I am starting to think going to Iraq was a mistake

MMI | 4/30/04 | MDP

[Check_Your_Premises]

As an avid supporter of the President's Iraq policies, the last few days have been difficult for me. The number of casualties seemed to reach a "critical mass" for me. I found myself simply not caring to sacrifice anymore of our brave soldiers for Iraqi independence and democracy. Screw 'em.

I was not sure why I began to feel this way. As I said I am an avid supporter of the plan to bring an oasis of freedom and liberty to the 12th century toilet that is the middle east. It seemed to me that if we are to end terrorism we have to destroy the sources, which are the failed states and ideology of that region.

Why not? We have succeeded at such things in the past. We transformed post war Germany and Japan into thriving and peaceful democracies. Unfortunately, we have also failed at such things in the past. Of course, I am speaking of the war that Teddy Kennedy's brother got us into.

The one problem I had with liberating Iraq from Saddam's clutches is that we were removing one of the most important steps to the forming of a successful democracy. The successful overthrow of tyranny is a process that produces the type of leaders that are required to bring the successful transition from tyranny to liberal democracy. By liberating Iraq, for the Iraqis we were not allowing their "Founding Fathers" to become. It is of course worth noting that such leaders may never have been produced.

It seems to me now that the war in Iraq suffers from the same fatal flaw as the war in Vietnam. I may be speculating here, but it seems we simply cared more than the South Vietnamese, that their nation remain free. No American should be expected to die defending the home of another not willing to do the same. In the same sense we seem to care more about the freedom of the Iraqi people than they do themselves. This is why I don't really care anymore. If they truly cared or understood their fate, they would be dying ten to our one. And in that case I think the American people would support them steadfastly. God knows I would.

So what was different about our success stories, Japan and Germany. Well we basically bombed the entire nation back into the stone age. I think their civilians were probably so glad that we weren't going to execute our own "final solution" to the "Japanese and German question", that they were willing to do whatever we said. It is also worth noting that in annhilating their armies we effectively removed any person who would be opposed to our efforts. As George Will put it recently, they "knew they were defeated".

So the question is if:
1) we care more about the freedom of the Iraqi people than they do (something we could only have known in hindsight), and
2)we are not willing to wage total war until all opposition is removed,

than how can we possibly win there?

Well I think you see where I am getting at. General Sherman would probably agree with me. However since we do not have the will to fight this way, it is clear that we cannot win until that fact changes. What could bring such a change of will about? Unfortunately, I think we are victims of our own success in preventing further terrorist attacks. Until every man, woman, child, and leftist acutely feels that they are in grave danger of death at the hands of these murderers, America will not be ready to do what she must to win this war.

Until we are ready, maybe we should hold off on any further "imperialist" adventures in the world's excretory regions.

Semper Fidelis

MDP

[patriciaruth]

They hated Nixon because he was Republican. You can say they hated him or feared him because he wasn't nice, charismatic, or charming; but they hated Reagan just as much and he was charming and affable. Now they hate President Bush and George W. is charming, gregarious, mentally sound.

No, all that is window dressing and smoke and mirrors. The left hates the right no matter what, and seeks to keep us out of power even if it costs the lives of American soldiers.

[WOSG]

"What this guy said was that Nixon was removed from office because it was a very sensitive time in terms of U.S. foreign policy (Vietnam, the Arab/Israeli war of 1973, the height of the Cold War, rapid changes in China, etc.), and there was a serious concern among a lot of people in Washington that he was unfit to serve in the White House due to mental instability. "

Translation: IT WAS ALL ABOUT POWER.

who were these experts who knew Nixon needed to go? Paragaons of virtue like Hillary Clinton, Richard Ben Veniste, House lawyers looking btw for 'war crimes' items of impeachment, men like Robert Drinan, Frank Church, Ron Dellums, looking to destroy the CIA, military, etc. ...
Remember that once we got the Gramscian Leftist snakes in the house, its been downhill with our politics since. To them, the end do justify the means, and I am sorry Nixon gave them the bat to bash him.

