Support for the war in Iraq seems to be dwindling by the week as the general public loses faith in the administration and it’s reasoning for going to war in the first place. Forgetting the most vocal minorities at either side of the political battle, average citizens are beginning to seriously question why we are fighting in Iraq, what we are supposed to be achieving, and how we are getting the job done. Answers to these questions are important, but what we are being told does not match up to what we see and hear. As the death toll rises abroad, our economy and freedoms here at home are taking damage too. For many now, the questions of why and what are less important than the question of when we will bring the troops home. This is a question to which the American people can get no satisfactory answer. The administration is locked into their “We’ll stay until the job is finished!” mantra. The Democrat’s solution is to “Bring everyone home now!” Neither solution reflects the realities in place, and we are, in effect, left with no solution at all as the madness continues. To answer the latter question, we must first be honest about the former questions, because the solution to ending the war depends a great deal on accepting the realities of the situation as they exist now.
To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.
If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see.
If there were ever any noble purpose attached to this war, it would be that we went to remove a sadistic dictator from power in the hopes of freeing a pleading people and giving them a chance at self-determination. Even if our objectives for starting this war were far darker than this, even if our government lied and stole from us to get and fund their war, the only acceptable way to end the conflict is to give the people of Iraq a chance to live safely amongst themselves and their neighbors, with a government of their making, and a relationship with other nations, including America, that is mutually beneficial to the people of those countries and not just their leadership.
We need our government to stand up and tell the people of Iraq, “ We were wrong to bring the war to your doorstep, but we hated Saddam as much as you did and found a convenient time to take him out. We thought we were being helpful. We now realize that sometimes our helpfulness is a bit overdone, so we’ll try to make some amends. We really do want to get to your oil too, but it’s your oil and we’re going to have to do this the fair way, through trade agreements. We hoped you’d take to our system of governing, at least the system we like to talk about, but if you want an Islamic government, so be it. We’ll have to figure out how to peacefully coexist. And we’d really like to be able to help you out with your security problem so that your people can have normal lives again, but you need to really step up to the plate and take the lead. Our folks are getting anxious back home. They don’t want us here any more than you seem to. So here’s our plan and we think it will help end this conflict.”
Step one is the rotation of all National Guard troops back to the United States and to release them from active duty status. The National Guard was designed to protect the homeland and assist in times of disaster or unrest. Their absence from home was all too evident in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Furthermore, these citizen-soldiers occupy an important place in our communities in their jobs as teachers and firemen and nurses and restaurant chefs and every other walk of life. They are not trained to be full time warriors, and their lack of comprehensive training results in higher numbers of casualties on all sides of the conflict. Without significantly reducing the numbers initially, Guard troops can be replaced with active duty personnel at a slowly diminishing rate. The impact of this move would be to assure American citizens that the pull out has begun. It would also serve to let Iraqi’s know that they would soon be responsible for their own security, but would be trained and assisted by professional soldiers who could be expected to adhere to the highest standards.
Step two is to establish a firm time line of no more than one year for the final withdrawal of American battle forces. The administration and its hawks have rejected this idea out of hand, saying that the terrorists and insurgents would simply bide their time until we left to unleash full terror on the Iraqi public. In reality, they may do that, but in the meantime, it could also reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur in the continuing daily warfare as insurgents continue the fight with American troops, killing many more civilians than they do soldiers. In that time span, we would need to stress the importance to Iraqi’s that the security of their country would soon be in their hands, and that responsibility for putting down the violence would soon be theirs too. We should be willing to provide logistical, material, and human support if they continue to request it, but only in a support role once our official withdrawal has occurred. Our withdrawal should be total, except for those requested as support.
Step three is to officially recognize whatever form of government the general public of Iraq elects to install without trying to mold it into an American clone. If that government develops and appears to include provisions which support oppression of certain citizens because of religion or gender, we should insist on a period of expatriation for those citizens who choose not to live under such a government, and provide them with opportunities to relocate to a country of their choosing. If a majority of Iraqi citizens then elect to subject themselves to strict religious doctrine, who are we to say they can’t? If we don’t like it that much, we can always politely refuse to do business with them.
