Awkward Questions On War

If you notice someone arguing that "war" is not the best solution for some problem or another -- and you come away from the encounter convinced that "war" IS the preferred solution -- step back from your decision and apply a bit of logic to it.

Obviously there are proponents of various things -- "war" and "anti-war" being two -- who manage to create diminished returns with their efforts -- and sometimes even the counterproductive returns we've been hearing about here.

But that should not be the reason anyone goes over to the other side.

Frankly, I suspect the anti-war sentiments some of the people here would have us believe were turned by encounters with anti-war protesters -- was never very solid in the first place. Using the "counterproductive" argument always gives a person the feeling that he/she is really "putting it to 'em" by suggesting that they were turned in that way -- and I suspect that is what is going on here.

War sucks!

Anyone who doesn't realize that is probably a person who is not going to have to go and put his/her life on the line to fight it.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are the John Wayne type of heroes. They made damn sure they never got anywhere near the action when it was their turns to serve -- but now that they can sit safely behind a desk and order others into battle -- they are tigers.

They are laughable buffoons! Contemptible laughable buffoons.

Nimh

I'm not sure if I made this point before - if I didn't, it was because the previous postings were long enough, and I may have edited myself!!

My view, even prior to the actual invasion of Iraq, was that Bush / Blair, didn't do a very good job of presenting their case. I didn't have to be in either the pro or anti-war camp, to see this. A little objectivity was all that was required.
Their message was too muddled, and at some times, borderline amateurish. I think they had the perfect justification all along, but didn't place enough emphasis on it - namely the liberation of the population of Iraq from Saddam's dictatorship. We can only speculate as to why they chose to do things the way that they did. I have my own theories on it.

To put it simply, they were lacking in confidence, or uncertain that the public / voters would share their views that liberation was sufficient reason to invade a country. Would the electorate back a war - risking the lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilians etc? Bush / Blair made the mistake of shifting focus onto different things, over a period of time prior to the war - WOMD, Global Terrorism etc, rather than giving a simple, consistent message, that was more difficult to argue against. WOMD is open to debate, requiring evidence, whereas Saddam's brutality is an open and shut case, that would have been a lot easier, over time, to win in the court of public opinion. This would have simply required better communication via the media. The illogical comments / views of certain anti-war figures, that seemed to be suggesting Iraqis would be unhappy to be liberated from a dictatorship, were not properly challenged. Instead we had weeks of debate on issues such as the existence of WOMD, oil wars or various other conspiracies / agendas (Real or imaginary), our previous relationships with Saddam etc. This debate, in which pro and anti war sides indulged in, confused / distracted people.
Hypothetically, if I had been advising them on fighting a propaganda war against the anti-war movement, I would have emphasized the 'Saddam is brutal to civilians, and needs to be removed' justification, since anyone opposing that case, could then have been portrayed as being supportive of a brutal dictatorship, and therefore supportive of suffering / torture / ethnic cleansing / murder / genocide etc etc etc.....Over time, who do you think would have attracted the most support / public sympathy? The moral argument, would have been easier, and probably quicker, to win.

I think that someone decided (Wrongly) to 'turn up the heat', and highlight every potential or actual risk, posed by Saddam, now or in the future. That way, (They thought) if the electorate or UN didn't think one particular reason was sufficient, then at least there would be a selection of reasons in reserve, just in case. If option A doesn't work, then how about B,C or D? Or if necessary, use A B C and D, just to be sure. Are you familiar with the expression, "Covering all the bases"?


Both sides in the debate, were fighting a propaganda war, and attempting to win the hearts and minds of voters. By mishandling the information war, to a certain extent, Bush / Blair (or their advisors) made things more difficult for themselves, than was necessary, while at the same time, they made it easier for people who opposed them. They handed the anti-war movement ammunition to attack them with. Provided opportunities for their opponents to spread doubt, create suspicion of secret agendas etc. If Bush / Blair had done things differently, much of the debate could have been neutralized early on. They opened up too many fronts in the information war.

