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

[paleocon patriarch]

The biggest mistake in Iraq is trying to keep it as "Iraq", a badly grouped nation that needs to be partitioned into natural ethnic lines, with the Kurds getting the northern oilfields.

Maintaining the borders of Iraq is failing to admit a mistake the British made at the fall of the Ottoman empire.

[68skylark]

You make some good points. Personally I'm not sure what I think of Islam, so I just have to defer to people who know more than I do. Seems to me that if maybe 1% of Muslims are willing to do violence in the name or their religion. On the one hand that's a BIG number and we need to be deadly serious about protecting ourselves from that kind of huge threat. But on the other hand it seem unkind and unwise to get really pissed off at the other 99% who just want to mind their own business and live a peaceful life. As with most things in life, I guess we just need a healthy balance.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

That's an excellent point, but it was only part of the "post-mortem" you described.

What they also found out was that the ex-generals of the VC army had also planned to wage a war against the U.S. that would last as long as 35 years. There was no way in hell this country was going to maintain a war footing for that long -- especially under our silly, delusional idea that could support the massive domestic expenditures for Johnson's "Great Society" programs at the same time we were fighting a war in Vietnam.

[atlaw]

"Did I mention WMDs?"

Trick question, right? I'll say "yes" for 200.

"The war was 'sold' on the basis of a threat to our national security."

But, but, you said: “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."

So what is it? The war was “sold” on the basis of Iraqi freedom, or the war was sold on the basis of national security? I swear, the spinning is making me dizzy.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

More defeatist nonsense. Things start to shake and immediately Chicken Little assumes the sky is falling. If you don't have the stomach for this, then you might as well vote for Kerry.

[blueski]

You type fast. And while the words you type do not scare me, the way in which you interpret them does.

You really think this is a religious war, don't you? You think this is the big one? You think that bin Laden and the 'terrorists' are strong enough and smart enough to lead their flock to act out all the roles you have type-cast for them in your interpretation?

"The area now occupied by Islam used to be 90% Christian, and more than 3200 churches have either been destroyed or converted to mosques since the invasion of Islam."

Is this our mission over there? Are we there to re-claim the region for Christianity? Is this your view? Everyone's view here? Do you think it is President Bush's view?

This really is going to be a protracted battle...

[cricket]

"Kennedy, Kerry and others are willing to put partisanship above patriotism ... THEY HATE BUSH MORE THAN THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF WINNING AGAINST TERRORISTS AND MAKING IRAQ FREE. THEY WILL SACRIFICE IRAQ AND AMERICA"S STANDING IN THE WORLD TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE."

. . .in a perfect nushell. It is all just so pathetic.

[jaugust]

"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."

But you're not posting ANY hard evidence to back up your assertions. Why should anyone believe you? Is your own honesty unimpeachable?

[Rebelbase]

Islam's first 20 years of existence was marked by Mohamed's thirst for vengeance against those in Mecca who rejected him and tried to kill him.

With only a small band numbering around 1000 he plundered the caravans leaving Mecca, ordered his rivals assassinated, forced an entire village of Jews into exile for the sole purpose of stealing their property to provide an economic base for his expansion and murdered over 700 Jewish males in another oasis village, and married a 9 year old girl.

Theft, murder, pedophilia. Islam is a fraud.

[Lady In Blue]

Fallen for the Democratic and media lies have you? The only ones who are corrupt and immoral from my point of view are those liberal Democrats and the liberal media.Do you think Kerry has the answer?

[Alberta's Child]

Why should anyone believe you? Is your own honesty unimpeachable?

Yes.

"Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus (I never lie . . . but I am a savage)." --- William Wallace (Mel Gibson), Braveheart

Do some research on Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz -- and see what they were saying about Iraq before the 2000 election, after 9/11 and throughout 2002, and in the time leading up to the start of the war in March 2003. Perle in particular is a curious fellow of questionable character. You can find quotes of his in which he actually claimed that the U.S. could win the war in Iraq with little more than a small group of Special Forces soldiers . . . You remember -- all that silly crap about how the Shiites and Kurds would rise up and topple Saddam Hussein for us?

[patriciaruth]

This is the Battle of the Bulge.

Do you think America should have backed off going into Germany to finish the liberation of Europe in WWII because we lost more soldiers in the battle in the Ardienne Forest than when we landed at Normandy?

Compare D-Day, June 6, 1944: KIA about 9,000

Battle of the Bulge (December 16,1944, to January 25,1945)
81,000 American casualties (including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed) and 1,400 British casualties with 200 killed.

The Battle of the Bulge was Hitler's last gasp attempt to halt the American Army and to get its generals fighting with each other rather than against Hitler.

This fight for Fallujah is our Battle of the Bulge. Do you really want us to pull out now?

"War is hell," as Sherman said.

If you think that Victory in Europe came at a high price, you should see the stats from the Pacific.

[68skylark]

Well religions can change and evolve. I agree with people who think that Islam could benefit from a greater degree of evolution than other religions. But I won't agree with anyone who thinks there is no hope for Muslims to live in a free, tolerant and prosperous way -- I'll never be that pessimistic.

[patriciaruth]

The biggest mistake in Iraq is trying to keep it as "Iraq", a badly grouped nation that needs to be partitioned into natural ethnic lines,

Absolutely not our business. It is for the Iraqis themselves to decide after they get themselves a census, a constituion and an election and learn to provide their own security.

Then if they want to have a Civil War (like we had) after we've gone and left them to their own devices, it's their problem.

[RinaseaofDs]

It's not my view. The analysis of Islam was that of a theologian, Dr. James Dawson.