Step four would be to remove all American corporations from Iraq and turn over the reconstruction to the Iraqi people. While accepting the blame for the massive destruction, we will still need to continue to pay a large percentage of the costs for this, but the money is already being funneled to our greedy corporations. We could probably rebuild the place for a fraction of the cost if locals were doing the work. Their investment in time and materials would also prove to be an incentive for them to combat the destructive insurgents in their midst. Such cooperation would reinforce the notion that the future of Iraq lay in the hands of Iraqi people, not just a bunch of greedy capitalist conquerors. Further, this would save untold billions of taxpayer dollars that should be returned to domestic issues for the American people.
Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.
This plan is by no means perfect, but it has the effect of ending this war in Iraq while providing Iraqi’s with the responsibility to reshape their own country in their own way. It offers a way for America to regain her integrity among the world’s nations by ending an increasingly ugly situation and returning to a stance of multilateral cooperation. It would not be tantamount to surrender in any sense of the word. Indeed, ending the war in Iraq is essential if we are ever to truly confront the radical terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. It frees up our resources to narrow the battle to those areas and people who want to fight while leaving out those who would be caught in the middle. It reduces the financial strain on the American economy, a measure that would greatly be appreciated here at home, but around the world as well. It is even likely that by giving Iraqi’s the responsibility for themselves, with a little help if they want it, we may actually gain a true ally, albeit one with a decidedly different world view, but an ally all the same.
It’s time for the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to really mean something.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 4th, 2005 at 1:46 am and is filed under Bush, Foreign Relations, Iraq, Military, national security, Politics, Terrorism, War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 4th, 2005 at 5:51 am
Ken, I liked this post a whole lot and am thinking about linking up…again. Okay, I am going to have to in order to illicit more ideas on how to fix the Iraq debacle.
This is where I like President Carter and his ideas on how to render a solution. The first step, I think is for the W, Rove and Co. to come clean. He mentioned on Larry King Live the other day that this is the one thing Reagan did well with Iran Contra – he stepped up and took the heat. This is unlikely as the W, Rove and Co seem to be dead set to deny their culpability to their graves – and even beyond on down to hell if you believe in it.
Even so, I like your grassroots approach to identifying the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Actions speak louder than words indeed.
I would have to disagree with you on an entire pull out – I think the bases we have in Iraq now, may prove valuable in the future – but like we have bases in Europe, we don’t need to be executing military exercises on the citizenry simply because we can. It could serve the misson of the US to return most or a majority of the troops, but to pull out completely may be folly. These bases were hard fought and won, and could be worth keeping long term.
Of course, I don’t think we should have gone in at the outset, but now that we are there and given the damage we have done we must own the solution.
President Carter also mentioned one other solution I liked a lot. How about opening up the rebuilding efforts to the global community – you know, competative bidding processes – much unlike Halliburton is used to – and let the world benefit from the very necessary infrastructure contracts, and the like. We don’t need to close out our allies in this matter – in fact, it would produce buckets of good will if we were to allow for competative bidding and open processes so that it is not just the US of A that wins here. It’s about sharing the wealth, no?
Well, this is indeed a great post and I am curious to hear what other solutions folks may have out there.
Blog on brother.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
“The president mislead us into this war. We didn’t get into this war to free a bunch of niggers. Peace now, at all costs. Vote McClellan and get that monkey out of the White House.”
Sound familiar?
OK, maybe that is not exactly what you are saying here.
You do overplay the Halliburton angle (perhaps you’d like to suggest another oil services and construction company capable of working overseas? Who? Bechtel? They refused to even consider it. Hell, even Clinton used Halliburton.)
And you minimize how tolerant and liberal the Iraqi constituion is the region. Yes, it mentions Islam as a source of the law. But ours did the same with the Christian God. This constitution is far from Sharia. In fact, it may be the perfect antidote to it.
You want to withdraw. Yeah, so do I.
But I want to withdraw and win.
You seem more ambivalent.
I suspect – that were your plan implemented – that it would lead to a situation where a large portion of Iraq would become like Fallujah – ruled by al Qaeda.
What would you do then?
Go back in? Or ignore it, like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan (Uh, that didn’t work too well)?
You have a sort of “ho hum” attitude to the idea of giving Al Qaeda its greatest victory ever.
