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

[daybreakcoming]

Got news for you AC - very few Americans think this war is a video game. And the ones who do don't count for much in other areas of their lives. You seem eager to plant bs ideas in empty heads. There are none here.

[Publius6961]

Awwww. Not this s**T again.
And you're a lifelong Republican and conservative, have voted straight Republican ticket since Attila the Hun but you can't bring yourself to re-elect Bush? Do I have it right?

This is such a lame and tired moron tactic that we have a whole library of posts archived under "ZOT!". Are you aware of that?

[Publius6961]

My opposition to this war in Iraq, which dates back to 2002, is based on the following:

Well, slacker, my opposition to the war in Iraq goes back to 1967, so you Johnnie-come-latelies can kiss my grits.

As for the reasons, any idiot can copy the DNC talking points... er make quite an impressive list of real adult-sounding reasons.

[Space Wrangler]

Well, if we only did the things that were easy, we wouldn't be at the top of the international food chain. We are in a world war, not against a country with tangible targets to destroy, but an ideaological death cult. It will take us years to defeat it, make no mistake about it. We will lose soldiers monthly for all the years that it takes us to fight and win. That's the way it works. War isn't pretty. Just think how WW2 would have gone if we wavered every time we heard a high death toll. Pulling out of Iraq would be the height of stupidity. The thugs that are causing us all the trouble now are just that...thugs. They use their perverted religious beliefs to justify their thuggery. Their tactics only work when people like YOU go wobbly. I'm not singling you out, or trying to to be harsh. But keep in mind, these thugs goal is to kill our soldiers, and cause people like me and you to question our presence there, and thus win their goal by default. Leave it to the military. They know how to handle these situations, and when they don't, they adapt pretty fast. Our best course of action is to stay the course, clean out the thugs, and try to hand the control back over to it's own people. Germany and Japan took YEARS to re-build and re-integrate. Instant outcomes are no more possible now than they were 60 yrs ago.

[Captain Kirk]

The "numbers" are in our favor? How then, do you account for the fact that the latest Gallup Poll shows that 57 percent of Iraqis now want American troops to leave immediately. Is that your idea of progress?

[Alberta's Child]

As for the reasons, any idiot can copy the DNC talking points... er make quite an impressive list of real adult-sounding reasons.

You're right. Since I didn't do that, this comment of yours is really irrelevant.

FWIW, the "DNC talking points" are pretty irrelevant, too -- since most Democrats (including John F. Kerry) voted in favor of the war in 2002. Hence, there is no reason for anti-war Democrats to vote for Kerry, either.

[Check_Your_Premises]

No, I don't accept that. I do not accept that people are animals who respond only to torture.

Not all... but there are some.

[BSunday]

Thoughts?

Maybe you should ask this small child here...

Or maybe this boy here...

Or maybe this little girl here...

All things considered, I'm probably not as qualified as they are to render that judgment.

[daybreakcoming]

***this administration was looking to wage war in Iraq long before 9/11***

And you know this how? Oh....you just "know" it, huh?

[Alberta's Child]

And you know this how?

Just look at the composition of the civilian leadership in the U.S. Department of Defense under this administration from January 2001. A substantial number of key positions in that agency were filled with appointees whose primary focus -- if not their ONLY focus -- throughout the 1990s had been to advocate for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The fact that many of these people were so thoroughly wrong on Iraq despite their Ivy League backgrounds and years of "expertise" as Beltway think-tank jack@sses is a scathing indictment of this administration.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thanks for the ping.

[68skylark]

You make some excellent points.

I'm one of those who is reluctant to put too much blame onto Islam -- not beacuse Islam dosn't deserve a lot of blame, but only because it's not going away and I don't want to complain about any fact that can't be changed. People who want to complain about things that can't be changed are just people who are talking themselves into inaction an failure. (I don't mean to say that's what you're doing -- not at all.)

I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of Iraq. I think Germany and Japan are the closest models I can think of -- we had to keep troops there for 20-50 years to help them join the community of civilized nations. I don't see any reason that Iraq can't do the same, and I also don't think anyone should expect good things to happen in a shorter time frame. And if we can't succeed in a 20-50 year time frame, we may just have to try longer -- since failure isn't an option.

So that's a long-winded way of saying I agree with you 100%! We cannot allow Iraq to turn into any kind of unfree or undemocratic state.

[RinaseaofDs]

What did you originally expect?

I'll tell you this much, if you think we are up against just the Iraqi's then you are not getting all the news. We are up against Syria and Iran, plus SA and Jordan from the standpoint of bases of support for terrorists.

Worldwide terrorists incidents are down.

Know why?

Because the original goal of the war was as follows:

1. Remove one of the world's major sources of terrorist encampments, supply, training, and control.
2. Get rid of a tyrant, the likes of which we haven't seen since Hitler.
3. Make terrorists fight professional soldiers instead of civilians in office buildings.