As you can see, it's pretty well footnoted as to where all of these things are in the Quran.

My take on it? It doesn't matter whether its a religious war or not. The only thing that matters is that THEY see it as a religious war.

What they should do here in the US is to post a translation of all of the major Islamic clerics sermons every week. Week after week, the US is Satan, and so is the West, and glory to those who reek death and destruction against us.

By contrast, we go out of our way to ensure that Muslims here in the US are treated equally. There is no marching against Islam.

Here's my current beef with Islam: Let's assume that there are peaceable, Mecca Islamic believers out there. Let's assume they are sincere when they say that their religion has been hijacked.

All that being taken for granted, where are the spokesmen and spokeswoman fighting to take back their religion? We are appalled at the treatment of Iraqi POW's, but 12 year olds kick and spit at the charred bodies of US soldiers.

As long as it is religous TO THEM, it becomes religious TO US, until such time as they want to revert to Mecca Islam (after which they will build up strength, wait, and then go militant again against our children's children's generation.)

Remember, I didn't type cast them - they did. Check the references in the primer for yourself. I did.

I think one strategy we may want to pursue is the liberation of Muslim females from the oppression of their men. It worked here.

[DannyTN]

"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? "

Good Questions. As other's have suggested it's a bigger effort thats part of the Global War on Terror than just installing a democracy in Iraq.

Our options to entering the war were to:

• Ignore 9/11 like Clinton did the terrorist attacks on his watch. But that just leads to more attacks and encourages the terrorists.
• Tit for Tat - but that also encourages them, since they believe they can win wars of attrition.
• Or go after the sources of support. Whether or not you can link Saddam to 9/11 he was clearly the most vocal state leader in support of terrorism.

Once the decision is made to go after him. The question is how.

• We could assasinate Saddam. Which is against US law, meaning an open debate about the law which would likely fail. And which might not make the situation any better, since Saddam's sons would simply step up.
• We could go to war. We tried to get the UN involved but Saddam bribed and blackmailed the French and Germans with oil vouchers.
• We could go to war and brutally bomb the heck out of them with no regard for human life and with the result of truly massive Iraqi casualties and an inflamed Muslim world.
• So we chose the greater right went to war with a consortium of countries outside of the UN fighting only those people who chose to fight against us.

Having won the war, our options were:

• Leave immediately, even though Saddam's men still had most of the fire power and Saddam was not captured.
• Leave after capturing Saddam, even though Saddam's men stil have most of the fire power and would probably resume control.
• Stay and help them form a democracy.

  The reason to stay and help them form a democracy is not just for the Iraqi people. Bush has repeatedly stated that a democracy in Iraq will serve as an example to other Muslim countries and put pressure on them to adopt democratic principles and freedoms.

  I can't stress how important that is. Muslims are initiating wars on practically every border. Do a google on "the age of Muslim wars" and read the article that pops up. The problem that led to 9/11 is much larger than Osama or Saddam or both put together. The problem is militant Islam.

  So how do you defeat militant Islam?

• Well you can play Whack-a-mole with every Islamic terrorist organization that pops his head up. And we've done that.
• You can arm all of the non-muslim people arround Muslim borders. I don't know how much we've done that but we probably ought to do more arming and training.
• You can declare war on all Islam and have massive massive casualties.
• You can declare war on one state at a time and only knock out the ones that are clearly supporting a militant view. We've have done that. We've taken down two and rattled sabers at Syria.
• You can find a way to eat away at the Militant Islamic virus. And that way is by installing a democracy in the middle of Muslim territory. We had Israel which has prospered more than any muslim country. But since Muslims hate Jews as part of their religion, Israel's success just fosters hatred instead of being an example.
• If Iraq is successful it puts pressure on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to become more democratic. Democracy will lead to freedom of religion and freedom of religion will destroy Islam. And that is why they Muslim's are fighting so hard against a successful democracy in Iraq.

  But if we hope to avoid more 9/11's and bring terrorism to an end, this is the way we must go.

[Alberta's Child]

Compare D-Day, June 6, 1944: KIA about 9,000. . . . Battle of the Bulge (December 16,1944, to January 25,1945) 81,000 American casualties (including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed) and 1,400 British casualties with 200 killed.

Comparing 1944-45 to today is rather silly, since this country is not on the same war footing today that we were on back then.

Did Congress and FDR enact a $500+ billion Medicare prescription drug benefit in, say, October of 1944?

[blueski]

Thank you 68skylark

"religions can change and evolve"

"I won't agree with anyone who thinks there is no hope for Muslims to live in a free, tolerant and prosperous way "

They will take on as much of a radical role as the we and the rest of the world let's them. They will play the part if we lead them down that path.

[Jim Noble]

The old regime is dead

Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti is most certainly not dead (although we should have killed him), and if we don't, there is a chance that he will be back in power.

Like Napoleon, there will be a moment when he throws open his cloak and says, "Soldiers of Iraq-shoot me if you must!"

I don't think they will.

[atlaw]

I think people need to be a little more cautious when throwing around the "liberal" epithet these days. What's liberal hogwash today seems to have a nasty habit of becoming conservative truth tomorrow.

E.g., "nation building" was a liberal sine qua non and a conservative anathema during the Clinton years. So much so, that President Bush made opposition to it a key part of his platform. Now, it seems to be self-evidently liberal to be against nation building, and a sign of a true conservative to be for it. (And, interestingly enough, much the same reversal has occurred with the mundane issue of budget deficits.)

Odds are your fellow freepers concerned about this Iraqi enterprise remain staunch conservatives.