I suspect that you think that were to leave Iraq, our war would be over.
I think that is dangerously wrong.
November 7th, 2005 at 2:30 am
The people who say we must “win” in Iraq sound an awful lot like the ones who said Communists would soon be in San Diego if we didn’t “win” Vietnam, and they are just as correct.
The simple, bare-bones fact of the matter is that we do not have the boots on the ground to effectively occupy the country. What this means, bluntly, is that every one of our endeavors is going to fail, because those who oppose us can simply relocate whenever they need to-look at Anbar Province, where we are (yet again) engaged in a sweep. We sweep, they disburse, we go someplace else and sweep, they come back. And that’s going to be the way it is until the day we leave, because we do not have the forces necessary to prevent it from happening.
Those who argue that we must stay in Iraq are arguing for more GI deaths for a foregone conslusion-an Iraqi civil war. We cannot prevent it, we will not prevent it, and we should recognize the reality of the situation we are in and take steps to stop the bleeding of US troops and money. Yes, we made a colossal mistake in invading Iraq. And perpetuating the mistake serves no one, save corps like Halliburton, which was correctly pointed out in this post.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:44 am
“al Qaeda” had no hold in Iraq till the USA invaded, the longer we stay the more support that kind of movement will gain. Its time to get out.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:54 am
Listen, you speak intelligently, and you sound well-informed. But where are you getting your information from, the mainstream media? It’s so easy to be an armchair quarterback when you aren’t one of us or one of our family members who are over here fighting. Everything is not so cut and dry, as John said in a previous comment.
As an Army officer currently deployed in the Al Anbar Province, I can tell you that CNN has no idea what’s going on and that we do a lot of great work for the people out here. That’s because a lot of what’s happening is very sensitive information, and it doesn’t belong on the news.
There are some who try to kill us, obviously, but most of the people we encounter seem to be genuinely thankful that we are here.
I stay pretty anonymous in my blog because I find operational security to be vital, and I refuse to give the enemy anything he can use as a victory or for training (names of those killed, equipment capabilities, photos, etc.) Also, I am a writer, so you’ll find that although my blog is written from and about the War in Iraq, it is also simply about the craft of writing, which I have a passion for.
Being in the Army does not deny you freedom of speech, but it would be insubordinate of me to perhaps say certain things in my blog that I may talk about with friends and family in private conversation. We do not all believe in the way we came to Iraq. But we believe in fulfilling the duty we swore to uphold. (www.wordsmithatwar.blog-city.com/we_support_you)
Think what you want as you sit comfortably on your couch and write about the war and watch the mainstrem media. I am here, and I believe that our cause is just. Yes, we need to develop a plan for pulling out. If you don’t think military and political leadership discuss this daily then you’re missing something.
Just because the MSM hasn’t announced a specific date doesn’t meant it isn’t being worked. What, you think the leadership want to stay there forever?
As John said, the reasons we went there are almost irrelevant now (but you may recall 9/11) – the point is, we’re there, and to pull out before the country and government of Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own would be true disaster. And if you don;t think that bringing the fight over here saved us from more attacks on innocent Americans, then I believe you’re wrong again.
We mourn our fallen brothers and sisters every day. We feel the pain of loss more than anyone who is not here with us, excepting their families. Yes, we have recently passed the 2000 death toll. Even one death is a tragedy. But do you realize that in future history books people will marvel at the incredible feat we were able to accomplish with so few deaths? Look at previous conflicts, and see how many were lost. It’s incredible how efficient we are at performing our mission and minimizing casualties.
But let’s not be naive here- war, and life, are harsh realities sometimes. And death is hard to handle for all of us. More people died in Iraq before we were there than now.
Just remember the soldiers. We all know public support for the President is waning, but it makes us think support for us is waning too, and that would be a sad thing indeed. We’re doing the best we can.
Look, I like your blog. It’s important to get all the sides of an issue on the table, and like I said you articulate what you’re saying well. But regarding your comments about National Guard soldiers, I must tell you that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I am a citizen soldier. But I also spent years as an Active Duty soldier. I’ve been enlisted, and now I am an officer. In this type of a conflict, Reserve forces bring skill sets to the table that you don’t find in a career soldier who has been doing the same job for decades. Once you’ve been through the training, and you’ve been in Iraq for a little while, it is meaningless what kind of unit you came from – an Active duty water purification company or a National Guard Infantry Battalion – and many people who are working very hard on your behalf would be insulted to hear otherwise.