Although I have to say, that it's easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticize them now. It wasn't me having to make the decisions at the time. There was obviously public resistance to war, that needed to be dealt with, and they had to decide at the time, rather than after the event, on how best to change public opinion on the issue. But I still think they could have done better, or at times, needed better advice. Perhaps someone just needed to tell them to have a little more confidence in the liberation argument. Regime change was obviously an objective all along, and was even stated as an objective, long in advance of military action. They should have just hammered that message to death, along with listing all the benefits that it would bring to the Iraqi people.
I think the images of happy Iraqis after the invasion, changed a lot of minds (Although not all) about the morality of removing Saddam - with or without UN support! Those images, and the reaction of people in the west, show that the liberation of Iraqis, was a good case to use for the war. A case that wins public sympathy. The reaction of the public in the west, shows the possibilities that existed. Bush / Blair would have been pushing on an open door. They just didn't push hard enough!


Frank

I'm assuming you are reffering to me! That I was really pro war all along, and was easily persuaded. Emmmm.....interesting theory. Alas, you are one per cent wrong.

As I have mentioned before, I live in Belfast, Northern Ireland. After three decades of terrorist related violence, actual and threatened, which was an ever present, seven day a week reality in my country, I think it's safe to say that I am not exactly 'gung ho', or enthusiastic about war / violence. I certainly wouldn't support exporting the sort of stuff that has happened in my country! I know what a bullet can do. I know what a bomb can do to a building or a human body.
When people say that films or TV shows are too violent, I often suggest that perhaps the real problem is that they are not realistic enough. People should perhaps see what can really happen. Such as a bomb shredding a body into into lumps of flesh, and the heat then melting the flesh to the ground, which then requires some poor bastard to scrape the remains off the ground and into a plastic bag. Or maybe a bullet blowing out most of the contents of a person's head, which would be shocking enough for anyone to witness, but even worse if the witness is a child, and the victim is a parent / brother. Then people might realize how wrong it is for Hollywood to glorify violence, or simply make it escapist entertainment.
To put it simply Frank, after more than thirty years of conflict in my country, I am not a stranger to the concept of violence, or man's inhumanity to man. The above brief examples, are typical of things that have happened in the place I call home. Home sweet home! Over 3500 dead (The majority civilians). Tens of thousand physically injured, and God knows how many psychological injuries. By US standards, these statistics may seem quite small, but Northern Ireland only has a population of about 1.75 million. (In case anyone misreads - that's one point seven five million, not one hundred and seventy-five million!!!) If you sit down with a calculator, and work out the statistical comparisons - death per head of population etc, we somehow managed to destroy the inhabitants of a small American city, which is quite an achievement don't you think?! (And that's just the dead - excluding injured people). To state the obvious, that's quite an impact on a country, even when spread over three decades.
Thankfully, we are currently involved in a peace process. The madness may some day be over for good, which after centuries of violence / conflict on this small island, will also be quite an achievement! I support the peace process, since I've seen the alternative, and while everyone has problems with some of the compromises being made, someone, sometime on this island, will have to draw a line, start afresh, and escape from our past. I want my generation, to be the one that finally achieves peace. If for no other reason, to allow future generations a chance of enjoying boring normality!
So I hope I have dispelled any illusions that I'm a secret supporter of war. However, I'm not a pacifist. Even after everything that has happened in my country, I am not so naive to think that war is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Sometimes, it's the lesser of two evils. Even if it means innocent civilians dying. While that may seem a little cold blooded and calculated, it's just a tragic reality. Sometimes the ends, really do justify the means. We don't live in a utopian society or world, unfortunately. I wish we did.

Stinger

If I had meant to direct my comments only to you, I would have addressed them to you.

I was intending them for several people, including you, who seem to disparage people who demonstrated against the war.

I stand by everything I said.

War sucks.

It should never be the preferred solution.

Bush and Rumsfeld are of the John Wayne school of bravery -- duck out when it is your turn to fight -- and be talk brave when you are sending others to face danger.

