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

[JeepInMazar]

Screw 'em.

US foreign policy makers said the same thing about Afghanistan. That policy created the power vacuum which enabled the Taliban and Al-Quada to florish.

Do the same thing again in Iraq, and wait another 10 years (or less) and the US will have worse problems.

Also, pull out of Iraq now and the fight comes to us. Pick your battle ground: there or here.

[pickemuphere]

We already have. The old regime is dead.

Actually, we just put the "old regime" in charge of Fallujah.

[Lance Romance]

Call Whine-1-1 and get a Wahhh-mbulance. Why do you think Terrorist attacks are down 30%?

[wingster]

I'm starting to think we should have just gone over there, wiped out Saddam, wiped out Syria, wiped out Iran, wiped out a few other hot spots and then told the rest of the muslim world to go to hell since that's what they're creating world wide anyway only with them in charge of hell! Then bring our troops home and told them to do what they want, Saddam's been removed, if they want to put another brutal dictator in power, then they should feel free.

That solution handles the Mid East "balance of power", American Lives, and the terrorist solution all at once!

[tiamat]

Take heart.

This is not a conscripted military. They all want to be there, they all want to do their jobs and they all know the risks.

We have been on the ground for just over a year. We have 700 dead.

While that is NOT good, this is not nearly CLOSE to the number of guys killed per month in Veitnam, nor does it even approach 25 percent of the 3000 + Americans killed on a really bad day one Septmeber....


Keep in mind, we are dishing out way more than we are getting.

[cripplecreek]

"1. The voters of this country are not focused, intelligent, or disciplined enough to support a long-term war like this."


The only problem with that is the fact that the enemy will fight this war regaurdless of how focused we are.

[abc1]

War is messy, always has been and this war was made on us (U.S.).
We merely responded to a thereat posed collectively by countries. These were tacit participants in the actions leading up this war. Pick an Arab country from Morroco to Pakistan and those governments either gave assistance or looked the other so as to feign ignorance of the obvious.

We can fight them there now, or here later.

I am afraid it is no longer up to us,
the situation was thrust upon us.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

Remember, we only "lost" Vietnam because of people taking on that attitude

That is not true. You have it backwards.

[Sunshine55]

Admit it, you watched Nightline last night and fell right into the trap.

[WOSG]

The article proves that indeed defeatism works.

Enough defeatism in the struggle, and the 'will to win' evaporates. As SunTzu says in "The Art of War" that is the matter of winning it. Our greatest enemy is the political forces that want to destroy our will to effect positive change. Mainly those forces dont WANT freedom.

My take on the big picture in Iraq, written April 9, 2004. Short-term things are looking bad, but actually most of these matters bode well for longer term.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_freedomstruth_archive.html#108140233888652252

Iraq - One Year After Liberation, waiting for Liberation
Past, present and future are always 3 different windows on each single event we experience. A prediction is different from a diary is different from a memoire. I am reminded of that on this the one year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The moment on April 9th was one of exhileration, at least for me. A long anticipated battle and the nervous reporting from the media did much to excite but little to inform. It was eerie how we went from fierce fighting to one sunday morning watching Greg Kelley march into Baghdad on an A-1 tank. The 24 hour cable news is always in the now, chewing through events until all details are exhausted. Always in the tree-level but never seeing the forest. The glimpse of liberation - the scenes of Iraqis beating saddam's head with a shoe - got quickly overtaken by looting, then this issue, then that, the political process. Events have rushed forward headlong in the past 12 months - history on steroids for Iraq. So the fall of Saddam statues becomes a bit forgotten in the rush of the "now".

From today's vantage, though, it is a different sense I look at last April, although we may discount the events of April 9 2003 a bit too much. For right now we are still in the tornado of events in the evolution of Iraq. We are still in the labor pains of a new Iraq, anticipating the outcome and hoping for success. Some who didnt want America to invade Iraq are wishing the project would fail, or expressing pessimism that shakes faith in the effort. Too many troops, too few; too soon with handover, too slow. Any decision made is second guessed to the n-th degree. Clearly, the Bush administration will not lose resolve or withdraw, but the nitpicking adds to confusion to the people watching events, so one loses perpective on what has been accomplished.

And with fighters willing to battle hardened US soldiers, one has to wonder what will happen next. As I learned from my stock trading days, the common error of most humans is straight line extrapolation. So it is bad now, they imagine it will stay bad. Wrong thinking. There are forces at play, like billiard balls on a table, and they are colliding and mixing in with other forces to shape events. I've explained the resistence in the previous post: It is real, it is a danger, but is wholly expected in the current environment. The only question is guaging its strength and how much it can derail the overall project, and based on that, how events will play out.

I was quite optimistic until recently that Iraq was going well and that there was no significant danger to the democratization of Iraq. But now, the dangers flushed out in the open, I have a different take. The long-term prospects are better for Iraq with the challenges being faced now, but the short-term dangers have heightened. The enemy has decided to take a stand now, and make a dice wrong. They have "called for division" - saying in effect "on our side or your side". The miscalculation is when you think you have everyone on your side but you really dont. It is almost certain that the miscalculation is on the part of Sadr and those wanting to oppose the coalition and occupation.

The majority of Iraqis are NOT on the side of the enemy, that is for sure. But if they are passive enough or intimidated enough, it can shake us off the path of political development, if events "spiral out of control". The good news - the best news - from this week has been those cases of Iraqis helping coalition. Civilians lending their cars to drive coalition soldiers to safety or carry injured to hospitals; Peshmerga helping fight some battles, Iraqi police helping in others. The worst news of course are the mob actions in Fallujah, a sign of the bad elements in control of the streets. The Marines promise that will soon change.