All of these statements are simply my own opinions, but I know many others who would agree. This region was at the heart of the global terrorism, and we have broken it up. The President made it a Global War on Terror, and there’s no turning back. The best way to honor those that have died is to finish the mission. For you to say “It’s time for Operation Iraqi Freedom to really mean something,” is a slap in the face to the families and fellow soldiers of the 2000 + who have died for the cause of OIF. Right or wrong, they did what their country called upon them to do. Someone has to do it, right?
And I’m not being too sarcastic when I say that we could use your help. How about enlisting and standing beside all the soldiers and shoolteachers and lawyers and mothers and father who are over here fulfilling the duty that America has asked of us? Come on over. I can hook you up with a great recruiter.
Best Regards,
Lieutenant K
http://www.wordsmithatwar.blog-city.com
November 8th, 2005 at 6:13 am
(responses)
windspike- yes, coming clean is critical to ever ending the conflict with a shred of integrity.
I don’t advocate a pull-out en masse, only a gradual by timely withdrawal. And if an Iraqi government, through the will of their people want us to maintain a military presence, then we should work out the details down the road. But why should we stay where we are unwelcome, if we are unwelcome? We fought hard, yes. But leaving is not the same as defeat, not if we can help the Iraqi’s create their own future and dream where we can exist in alliance, or at least respectful indifference.
Global terrorisn has no heart, it has a hundred. The president didn’t choose to start the war with radical islam. They choose it long before he was a political figure. He choose to turn Iraq into the showcase theater. There are other ways than all out war to fight a dispersing enemy. And many ways to finish the mission, once we get back to the mission of defeating radical islamic hatred.
OIF is a misnomer though if what we leave behind is a forced mimic of America that neither fits nor works.
I would fight the enemy here at home in a heartbeat. I’m not being sarcastic either. But perhaps the people you should be asking to send their children over, or to come over themselves, are the politicians who voted us into Iraq in the first place.
Thanks for the in depth point of view, and I wish you all the best, sincerely. I value your service greatly, and hope for a speedy return to your family, safe and out of harms way.
I think the Iraqi’s should be given the tools, the knowledge, and the financial assistance to put the place back the way they want it, not as we would have it be.
Always a pleasure friend…
John- No John, that isn’t at all what I was saying, and I think you know it. Our civil war has no real correlation to this war.
Do you think the Iraqi’s enjoy having an American corporation deciding what will be built and where and how, and then taking the lion’s share of the money as profit? Who says it should be an American company leading the rebuilding effort anyhow. Our government is simply transferring our dollars to their bank accounts, with little accountability.
I have read most of the Iraqi Constitution, and while it does give plenty of lip service to equality, all of that comes AFTER the intro that says law must be in agreement with the Quran. I’ll reserve final judgement for now, but I’m curious to see the two comingle. Of course, I hope for a democratic form of power that offers its citizens real equality. Let’s hope they succeed.
I have to ask you to give a definition of “winning.” Is it to kill all the insurgents? To install a puppet government like we’ve done so often before? To help Iraq transition to a secular government without stealing all their resources? Our administration is just as nebulous when defining “winning.” Perhaps that is why there is no plan for an end…
My solution would require Iraqi’s to choose their real future. Give them the strength to restore order, but then it is up to them. If they can’t hold it together after we’ve given them all the help we can, if the fall into civil war, is it our place to force a peace? Would that have worked in our Civil War? Or would we have fought against the outside force first, and then returned to our own discord, to settle things our way?
I know that our war on terror is not singularly ensconced in Iraq, but this administration would have us believe that it is the main point of battle. It wasn’t that way until we went there. Our war exists in many more places than Iraq, including along our own borders in this country. Unfortunately, all of our resources are poured into the Iraq debacle, with no clear end in sight. Such a single-minded approach to a truly subversive and shifting enemy is dangerously wrong to me.
Thanks for another point of view though.