They are a couple of buffoons.

It's always easier to send other's family and friends to fight and die for a war. To never have fought in a war, then sending others to do so is tantamount to sheer ignorance and cowardice. c.i.

Especially when you were called -- and went out of your way to duck your responsibility -- as did Bush and Rumsfeld.

And to think...many of their supporters made such a huge thing out of this when they were talking about Bill Clinton doing it.

Why do you suppose they work that way, ci?

Too blanket a statement. There are military officers who have never seen combat, yet make decisions which send people to die. There were only 25 presidents who served before being elected - doesn't make the rest of them all cowards or fools.

Sorry - had to edit my screwed up info. There were 25 who served in wars, 4 who were in the military but saw no action, and 12 with no experience at all, according to the US Presidents: Lists and Records site I found. I'm not sure how old this info is, since that only adds up to 41.

snood, Didn't mean to imply that at all. The world was a different place in human history when speaking about most previous wars declared by presidents. It was a time when nobody ever heard of "smart bombs" or "collateral damage." We can't compare what GWBush did to preempt this war with Iraq with all previous presidents in US history. Officers are ordered to send their troops into battle, after the president declares the war. There's a big difference, IMHO. c.i.

Frank

I know your comments were directed at more than one person. But that group included me.

As I think I have indicated in my previous comments, I am only too aware of the realities of violence. Probably more so than many people currently indulging in the pro / anti war debate. Although I am willing to support a war, in order to help liberate an oppressed population, I do not fit easily into your generalisations about people supporting wars, who have no first hand-experience of conflict or violence. I know the human cost of conflict, since I have witnessed it personally. Therefore, sending others into conflict, to fight a war is not something I would support without a considerable amount of thought. I imagine, that I am not unique in that respect. You may wish to consider that, before applying broad brushstroke generalisations about people who support a war - even when it refers to politicians who have not served in combat. It is actually possible, that they understand the horrors involved, but as with people like myself, feel it is still a necessary course of action.


Your 'war sucks' comment, is something of a blanket statement. If war really sucks, then how about wars that liberate the oppressed and suffering?

I, for one, would probably have been won over more easily with a liberation-from-dictatorship argument, compared to the hapless "threat to world security" one - I'm not sure whether I would have, per se, but there'd have been more of a chance. Bit of an idealist on that front - would rather see the toppling of dictatorships done inconsistently than not at all.

Still, should they have "hammered away" on that solely, the anti-war camp could also have hammered away with more clear a focus, with the only remaining argument they'd have, and it'd have been a hard one to respond to: "why Iraq?" Why not any of the random other regimes like it? Wouldnt it have seemed all the more like Bush picking a fight?

Stinger

The main focus of my opposition to the war was that we were weakening the United Nations by the way we were doing it -- and we were causing irreperable damage to codes of conduct that have stood us in good stead for many, many years.

I am happy as hell that the Iraqi people have a chance for freedom. I am not convinced thay will use the opportunity wisely -- but I sure hope so.

If I said anything that indicated that I think ALL opponents of the war were all wet -- I retract it forthwith and without condition. I certainly never meant to do that.

Frank,

The U.S. merely exposed the UN's bad foundations. The UN charter, as it stands, is quite flawed.

See:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html

especially page 3

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217-p20/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html

where Mr. Glennon discusses multiple and habitual violations of UN charter by nations other than the U.S. and the consequences to "International Law" that were subsequent:

Respectfully,

JM

Thanks, James. I don't have time to look this over right now, but I will at some point.

For certain the United Nations is not perfect -- far from it.

But the fledgling United States was not perfect either -- and the states making up the US had more in common than the nations making up the UN.

Even if it turns out that the UN eventually has to go the way of the League of Nations -- it behooves all nations to try to the best of their abilities to work within the framework of the UN structure.

And the excuse -- "they're not doing it" -- is no excuse.

But I'll look over those links.