But of the current danger? This too shall pass, certainly. The smarter military analysts are talking about a 2-4 week period of clamping down on this. After that, further political evolution and jockeying. The bottom line is that the current threats of Sadr and Fallujah are not fundamental roadblocks, they are merely security issues (as long as they dont metasticize into something larger). The fundamental test and question is whether "the center will hold". That enough Iraqis will want a real western-style democracy enough to fend off a breaking up of the political stabilization. This current test may shock the political democrats in Iraq into stronger action to save their country from falling into the abyss. So the current danger of attacks is like a fever. Once it breaks the healing may be faster.

I dont believe the cries from idiots like Kennedy that this is Vietnam. He and his ilk are locked in the past and ignorant, willfully so, of the current situation. They want to believe the worst about America and build up tiny enemies like Sadr to be bigger than he is. Kennedy only emboldens the forces of violence in the mideast with his overheated and wholly inappropriate rhetoric. Kennedy promised thousands of body bags in the gulf war I, saying saddam's army was formidable, etc. He is wrong about almost everything.

So past, present and future collide in this anniversary. To look back and contemplate what was really gained last April, we have to look forward to the completion of this project of democracy in Iraq. Yes, Iraq was liberated from Saddam last April, and that alone is a great change. But the full libeation of Iraq will require the building of a new civil society, a free and democratic Iraq to replace the tyranny of Saddam. It hasnt happened yet; and it wont have any definite start date as it is an evolution. In the end, the makers of the legacy of Saddam's overthrow and the ones who will truly judge and live under the judgement will be the Iraqis themselves.

Here is my hope and my prediction: We will look back on the fall of Saddam on April 9 2003 as a very significant event. The beginning of the end of dictatorships in the Muslim world, and the beginning of a true democratic state of Iraq. A legacy and a gift from our fallen coalition soldiers. I am looking forward to future anniversaries.

[JeepInMazar]

"Screw 'em. " was supposed to be in italics.

[JulieRNR21]

I am starting to think going to Iraq was a mistake

That's just what the terrorists who are trying to thwart the June 30th transfer of power to the Iraqi people want you to think......Please stay strong, stay resolved, and support our Troops in the war on terrorism.

Always remember September Eleven!

[Prince Charles]

9-11 crystallized in the minds of many the belief that we would have to expend our national blood and treasure to kill our enemies. The only question was how it would be done: some would have waited until the battles had to be fought on U.S. soil, while the president and most thinking people chose to take the fight to the enemy's home turf.

Yes, I'm of the opinion that al Qaeda and Iraq were as close as hand in glove.

[trebb]

Sounds like the terrorists, Democrats, and the media (don't ask me why I bothered to list them separately) are starting to win a few converts. I'm sure glad the author isn't watching my back...

[biblewonk]

I'm glad we never took advice like this when things got tough during the Revloutionary War, or the Civil War, or WWI, or WWII, or . . . .

Poor comparisons. How about if we put soldiers in Israel and dare Palistinians to blow us up and just stay there until the "threat" is gone. Some things really are futile.

[Alberta's Child]

Note the numbers of insurgents is somewhere in the neighborhood of @5K.

This actually reinforces one of the main points in his post. If the number of "insurgents" (I put that word in quotes because it's not used correctly in this case) is so small, then the U.S. should simply give every Iraqi an AK-47 and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and pack up our things and go home. It will eventually sort itself out.

[Atlantic Friend]

The total number of US losses in Iraq is around 700. The total number of US losses in WW2 was 300,000 - and that's just for the European theater of operation. In WW2, the US army could have 700 KIA a DAY, not a YEAR.

While the US soldier is clearly every bit as good now as he was then, it certainly is the general public's acceptance of war casualties that's changed.

Plus, I don't think it does much good to anyone that so many people think US soldiers are invincible, that US war matériel just can't be destroyed, and that the whole Iraqi operation would be a walk in the park. The US soldiers are not demigods, they are human beings, and that's what makes them heroes.

While it is entirely normal that people are supportive and confident, a war is a place where planes and tanks are destroyed, and where soldiers die fiery deaths. Overconfidence is as great a danger for civilians as it is for soldiers, because it probably makes each casualty all the more insufferable. Hence reactions such as this one, probably.


This, and a little too optimistic view of the war in Iraq during its opening stages is probably the cause of such reactions.

[.cnI redruM]

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

That's an interesting assertion, backed by dubious data. In The American Revolution, significant numbers of American Colonists took up arms on behalf of the British Army and were organized into armed formations that were large enough to be logistically self-sufficient. Based on the premise you offer here, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington all three should have hung up their spikes, hired a good barrister and cut a good plea bargain.

>>>>>2)we are not willing to wage total war until all opposition is removed,

The student body of Oxford University demonstrated against British fighting against Hitler. Clearly the best and brightest of their day, these people had no clue why Churchill cared about a bunch of stupid Poles and went after the Germans. Clearly, the upper crust of Britain's intellectual elite wasn't in it to win it. Churchill obviously would ceded Europe to Fascism if he acted in accordance with your premises.


>>>>than how can we possibly win there?

By continuing to bring accurate direct fire on the enemy. The same way most people win most wars.

I've checked my premises and with all due respect, I prefer them to yours. Have a wonderful day.

[RobRoy]

Critical mass, for me, is 500k.

This is WWIV. It is a war against Islam. It will be longer than WWIII which we affectionatly called the "Cold War."

There will be lots more casualties the next 20 years.

So many watching this thing are like a child watching a chess master and viciously scrutinizing his sacrificing of a pawn. They're in way over their heads...

[cajungirl]

In other words you think we are simply not up to it what with corruption and your damning of the President. Tell that to the bunch who have been blown away in Fallujah.