The War - How do ya like it so far?

Scares me, too. Heightened sensitivity to certain commentary because I'm a soldier, I guess.

I'm a former RAAF member myself.

Of the military people I have known, there are so many varied personalities and political persuasions I find it impossible to lump all together and lay the blame on them en toto. Too, the mass hysteria, fed by both the media and administration, only serves to distort judgement. All too many of our forces genuinely believe they are fighting for 'truth, justice, and the American way', not to mention protecting us from further 9/11s. I will never say a good thing about Bush and his war, but I will not be like the people who spit on returning Vietnam veterans either.

edgar

I don't think that will happen. We know so much better now. The Vietnam veterans were the victims of insane politicians & so are the soldiers in Iraq now. I just hope they get them out much, much more quickly.

This must be the worst sold and worst prepared war of the US in recent history.

Yet another example

There was a really first-rate discussion about Iraqi WMD's (what to do it? are there, aren't there? on the Diane Rehm show this morning. Highly recommended -- later on audio http://www.wamu.org/dr/.

I caught only parts of it, among them:

1. The White House/DOD are setting up their own WMD finding team. Hmmm....

2. The problem with bombing Baghdad includes the possibility that our bombs will explode some dangerous materials which will then become airborne... I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere, have you?

You ain't hinting Bush would plant evidence of WMDs are ya? Not a fine upstanding guy like that. Next you'll be telling me there ain't no Easter Bunny.

Greetings. This is my first post. I keep chickening out, because this format is rather complicated. I'm practicing messaging options. Hope you will excuse gaffes. This seems to be an incredibly wonderful board with thoughtful people from all spheres of thought and ideology. It is also fresh to see such differences shared with civility.


Asherman came close to my views:
No, I don't believe that a perfect world, a Utopia will result from this conflict. I suspect that some radical Islamic factions will become even more dedicated to the fall of Western Civilization. The Middle-East will continue to be on a near-boil for a long, long time. We may well have to fight another war in rather short order against Kim Jong-Il on the Korean Peninsula. I really dread that possibility because we have family in Seoul, and our son is a Asian specialist in the Army. A lot of people will come out of this conflict injured, and it will take years for them to recover. Politically, this country will probably remain polarized and divided. I expect the economy to recover pretty quickly. This conflict is not the War to End all Wars, but hopefully out of it a lot of good will come.
*****************************
Having read the document first forwarded by Wolfowitz years ago, re-written by Cheney when outcry rose over it's rather off-putting bent toward world domination--and which Bush seems to have adopted as his foreign policy goal sheet, I can see this war as Bush's progression to that document's goal.

I guess we can all separate ourselves on agreement or opposition to the document. Though it concerned me as being 'imperialistic', in this present global climate--I agreed with it's basic assertions:
1) The US is the unchallenged super power in the world.
2) The US should use this power to establish democracies when it can.
3) The ME will stablize due to democratization.
4) The world will ultimately benefit due to the democratization of the ME.

The wobbly parts, for me, are in italics. Where I may draw argument against the current administration is when we seek to democratize, and how long ultimately is...

I do think the situation in Iraq merited an attempt at overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The US and global politicization of the Iraq situation is, IMO, very unfortunate for all concerned. Though war is rightfully hated, an unbiased look at the insane instability in the ME required action, and the US is the only power capable of addressing it. 911 was a symptom of the long-time broiling unrest and instability, IMO--not the first sign, and not the reason for attention in the ME.

I can't say, at this juncture, whether the originators of the neo-conservative world view are correct in their assumption that relative peace will break out in the ME after Iraq is free from Saddam and under a representative government, but I will say I do believe most Iraqis will express gratitude for our assistance in ridding them of the dictator--though they may want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, after the job is done.

Thank you.

Sofia -- Welcome and thanks for the excellent articulation of your views! I tried to think how to respond to a first post with which I disagree so wholeheartedly and, being tired of my own voice on the subject (!), I stole from Blatham, in another thread, a great piece from Slate, which I paste in below. You will enjoy Blatham -- one of the best and most interesting A2K'ers. Again, welcome, and sorry to disagree!