Nimh

You asked "Why Iraq?"

Well I think removing Saddam, answers that question.

There are a number of other countries that also need our attention. Hopefully they will receive it. But it would be a little unwise to fight on more than one front, when it is not necessary to do so.

I suspect that the same people who ask, "Why Iraq?", will ask a similar question, no matter what country is attacked. Or do you think that people who asked that question, will be happier if we now attack Country X, and therefore remove any suspicion that we were being highly selective, by picking on a single country?

Frank

I was just clarifying your statement.

Rather than "war sucks", what you really mean is that some wars that you don't agree with suck.

As James has perhaps said, the recent events surrounding the Iraqi issue, has just highlighted problems that already existed within the UN, and in international relations in general.
France and Russia for example, are two countries that feel a little left out of things now. Russia was once a superpower, France would like to be (But never will). The fact that the USA is a superpower, and can do what it likes, is to put it simply, really pi**ing them off. France and Russia want to gain / regain some power and influence on the world stage, and they saw the Iraq debate as a possible way of achieving it, while also cutting the wings of the USA. (The French would also have liked the bonus of annoying the British as well).
Putin's behaviour this week, during Tony Blair's visit, was like a little boy who was huffing and name calling. He's obvioulsy annoyed that Russia is not the force that it once was. He has clearly realized, that it is no longer a 'bi-polar world. Hopefully Chirac the Crook, will try the old technique of holding his breath until he gets his own way.

Stinger

Sorry about that -- I saw that question earlier and thought I had responded, but I looked around and couldn't find it. My screw-up.




I certainly am not saying that all wars are bad.

They suck -- but they are sometimes necessary.

The fact that they are necessary does not diminish, in my opinion, the fact that they suck.

Probably best to think of my statement as a version of "War is Hell."

Something just came to mind that might add even more light to my thoughts on that subject, Stinger.

A guy wrote a letter to our local newspaper and went on and on about Bush and the need for the war -- and how the peace activists had helped the enemy.

At one point, he said (very syrupy guy) "May God forgive these poor unthinking innocents" -- or words very much to that effect.

I wrote a response to his letter and hammered at several points -- but saved my strongest thoughts for that prayer.

How can anyone suppose that God would want to forgive people who are arguing against war -- no matter what the circumstances. Any God worthy of capital "G" would esteem the actions of war protesters and would more likely be offended by people trivializing or mocking such activities.

Hope that helped clear my position.

Any god worthy of capital "G". LOL

I'm not sure I understand your point here, Snood.

I'd like the opportunity to comment on it since I use the expression "any God wothy of a captial "G" often.

Unlax your shorts, man. Just struck me funny.

Frank,

As regards your post of Sat May 03, 2003 5:24 pm and the " (very syrupy guy) " Some times people get so wrapped up in their passions they forget one of the underlying reasons why the U.S. sees regimes such as Saddam's as so intolerable. Of course, free speech often comes under fire in times like these as unpatriotic or "aid and comfort to the enemy". Sometimes this can be true.

An extreme case that comes to mind is Jane Fonda showing up in North Vietnam to demonstrate for an end to the Vietnam war. However, those same demonstrations at home did make people question as to whether the country was pursuing the right course especially with the emergence of "mission creep" allowed by the length of that conflict (i.e. did the U.S. really want to win this war or what?).

We must never forget that one of the main reasons we try to eliminate oppressive regimes is to allow those with dissenting opinions the chance to express them.

It must be totally confusing to dictators such as Saddam to try to read "public opinion" in the U.S.. What must a dictator think while viewing thousands of demonstrators marching thru Manhattan on a pleasant Saturday afternoon? Surely Americans don't want this war! They are risk adverse and are not willing to take any casualties! Then the next day a couple of JDAMs zip into his tuna salad while he is in the rest room and when he finally gets to a phone he hears that almost three Divisions of heavy armor and mechanized infantry are pouring over his southern border with the express intent of grabbing him up while muttering something about crimes against humanity!

JM