Posted on 02/01/2005 4:58:13 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
btt
Many Liberals like the ideas of freedom and democracy too. It's their hatred against Bush that makes them blind... However, I think only the hard core Bush haters that were not moved by the images from Iraqi election.
I like your thinking :-)
What I find troublesome in his words is a coomon democrat/liberal notion, and that is the lives lost are only validated by succes on the liberal's terms.
I can't think that way. See if this anaology below explains my irritation with the above thought process
If someone jumps in a torrent to save a drowning soul, and they both lose their lives, in spite of the effort made, then the saver has died in vain, and his sacrifice has no meaning? The drowning victim didn't want, or know that he needed the saver's help, so the saver was wrong to try to help him?
Using the same analogy, even if the saver succeeds, and gets the drowner to the riverbank, it couls till be a failure if the drowner turns out to be a suicide, and jumps bavk into the torrent.
Anyway, the way I see life, those sacricing their lives are great because of the effort, and no matter what the outcome, they are heroes. Whether they succeed or not has nothing to do it.
In any rescue effort, one does not stop to calculate the risks, and be sure of a desired outsome before making a risky effort. Just remember where we might all be if Jesus had thought the liberal way, never mind if his blessed mother had.
Just my pre-caffeine mental meanderings... be gentle, I am only half awake.
Reads to me like he is auditioning for a job with the Washington Times or FOXNEWS.
Finally, an admission that they haven't been "supporting the troops."
If you tell a soldier that his death is just so much cannon fodder designed to gratify the urges of corrupt politicians, BEFORE you have near absolute proof of the same, then you are undermining the morale of the soldier, his family, and his nation.
After this election our soldiers know for sure....the lives lost were given for a noble purpose. It's never good to lose a loved one. But if one can extract some meaning from it, it does eventually provide some bit of comfort to their family.
Of course the signs were there from the minute we entered Iraq, but I am impressed that this man is willing to reconsider what clearly has been a well entrenched attitude.
GASP! You mean....you guys might have been wrong??
Say it ain't so!
I wish I could see the looks on the faces of Hillary, Kerry, and Dean when they read this.
No doubt there are quite a few 'Mark Brown's' out there thinking the same thing. But you know, as well as I, that the Democrat Party and the MSM has 'bet-the-house' on Iraq to fail... to become our second Viet Nam and send the Republican Party into oblivion.
Instead of giving Bush praise yesterday for the successful elections, they drafted a 'Pre-buttal' speech for his State-of-the-Union aaddress.
Sedition... once decided upon... is impossible to stop.
I used to like Jon Stewart until shortly after the day that he made the comment "I'm somewhat conservative...not all Republicans are bad" at which point his guest and the audience boo'ed him.
Ever since, he turned hard left to suck up to them.
Dennis Miller did the opposite. When he expressed his conservative thought and was boo'ed, he essentially said "Hey up yours!" and grew MORE conservative in his speech.
He is essentially a libertarian, but that is about as conservative as they get in the media.
Thanks for the Jon Stewart update.
Very interesting.
Verrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting.
You have to read this one.
Ooh, good catch on the "rabble".
"I don't do committees."--Condi Rice, when questioned about pushing through changes at Stanford without consulting the academics.
Oh dear, now I am thinking about Teddy adn Chappaquidick. Anyone want to compare that tragedy to his thinking regarding Iraq?
Not sure my brain is up to it yet.
Most Republicans had a "moment" when they realized that conservatism and the right-wing was, in fact, a better way despite our previous beliefs.
Most Liberals are not intelligent enough or self-examining enough to have that moment. Some are though. Some of us here prove it.
Not at all, Mark. Welcome to the party. Better late than never. Eventually people are going to have to come around and see the reality of the advancement of Iraq. Mark is early on that trend.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
But he still clings to this old nugget. The message we sent is that corrupt dictators cannot thumb their noses at the Civilized World and support terrorists, and that there will be consequences to lawless behaviour. Why is this a terrible message to send?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.