Tartarin--
Thank you for the greeting.

I didn't find much disagreement in the excerpt from Slate.

It is risky and mega-ambitious. It appeared imperialistic to many people (including me the first time I read it.)

I do differ with the article's supposition of the failure of the 'war plan'. The Push/Clean Up method would look alot like what we're seeing. A shot past unsecured areas, and a mop up detail to move in later. I wonder what the critics would describe as an indicator of this war plan's success?

Perle overstated. I guess we'll see Iraqi emotion upon hearing Saddam is dead....

Thank you.

Iraqis may be happy to see Saddam go - I wonder how they will feel when the Americans go about the business of micromanaging their lives and the administration openly allows its bias to Christianity to influence many decisions. We have had many years of so-called influence and friendship in Saudi Arabia. Result: Many of the terrorists hail from there.

Responding to edgarblythe:
I wonder how they will feel when the Americans go about the business of micromanaging their lives and the administration openly allows its bias to Christianity to influence many decisions
*********************************

I hope the administration is true to what they have said, and a UN or coalition peacekeeping force will replace the war machine with astounding speed once Saddam is no more. If the admin. follows their public statements, the Iraqi gov will formulated by freed Iraqis. I don't understand your micromanage statement.

I did see a scary scroll across the news yesterday. Franklin Graham wants to send missionaries to Iraq. Normally, I think hard-working missionaries have done excellent, dangerous, thankless work around the globe, but this is one time I think utilizing Christian missionaries would be tantamount to dropping a nuke. I hope the admin. has better sense than to allow this. The kind of Christianity Bush should employ is the do unto others and love your neighbor and Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

Saudi did Westernize, but we didn't have a gun to their heads. You may have a point about the result of Western influence in the ME. The Saudi culture is sort of schizophrenic: very Western and very stone age. But, IMO, a more effective target for the fundy Islamists would be the Saudi sheiks., not us. Still, your point is taken.

I'm just remembering the attempted coup in Iraq in 1991. I guess I believe we are considered by the majority of Iraqis as the lesser of two evils. Much depends on our post-war behavior, IMO.

A radio station I listen to spoke of a possible plan of the Bush administration to form a government similar to the one in occupied Japan. It would consist of a number of offices administered by Americans, with American appointed Iraqi advisers. True or not, this is one scenario out there.

Well, such an approach seems wise. If Iraqis are being left to themselves after Saddam is removed, probability of establishment of the Islamic republic seems quite high.

Edgar -- That was the scenario I heard, too, in connection with Garner's name...

They're using cluster bombs -- nice move, Rummy.

What is wrong with cluster bombs? These are not WMD. Some of the cluster bomb models are a mere anti-tank ordnance.

The Bush admin has said several times that they will not pull a "Shah."

I buy less and less of what I hear in the news. The recent carping over the 'failed yet unknown' war plan shows how agenda-based news makes it up as they go along... I'm not even accusing partisanship. Everybody digs up military analysts, and goads them into making all manner of declarations without proper information. Its a scoop mentality, and I feel journalistic responsibility has taken a nose dive. Since this war has started, gossip in the Blue Haired Ladies' Convention powder room is as reliable as some of the news items reported on the war and the Bush administration.

If we put an American in control (not of the infrastructure rebuilding, but the provisional gov), it will be a horrid PR move. We'll probably see within a week. Meanwhile, I'll look into the information you shared about the post-war gov, and see if I can bring back some new info.

Thank you for discussion...

Bush wants to install a military (US) govt in Iraq, Blair yesterday said NO. Blair said any government must be a UN based inititive without US or Brit control. should get interesting!

Yes, the situation with Blair (our hero?) has been very interesting ever since he emerged from that meeting with Bush a few days ago, voice gravelly, face a-frown. If he can force Bush to back down, it would be a major triumph and perhaps a signal...

Somewhere I posted a link to the Diane Rehm first hour this morning wamu.org/dr -- and suggested that those interested in what's happening in Congress and about Bush's support might want to listen...