Now, the other side of the coin is this: NIXON WAS TOO HONORABLE TO LET THE COUNTRY GO THROUGH HELL OF IMPEACHMENT. He wasnt even impeached, recall, something Clinton has as his legacy. Nixon resigned because fellow Conservative Republicans (lik Goldwater) had too much integrity to defend his disreputable acts, which means the writing was on the wall *unless Nixon put power above principle*.

As we know, Clinton chose the other path from Nixon. Nixon chose principle in resigning; Clinton chose power by using the 'spin cycle' to fight impeachment.

[RinaseaofDs]

I was raised RC, and my whole family is RC, and to many RC's they can't tell the difference between reverence and worship of Mary.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To thee do we cry, poor banished
children of Eve, to thee do we send
up our sighs, mourning and weeping
in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us; and
after this our exile show unto us the
blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.

Pray for us, O holy Mother of God

That we may be made worthy of the
promises of Christ.

The word 'advocate' appears there. The idea being, that Mary has to intervene on our behalf to get God's attention.
That's not the way it works.

Jesus is the only path to God for a Christian. Mary as an 'advocate' is that attempt to make her a part of the trinity that the good doctor refers to here. When a Christian prays, we pray in Jesus' name, for what we ask in His name is taken to God.

I'm now Lutheran, and the whole Mary thing is a big deal. The more evangelical the church, the more significant this issue is to people, so don't throw out the baby with the bath. I haven't said a 'Hail Mary' in four years, probably. You'd never see it in a protestant church. My wife thinks the Hail Mary is creepy.

I think the doctor is pretty well up on what he's talking about. Again, don't take his word for it. Look this stuff up yourself. It's well footnoted.

[#3Fan]

The war is the thing to do but I always disagreed about it's premise. Because of 9-11, we should go after terrorist regimes that could threaten us and Saddam was at the top of the list. It should've been known as something like "Operation Dead Terrorists" instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". We shouldn't sacrifice our soldiers for the freedom of those unwilling to fight for it themselves. But we should protect ourselves from terrorists and that's what this whole thing should've been premised about (I was saying this a year ago too when things were going well). I think the things they've done in this war are the right things because the only way to defeat the terrorists in Iraq is to replace them with a more democratic government, but we should just make clear why we're there...not just to hand freedom to those who won't fight, but to defeat our enemies that attacked us on 9-11 and before.

[patriciaruth]

Right, IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER.

Liberals don't care that the dissention they are causing is emboldening the terrorist and Baathist who think they are dividing American and we will go wobbly and pull out...

Liberals don't care that the upshot is that their rancor is costing the lives of American soldiers. All they care about is power.

[LS]

There's no spinning, although with your logic it's not wonder your head is spinning. The war always was about AQ and WMDs. End of story. The Bush administration LATER threw in democracy for Iraq (although I think this was part of the big picture vs AQ from the beginning). It's really quite brilliant: if somehow there was no AQ, we had the WMDs, and if there were no WMDs, there was AQ. In fact, we've had lots of AQ and plenty of evidence of WMDs to one degree or another. But liberty for the Iraqis is a PART of the equation, just like "liberating France" was an important, though not primary, reason for invading Europe in 1944.

[oats]

Could be that if we don't flex our muscles, that "middle east toilet" will someday be flushing US down!
I don't think we need worry about "how can we possibley win there?"
We will win.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

The number of casualties seemed to reach a "critical mass" for me. I found myself simply not caring to sacrifice anymore of our brave soldiers for Iraqi independence and democracy. Screw 'em.

There's the first problem. You have limited the purpose of the mission. If that's ALL we were there for, I'd be against it too. I do not believe you can force democracy on people. But this is about a lot more than Iraqi independence and democracy. This is a war on terror on a global basis, and it's a critical step in establishing a tone and a foothold in the middle-east.

[Ben Chad]

Thought provoking post.

