraq was possibly a mistake. Let's not make it worse by running away from the mistake we made in invading. To imply that we cannot win because everyone in Iraq is a religious/cultural nut job is like saying every Republican is a religious/cultural nut job. It's just not true. I really believe that the majority of people just want to make a living and go about their lives and make life easier for their children, just like everyone in this country. Call me crazy, but I still believe most folks are rational. Rational people will look at the situtation and agree that if the current Iraqi government can provide security, then they will support it. If not, then they will support whom ever can. Democracy is great, but security is always a higher concern for man. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs for example places "safety" as the highest consideration of man after physiological needs (food, drink, air).
See, this is why history is important. Iraq is unfolding exactly like nearly every insurrection. The rebels take the tried and true strategy of hiding in the population, lashing out at high profile targets, and then trying to melt back into the population. Their goals are to try to:
(1) force the occupation to take shots at civilians in hopes of turning public support to their cause
(2) create a general feeling of "unsafety" ( woo hoo, my very own word! ) by damaging high profile targets in hopes of convincing people that the occupation cannot establish safety.
If they can achieve either goal, then the rebellion has a shot at getting the population on their side, and hence winning both politically and militarily. (1) has not occurred because the US army has show remarkable restraint with this war. It appears the US military actually took some lessons from Vietnam:
- kill zones = bad
- winning without local support is impossible
- In an insurrection, the military can only buy you time for a political solution
- building schools and roads is far more effective than dropping yet another 500 lbs bomb
(2) has occurred to an extent, but because the military has shown restraint and has done a relatively good job with their own security (not withstanding the 2000+ dead soldiers), the insurgents have resorted to more and more attacks against civilians. This is both good and bad for them. While it does further the goal of making people feel unsafe, it has the negative effect that people generally will not support those who are killing their neighbor.
I guess what all this talk boils down to is that when anyone says we should just withdrawal immediately from Iraq, what they are really saying is that the war on the ground is now unwinnable. I'm not convinced that Iraq is unwinnable. But it is a war that requires patience and persistence. If the US can prevent the insurgents from executing any really large scale attacks and keep the political process moving, I still think Iraq is winnable.
Posts
6 comments:
I agree that pulling out of Iraq now is a bad idea. Whether the reason we went in was right or wrong, we did go in an we have to finish what we started. We can't just leave and hope for the best.
while(1)
{
americanDeathCount++;
}
Is there any goal R that you would be willing to sacrifice military lives for? The reality is that there are people in the world who believe that violence is a path to any objective. There have to exist others willing to stand up and defend those who cannot otherwise defend themselves.
I'm perfectly ok with US soldiers being the instrument for that protection. In terms of the greater good (and I'm talking about the entire world here, not just the US), if the deaths of 2000 soliders can stem the tide of death that was Iraq before or will be the tide of death that a civil war would bring, then I think that is a noble and just sacrifice.
"Is there any goal R that you would be willing to sacrifice military lives for?"
Sure. Iraq was never one of them.
I understand you believe that "whatever the reasons, false or misconstrued, we're there now, blah, blah, blah."
Can we go back in time? No. Do we wish we never invaded? Sure. But we can't go back in time and all the wishful thinking in the world can't undo what we've done.
But...
This isn't like accidentally hitting your neighbor's parked car and offering to fix it.
Our "fixing the shit we fucked up" involves Americans continuing to die.
"Oops, sorry about that, here, kill more Americans."
How about no. How about if we say, "Oops, sorry about that. Here's some cash and some weapons. Good luck!"
But everthing that I base my opinions on is because I believe that to the core this conflict is between Islamic society vs. Western culture. I just do not believe that staying there for twenty years so that the Iraqis can get nice and cozy will do ANYTHING to make Muslims love us.
The Saudis still hate us for supporting a regime that has a horrific record of human rights abuses. But we still buy their oil. We still throw cash at them. Hmm, and guess how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi? We still ignore their infractions. Just what the fuck does Iraq have to do with it?
Pakistan is still a haven for terrorists, despite what they may say. Despite their facade at helping us find Osama bin Laden. Just what the fuck does Iraq have to do with THAT? Oh, and it doesn't help either that we say the Pakistanis can't have nukes, but, oh, India is fine. Let's keep playing countries against each other.
You think staying in Iraq is going to make the world safer? You think staying in Iraq is going to delete the hatred Islamofascist terrorists have for us?
How about Palestine? How about our obvious favoritism for the Jews? We keep playing shit against each other while we're saying, "Oh, but look at us! We're here in Iraq fixing a shithole we helped create!"
Oh, and try to ignore the wonderful job we did in Afghanistan.
You want to keep donating blood and treasure trying to fix other countries when our own country is in a state of shit itself? Fine.
You think Iraq makes a difference?
Forgive me, but wake the fuck up.
R said: But everthing that I base my opinions on is because I believe that to the core this conflict is between Islamic society vs. Western culture
Well, we have to agree to disagree in this case. This point was the exact point I was arguing against. I'm disagreeing with your premise that every Muslum intristinicly hates every Christian. Some people are going to hate us regardless of what we do. So our actions should be based on what WE think is the right thing to do. I think that leaving Iraq to fall towards a civil war isn't right, and I am willing to tell my representatives that put forth American resources (including soldiers if needed) to make it right. Just like I was willing when Clinton was bringing troops to bear in Kosovo and Somolia and just like I was willing when George Bush Sr. was restoring protection to Kuwait.
"I think that leaving Iraq to fall towards a civil war isn't right, and I am willing to tell my representatives that put forth American resources (including soldiers if needed) to make it right."
What you're talking about is sending American men and women to die over a "mistake" that American leaders made.
Soldiers will be paying the ultimate sacrifice for decisions made by other people who sit at large mahogany desks on expensive leather chairs.
No, Eric, those who should be making this mistake right are the ones who will never be held accountable.
And THAT is morally WRONG.
Post a Comment