Jolly- Treu enough that if you DO go to fight a war, you had better be prepared to go all out and conclude it as thoroughly and quickly as possible. War is bad, but when unavoidable, it should be commenced as quickly and effectively as possible. If you are going to use the iron fist, use it fast and hard. Then you can actually achieve the aims you seek. All this half-assed, drawn out attempt to make war more PC only prolongs the conflict, the anguish, and corruption while exposing the ineptitude of the civilian policies that got us there.
Good to hear from you again.
Monkey45- I can agree with that statement. Thanks.
Lt. K- Obviously, you have more information than I could have, simply by virtue of being where it all goes down. And yes, some of the info I get is from the MSM, which include Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Washington Post, as well as CNN, USA Today, and the AP.
I hear both the cheerleading and the denouncing and understand that the truth may be in the middle or something else entirely. I’ve also heard from military folks who take a different view than you do, both active and retired, so please don’t assume that all military people hold your views. They don’t.
I hear about the rebuilding and see the pictures of smiling Iraqi children with US troops. I know that in the midst of destruction and war that good occurs too. This post is not a hit piece on the military as much as it is on the civilian leadership that got us there.
And while the people may seem thankful, it is an awkward kind of thanks that doesn’t take responsibility for ending the extremism of its own making? Where is the denouncing of the insurgency? Where is the Iraqi rage at the terror brought against them by their own brethren?
Listen, I respect your decision to serve in the military, (I was USAF in GWI- not there, but in uniform) and can empathize with your discomfort at the political machinations that put you there, and understand your duty to uphold your end of the stick. As I said, this is not a rant on the rank and file in uniform.
I’m sure that the military has a plan to get out of there…I’m much less sure about the political leadership though. And when it comes to Bush and Cheney, I don’t think they have any qualms about staying there in perpetuity if they could. After all, they suffer nothing personally, and likely gain quite a bit in their “blind trusts” and future pay-offs.
The reasons are never irrelevant, not if we want to get out with some ounce of integrity. And without those real reasons, how can you ever define “winning?”
And again…9-11 does not equal Iraq. It never did. Two different things, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.
And my plan completely calls for assisting the Iraqi’s in restoring stability as part of the withdrawal.
I’ve used the “better there than here” argument too, but as I think about it, if the strife really was happening here, do you think we’d still be f$#@ing around or would we have finished the fight by now? Hell, our two-front global war in the 1940’s didn’t take this much time once we got ramped up. People die in war, and it sucks. But why should the people be the Iraqi citizens, who had little or no say in the politics of their country, while Americans live in relative security. We had a say in our government, and as such, quietly acceded to all the crap they’ve pulled around the world over the years. We are probably more culpable than Abu in the dessert ever was.
To predict what history may say is a bit presumptuous I think. I too mourn the deaths of soldiers. I live near Camp Pendleton in California, close enough to feel the bombs during their practive sessions. Each bomb that shakes my windows makes me hope that the men and women training are honing their skills enough to guarantee them a return trip home. This conflict is far from over. The larger War against Terrorism will claim many more lives than just in Iraq I fear.
Please don’t confuse the lack of support for the president as a lack of support for
the soldiers. If anything, it is because your lives are valued that we question and seek an end to this conflict. I know you are doing the best you can. It is our leadership that is failing.
Reserve FOrces do have much to offer, and I was not trying to denigrate their sacrifice and service. But I went through the basic training too, and I know that the reserve and guard enlistees left a whole lot sooner than I did. They also aren’t in constant training like active duty. They may be more prone to mistakes in a prolonged operation for those reasons alone. I meant no insult here either, only that these folks were meant to protect the homeland, not be sent to a prolonged conflict overseas.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:22 am
(response)
Lt K- (contiunued)The president didn’t create the war of terror, it predates him by decades, but he choose to make Iraq the central playground. The mission in Iraq was the wrong mission in the war on terror, at least how its been managed. But unless we can provide Iraq with a secure, stabile government, that offers equality to all its citizens, OIF is nothing but another government misnomer. Freedom can’t be forced on anyone, it has to be earned. Someone does have to do it…and it should be those with the most to gain leading the charge.
If the enemy were on our doorstep, I’d pick up a weapon and meet them head on. I am not being sarcastic either. But perhaps the people you should bee asking for help is the politicians who sent you and your mates over there. The conspicuous absence of their children and kin and their aggressive recruitment of lower middle class students belies their disdain for the military too. Hell, most of these people never even learned to salute properly.