[ladyinred]

Thoughts, I disagree entirely of course. For one thing, all you seem to know about what is going on is what you hear on our media. They are only telling one side of the story, and I am not so sure even most of that is true. I don't believe the Iraqi people as a whole don't want freedom, most people do. They are afraid I am sure, and with good reason that we will cut and run and leave them to deal with tyrants who will punish them for siding with us.

Fighting terrorists on their turf, is certainly better than doing so on ours, and if you think for one moment that won't happen, or that we can somehow reason with you, you need to think again!

[Publius6961]

First you admit to being ignorant. Then you pull a number out of your nether places and treat is as a fact.
Most people who know they are ignorant usually don't dig a hole for themselves. The actual conservative estimate is 20%, or 20 times your PC "wild" guess. So much for ignorance.

And by the way, that "conservative" 20% figure represents 200,000,000 primitive savage and mindless killers. Muslim Mass Murderers.

[Ann Archy]

It's about OUR FREEDOM, CYP!!! Do you want to be afraid of getting car-bombed when you go to a theatre or a restaurant or get on a bus??? GEESH!

These animals need to be CIVILIZED by us and SHOWN the way to a democracy.

They are NOT screaming ready for democracy because they have NEVER had it and their religion keeps them FROM the desire maybe......BUT, we need to force the issue because democracies do not attack each other!

[Qwinn]

"Jesus is the only path to God for a Christian. Mary as an 'advocate' is that attempt to make her a part of the trinity that the good doctor refers to here."

That's just silly. In Catholic doctrine, the Saints are just as capable of being an advocate as Mary. Does that mean that Catholics think -every- saint is "part of the Godhead"? The Trinity doesn't have 3 points, it has 144,000?

"The idea being, that Mary has to intervene on our behalf to get God's attention."

No one has ever said that Mary -has to- inteverne. Cathlics most certainly can, and constantly do, pray directly to Jesus and to God for intercession. Catholics believe she -can- intervene, that God permits this, that God is willing to listen to her entreaties on someone's behalf. Same for the saints. I don't see anything wrong with that. You may still disagree with that from a theological basis, and that's your right, but stop putting words in their mouth. YOU know and -I- know that if you actually walk up to ANY Catholic and say "Do you -worship- Mary as the 4th part of the Trinity rather than simply revere her as Gabriel commanded?", virtually any Catholic will say "No, she is revered, not worshipped". I don't know what you and this professor are doing, accusing them of lying or accusing them of being too stupid to tell the difference, but either way, it's condescending, it's insulting, and I think it's exceedingly rude to continue to put words into their mouths that they would never agree with if you ever -asked- them.

Qwinn

[william clark]

You miss my point, though. If there are X number of terrorists, do you want that number further spread out, which will in turn dilute our ability to defeat them, or do you want to have fewer battlefields where we can concentrate more of our strength with greater results? I'm not saying we'll get them all in Iraq. That would be foolish, but any we kill there won't find their way onto our soil.

[Milligan]

Forget about trying to set up a democratic government. Set up a twelve step program. ACS-Adult Children of Saddam.

[68skylark]

Sorry if my comments rubbed you the wrong way. And I can see that I didn't do a good job of articulating the point I was trying to make -- not my best day ever. I guess I was saying that even if the number of violent Muslims is seemingly small (even a small number like 1%, or even 0.1%) that's a HUGE risk to us. And even if the number of violent Muslims is very large (even if it's 20% or so, like you say, or even larger) that still leaves a big group of people who can be more reasonable and who probably shouldn't be tarred with the brush of violence.

Anyway, sorry I ticked you off. I can tell you've got strong feelngs about this.

[churchillbuff]

No, I get your point, and \you're wrong. Iraq was a fifth rate power with no WMDs, and didn't have anything to do with 9-11. So instead of concentrating our forces against the 9-11 terrorists in Afghanistand (and Pakistan) we go after Iraq, and lose more than 700 lives in this worthless venture.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

yea Al-queda is in shambles 2/3rds are dead or captured And Iraq is its last stand. for if freedom takes root there its over for tehran, ryiahd and damascus.