Against these goals, we're doing pretty well.

Loss of life? Get used to it, because it isn't even close to over with yet.

Let's say we pull out of Iraq. How long before another 9/11 occurs? They'll use our exit as a massive recruiting poster.

This isn't about Iraq any more. We are cleaning up after almost 70 years of neglect by both us and Saudi Arabia. We let this recruitment and training of children in Madras' happen for generations. Neither of us did anything to stop it. Now both countries, and now the rest of the world is paying the price.

Give up now, and you will never know if the next glass of water you draw from the tap will be infected with some biotoxin.

In WWII, we were losing 300 to 400 soldiers PER DAY. Losing one soldier in this conflict is too high a price, but it is the price nonetheless. Our grandfathers and fathers have set the price, and now we are paying it.

This is only the first tab we need to pick up. Next will be medicare, and after that will be Social Security.

This is the price of appeasement. It's the price of not dealing with Khobar Towers, WTCI, USS Cole, Kenya Embassy Bombing, Beruit Barracks Bombing, TWA 800, Sudan, and other 'ignored' or 'routine criminal' investigations.

It's the price we are paying for withdrawing early from Viet Nam, knuckling under to pressure from the press and not waging the war on the ground.

The fastest way to lose this war is for it to become political. Syria is going to have to be next. WMD's were positively identified and confiscated in a foiled attempt on an embassy in Jordan. Those WMD's were traced back to Iraq. It isn't in the news, but it's a fact nonetheless.

We don't get to walk away from this. We shouldn't have walked away from the other incidents when they happened.

If you want to live in a city without walls, rough men will have to die in other countries to allow you that privilege.

That is the situation.

[novalogic]

"So many watching this thing are like a child watching a chess master and viciously scrutinizing his sacrificing of a pawn."

...unless you happen to be the pawn, of course.

[RinaseaofDs]

Nice opinions.

Which country are you referring to? Are you talking Canadian or US voters.

Canada couldn't fight off a cold without the support of the US, so go easy on the US taxpayer.

You're another pasty white civilian that thinks we actually have a choice in this matter, as to whether we fight or we stay at home.

You don't think they'll spare Canadians, do you? Start reading up on Islam, infidel. It's them against us. All of us, until the last radical islamic idiot is dead.

If they are willing to attack the French, they'll definitely attack Canada, despite the fact that Canada acts like the accommodating girlfriend of the free world.

[Alberta's Child]

Since I am not a Canadian and never have been, I'll consider your post irrelevant and wait until you post a comment that has some meaningful substance to it.

[RinaseaofDs]

Actually, you have it backwards.

The interviewed ex-Generals of the VC army and did a 'post-mortem'.

The thing that kept them going was the realization that our own press was going to put so much pressure on our politicians that we'd lose the resolve to see it through.

On that basis alone they launched Tet. On the battlefield, the losses were so huge that had we done two things:

1. Allowed Westmorland to continue to press on enemy positions
2. Gone into Laos to cut off the Ho Chi Minh supply route.

There would never been a North Vietnam, etc.

The libs are at it again. The don't, and will never, understand that the cost of freedom is the blood of rough men willing to sacrifice themselves for people like you.

At the end of the war, even Chamberlain realized his mistake.

Get a big whiff right now, because this WW is a LONG way from over.

[Darlin']

"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. "

1.)The Iraqis have no experience with freedom and until last year had no hope of control over their future. Now, each day is new and bewildering to them, a little frightening I'm sure. They can take cautious, baby steps or run wild in the streets destroying private property like sports fans in this country do after the hometeam wins a big one.
2.)Well, yes, we could wage war like the animals we're trying to rid the world of but then we'd be just like them and that isn't the way Americans do things. We're waging an American style war, a 21st century war. Noone ever said it would be swift only that it must be done.

Sherman ? that old barbarian ? pffffft ! Yeah, right, he would have been right at home in Saddam's Elite Repubican Guard.

[atlaw]

"This war is not about "freedom" for the Iraqi people. I understand Pres. Bush has to "sell it" this way, but the fact is this is about OUR national security and REMOVING sources of support for terrorists. This is simply too harsh for most of the public to hear, and the admin has softened it by emphasizing removing Saddam, downplaying the AQ connection, playing up the WMD connection."

Wow. So, the war was actually "sold" to the public on the idea that Iraqi WMD were a threat to our national security, because a war based on the idea that Iraqi terrorist connections were a threat to our national security was "too harsh for most of the public to hear," even though most of the public actually heard that one of the justifications for the war was Iraqi terrorist connections. And then Iraqi "freedom" was thrown in with the WMD threat to soften the sales pitch, and the Iraqi terrorist connections that the public had already heard about but couldn't handle were "downplayed" so the public wouldn't be frightened.

I'm really glad you're not in charge of the White House information office.