I respect you for your service and wish you a safe a speedy return. It is with that goal in mind that I question the policies and direction (or lack of it) by our politicians.
Thanks for the in depth point of view. Good luck.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:52 am
the most important statement of your post :
” To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve.”
One “word”: PNAC
November 8th, 2005 at 7:20 am
(response)
mike- I doubt that many American’s would continue to support this administration (if they could fall any lower according to polls) if the aims of the PNAC were publically acknowledged as the reason for the war. But we deserve the truth, however ugly it may really be.
thanks for the comment.
November 8th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Ken,
My point was only that the initial reasons for war often get lost as the war progresses, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
World War II ended the holocaust, but FDR never said that was a reason for the war.
In the end, if the US has unleashed democratic forces in a thoroughly oppressed and thus perpetually threatening part of the world
AND
Those forces lead to democratically elected governments like the one in Iraq (which yes, is far from perfect)….
AND
Those governments begin to tackle the probelms that have lead the Arab world into such a cycle of pathetric failure (that it currently blames on the Jews or us).
Yes, then the war will have been a small price to pay.
Will it happen?
I’m not sure, but it is promising.
And if we had a President Kerry, we would never find out. We would have abandoned millions of Iraqis to Al Qaeda holocaust that only we can prevent.
As much as I detest George Bush, that is why I voted for him.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
And just a question…
Let me give you a scenario: we begin a measured withdrawal along the lines you have mentioned.
Al Qaeda moves back into Fallujah and western Iraq, kills the local government officials and the police and establishes Iraq Sharia – women in veils, terrorist training camps…the whole nine yards.
A new Taliban Afghanistan.
What do you do then?
November 8th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Ken,
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. The person who was Secretary of State after MacNamarra and delt directly with the Vietnam situation may have some lessons we can glean from while trying to clean up Iraq (i’m posting about it today). He suggests that indeed there was a modicum of victory that was squandered and lost becuase the congress cut funding post war. If we do have some kind of pull you, as you suggest, it does not mean we loose – but we do have an obligation to not leave the Iraqi’s high and dry – and at the mercy of the terrorists we drew in with our agressive military magnet.
I would have to contest John whole line of argument. Suggesting that there would have been some kind of Talliban/Al Queda driven Holocost in Iraq if Kerry were in charge is completely faulty logic.
Indeed if I use a similar strategy for rhetorical argument I would suggest that if Bush hadn’t stolen the election there never would have been a 9/11. That is, if Kerry won (well, he may actually well have, but we will never know becuase of how 2K played out), the terror cells never would have recieved their green go light to perpetrate their tragedy. That is, becuase W was installed, that was the trigger for these bastards to do the nasty job they did.
So, to suggest some alternate universe is really way off base and only slights your argument.
November 8th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
(responses)
John- I have to disagree John, in that if we lose sight of WHY we went to war, how can we ever know if success has been achieved?
Of course, there are a lot of IF’S to contend with, and yes, things could actually turn out for the better far down the line. My main point was whether democratizing other coutnries through war is the best or only course to take.
And until that day comes, or until we leave the situation to the Iraqi’s , any conclusion is just speculative at best.
I don’t think that al-Qaeda would have chosen Iraq as their stomping ground had we not created such a vacuum of power by removing Saddam. His removal will be seen as a good thing, I am sure, but our methods will be seen as clumsy and insincere at best.
As for your scenario, I don’t promote the idea of total abandonment as you suggest. A measured withdrawal along with active support is essential. But just as essential is the need for Iraqi’s to own their own future, not just to have it thrust upon them.
They must be the ones to denounce the terrorists in their midst and actively take part in driving out their ideology of hate. At most, we should be their “wingman.”
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
Windspike- There are likely many lessons from history we could glean, if only our leaders were so inclined.
Were Kerry to have won in ’04, we would likely have a different face on this war, but I no sooner think he would have just “cut and run” than I think we would have an al-Qaeda holocaust on our hands. We will never know how things would have gone though. We only know how they are going. And that is the reality we must work with.
Thanks again, as always.