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

[Alberta's Child]

Fallen for the Democratic and media lies have you?

No. I was saying the same thing back when most Democrats in Washington were voting in favor of the war in Iraq.

The only ones who are corrupt and immoral from my point of view are those liberal Democrats and the liberal media.

So be it. Some people are born to be customers, I guess.

Do you think Kerry has the answer?

Absolutely not. You can check every single message I've ever posted here on FreeRepublic since I joined in November of 2000, and you won't find a single one that even suggests I have a favorable opinion of Democrats.

[churchillbuff]

Would I rather we waited until these battles were brought onto our soil?

Two hundred people died in a Spanish terrorist attack a month ago. The Iraq war hasn't stopped the terrorists. If it had, you wouldn't have to arrive at the airport two hours in advance. We're still living like we're under siege.

[RobFromGa]

Think of Iraq as flypaper for really big ugly murderous stinky flies. We've caught and exterminated a bunch already, they're getting fewer and fewer and the ones that are left are mighty cantankerous. Unfortunately laying down the fly paper is dangerous as the dirty buggers dive-bomb us when they get the chance. But at least the fly paper is in Iraq and not in Peoria.

And quit whining and let the men do their job.

[RobFromGa]

It seems to me now that the war in Iraq suffers from the same fatal flaw as the war in Vietnam

The only similarity I see is that when partisan peacenik appeasers get involved, the enemy is emboldened and things drag out, killing more fine Americans.

[Flying Circus]

You seem to have forgotten the economic cost of the Afghan war to the Soviets... Their economy was crumbling under its own weight and then they put a war on top of it. The Afghans were also given US hardware to make it even more expensive. Also the Russians are not as careful with their soldiers as we are with ours and took a lot more dead than we have.

Russia's experience in Afghanistan is more comparable to our experience in Vietnam. Vietnam had an order of magnitude more cost in lives than Iraq, and no progress was visible to the American people. We have the economic might to pursue a war anywhere we need and our casualties are incredibly light by any one else's standard. The average person needs to be convinced that we are making progress and we are making the world better and we must do that because the cost of pulling back is far, far greater than the cost to stay the course. Our open society can be weaker if we lose the propaganda war(and this is what binLaden is counting on), but can also be far stronger if convinced the cause is worth the cost.

[WOSG]

Before you panic, read this and get the real fallujah story.

we've been "played" by te biased media once again!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1127526/posts?page=1

[leadpenny]

I have been coming to the same conclusions, slowly, over the past few days. The combat casualities are like a punch in the gut but that is not the main reason I feel this way. It is the inability of any administration official to articulate what our solid mission is in Iraq. Me, Napoleon's Corporal, am not convinced we are doing the right thing.

I'm not going to get into a urinating contest with anyone here over my or their views. I respect everyone's viewpoint - - except those who try to equate US Traffic deaths to 'it's no big thing to lose a few hundred of our finest.' Those who are doing that - please stop. It's apples and oranges and irrelevant.

[WOSG]

Very well said, and precise in your logic.

[patriciaruth]

My point was that wars seen in historical focus can show what was going on and when the need for grit and steadfastness was necessary, and the reward of the final outcome.

As we fight today, we can't see in hindsight what our result will be and where getting weak-kneed would have undermined the best result.

I'm betting that this month of terrible losses will be seen as part of a larger whole with a desired outcome in the end that leads to a better world for both us and the Iraqis. Soldiers will remember this time as WWII soldiers remembered the Battle of the Bulge.

And what we are doing domestically about Medicare doesn't really have any bearing on the historical impact of this current war.

[WOSG]

"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. "

By 1973 we had extracted ourselves enough from Vietnam that all we needed to do was guarantee the peace treaty of 1973 with some resolve, ie, air power. We could drop bombs for 35 years. No sweat.

Actually, just a few *weeks* of bombing with B-52s got the North Vietnamese to the treaty table.

The reason I mention this is how LITTLE IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN NOT TO LOSE VIETNAM IN 1975. simply calling out the B-52 bombers from bases in Thailand would have instantly destroy the set-piece army that North Vietnam sent to the south in 1975. They North Vietnamese knew that US wouldnt lift a finger because the heavily Democrat/McGovernite Congress had basically cut off all aid to South Vietnam. ... as if to spite our former allies.

It was an assisted homicide of the nation of South Vietnam.

The idea that we lost Vietnam in 1967 or 1968 or 1972 is a MYTH. A LIE. A lie that the anti-vietnam war folks like to repeat because it misplaces the blame. Sure LBJ made huge mistakes. But military commanders after 1968 corrected many of them, and the price we paid from 1964-1973 in blood SECURED A PEACE IN 1973 THAT WE SIMPLY THREW AWAY IN 1975.

Sure, we were weary of war. But one lesson from 1973 bombing campaign was that we could definitely impact North Vietnam if we hit them where it really hurt - Hanoi.

We didnt lose Vietnam, so much as we squandered the peace that we gained through much sacrifice. And for that, blame completely the Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's of the world.

[B.O. Plenty]

I agree...if only we could get our government on board.....

[patriciaruth]

we squandered the peace [in Vietnam]

If Nixon hadn't been threatened with impeachment and had to resign, he would have held the peace while he remained in office. History there would have been very different.

[B.O. Plenty]

1) I agree

2)Yes I do....pc is a bithc, ain't it?

[RobRoy]

>>...unless you happen to be the pawn, of course.<<
Pawns don't think. They move where the players hand guides them. And by pawn, I don't mean people - I mean battles and locations and timing and rhetoric. Like chess, war has a flow and patterns that are lost on the casual observer. And like chess, it is hard for a casual observer to know who is "winning" until someone says "checkmate."

[InvisibleChurch]

it's not iraq, it's a war on terror that happens to be in iraq... don't think boundaries, think victory

[WOSG]

"If Nixon hadn't been threatened with impeachment and had to resign, he would have held the peace while he remained in office. History there would have been very different."

Exactly.

[patriciaruth]

The cost of prevention is much, much less than trying to recoup after things have gotten totally out of control.

Look at the losses in WWII, when things were let to slide, when some backbone when Hitler first moved soldiers into the demilitarized zone (the Rhineland) next to France would have prevented much of the horrors that came after.

And people then would have groused about Roosevelt's War that cost 2,000 American lives, without realizing he could have saved the half million Americans that did die in WWII because the line in the sand was drawn too late and too close to us.

[Alberta's Child]

If Nixon hadn't been threatened with impeachment and had to resign, he would have held the peace while he remained in office.

I heard a fascinating radio interview with someone back in 1998 who said that Vietnam was one of the reasons why Nixon was threatened with impeachment -- Watergate was just window-dressing that would provide the legal foundation of his removal from office.

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.

I'll never forget that comment because it was made during the height of the debate surrounding Clinton's impeachment.

[Qwinn]

I was enjoying that analysis until I came upon this:

"[Many Catholics are placing Mary as the fourth person in the Godhead.]"

And I realized I was completely wasting my time. If this author can so vastly misrepresent Catholic teaching as to claim that Catholics want to turn the Trinity into a Quad, there's damn little chance he's got a good grasp of Islam.

I'm not even a practicing Catholic, I'm very agnostic, but I do know what they would NEVER say, and that is that "Mary is the 4th person of the Godhead". How absurd. Why can't some people distinguish between "revere" and "worship"?

Qwinn

[.cnI redruM]

Yep, I'm sold. Let's stick our heads in the sand until we get attacked here all over again.

People said all the same things before we went into Afghanistan. The Japanese Army in WWII was far more ferocious. Scare tactics make poor arguments.