Reply
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:59 pm
I've been gone awhile, I started school again and that's been majorly cutting into the time I used to spend reading and posting here on A2K. As some of you may remember I would be considered left leaning but for the most part I consider myself a centrist, or more accurately an independent.
But on to the Dilemma...
Unlike many of my colleagues on the left I still think that the war in Iraq is winnable, however I think it would take a commitment to the war on a scale beyond what was done during the second world war and a leader on the scale of an FDR or a Napoleon. Someone who could really rally the populous and get the majority of them to really dig in and do what it takes to win the war and re-establish the global trust of the U.S. to what it was after WWII.
I would like to see this happen, unfortunately I only see two options from our leaders:
1. Congress goes on as it has been and lets a delusional administration continue to stumble along with rose colored glasses, making one global political blunder after another and rattling a flaccid sabre at enemies (real or imagined) who merely laugh at us and go along their merry way.
All the while letting thousands more of our troops die in a slow trickle overseas. Leaving us no safer than we were on Sept. 10, 2001 and very probably less safe than we were on Sept. 12, 2001.
OR
2. Electing a new Congress who pull out, over the course of a year or two, leaving Iraq more of a threat than it was before we invaded.
I do have a small ray of hope (albeit on the same level that I have a hope I may win the lottery that I don't buy tickets for) that we will get a decent injection of Iraq war veterans into Congress in Nov. that can hold the administration back from it's most egregious mistakes. Or at the very least could hold them responsible for those mistakes.
Currently I'm leaning towards the latter but I really would like to hear the opinions of some reasonable conservatives (i.e. OCCOM BILL, Mc G. etc...)
Thanks
RY
I'm fiercely independent myself, CoachRyan, but do tend to lean right on most subjects.
I don't wear rose colored glasses but believe Iraq is on the right track. Serious, serious growing pains, yes, but they are growing. The Iraqi army is becoming more capable all the time. Eventually, they should be able to handle most of their own security.
Civil War. This may happen, but I won't consider it Bush's or the United States' failure if it does. Saddam and Son's Oppression Inc was not going to go away without something of a Civil War in the foreseeable future. More Americans died in our own Civil War than any other, but I think few would say it wasn't worth it for United States. I don't see Iraq any differently. Whatever it takes to transform a thoroughly oppressed people into people who enjoy self determination is a price worth paying. There are tens of millions of human beings living there, no different than you or I. Give them a decent shot at a decent lot in life and they'll defend it with their lives. Rightly so. They braved bullets and bombs, walking miles and carrying the infirm to participate in major elections and still showed up in per capita numbers that matched our own. It brings tears to my eyes to remember the pride in the faces of those brave Iraqis as they held up their blue fingers in the face of tyranny to prove their independence. I am as proud of them as I am discouraged by those who claim the war had no justification.
I too would like to see the training of Iraqi forces stepped up several notches, believing that the "occupation propaganda" will lose steam as we turn over control... but I don't believe an artificial time-table should be offered. Such a time-table would set the goal-line for the enemies of Iraqi freedom and steel their resolve to cross it. Bush is right in steadfastly maintaining that we will not abandon Iraqis (again) until the job is done.
Should the United States succeed in delivering Iraq from tyranny and into the realm of self-determination; it will send a clear signal to oppressed people everywhere that they have hope. Humans require hope every bit as much as food and water if they wish to live fulfilling lives. I hope, beyond hope, that Iraq is the beginning, not the end of the United State's mission to spread freedom to the four corners of the earth. Only then will the causes of terrorism be totally unjustifiable. A man with a decent shot at a decent lot in life doesn't strap a bomb to his chest. Only a desperate man who feels he has no alternative does.
A victory in Iraq would be a victory for humankind. It would also serve to put other oppressors on notice. The next time the world's only superpower sets their sights on a murderous dictator; he will be far less likely to mistake it as wolf-crying. We've seen some signs to this effect in Pakistan and Libya already. Cries for freedom from oppressed masses grow louder every day. I for one would be a much prouder citizen of the world if more of these cries are answered.
The United States' unparalleled ability to effect change comes with the responsibility to do so. For our own sake as well as the oppressed people everywhere, turning the blind eye while murderous tyrants oppress millions should be abolished. There is nothing noble in condemning millions, if not billions to slavery through apathy and inaction. As Edmund Burke states at the bottom of my every post: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". The soldiers I've met seem to agree, and I consider it a great honor to meet them. These kids are doing what the liberals only dream about. I am proud to know them.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't wear rose colored glasses but believe Iraq is on the right track. Serious, serious growing pains, yes, but they are growing. The Iraqi army is becoming more capable all the time. Eventually, they should be able to handle most of their own security.
I don't quite understand the sanguine musings that some have recently expressed about the Iraqi military. If Iraq descends into a civil war (I mean a
real civil war, not the quasi-civil war that it is currently facing), then the army can play one of two roles: either it too will be riven by sectarian and ethnic divisions and, in effect, become part of the larger problem; or else it will be the only effective institution that will be able to rise about those divisions and impose order on society.
If the first alternative occurs, then any optimism about the army is totally misplaced -- the army will just be one more warlord's militia, and a better armed and equipped one at that. If the second, then we can expect that the leader of the military will become, by default, the leader of the country -- a not-entirely-unexpected result in a country and region where military strongmen frequently end up in charge. But the administration says that we invaded Iraq to bring down such a strongman and to bring democracy to the region. Surely we would not prefer stability in Iraq to come at the price of democracy. Or would we?
Re: Dilemma
coachryan wrote:Unlike many of my colleagues on the left I still think that the war in Iraq is winnable, however I think it would take a commitment to the war on a scale beyond what was done during the second world war and a leader on the scale of an FDR or a Napoleon. Someone who could really rally the populous and get the majority of them to really dig in and do what it takes to win the war and re-establish the global trust of the U.S. to what it was after WWII.
Winning the war would, of course, require some notion beforehand of what "winning" actually means. Do you have any idea,
coachryan?
"You put so much stock in winning wars. The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how spendidly we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we're losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated."
Classic scene in the motion picture, too, with the old man in the decaying-magnificent old room . . .
Much of this claptrap is also in evidence in another thread. Even were the best of all possible "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world" scenario's briefly reign, and the United States military to pull out of Iraq, there is no guarantee against future demagoguery which puts weapons of mass destruction, or the potential to produce them, in the hands of those whom we laothe and/or fear. The only way to assure that this does not happen, is to keep a permanent military presence in the nation. That is, of course, just what the neo-cons at the PNAC want, and have wanted, since long before the Pinhead in Chief stole his first election. But i doubt that it will go down well with the American public, and it further ignores that we'd have to stay there forever and ever, world without end, amen, to have even a notional security in regard to the posited nightmare scenario.
I consider that it is self-delusion of the highest order to consider that this war is "winnable." The thesis is that we would win by depriving the Ba'ahtists of weapons of mass destruction (rather hard to deprive someone of something you cannot find), and then establish a democratic government in the region. Nevermind that Iran has a democratic government (ostensibly), which is as functionally democratic as the rest of the world considers the United States to be (conservative egos aside, that's not seen as terribly democratic), but simply happens to elect people we don't like. Nevermind that a fully-functional and truly democratic government in Iraq means a Shi'ite state, and therefore, another ostensibly democratic governement in the region of exactly the same religious proclivities as those of the Iranians. Some magic wand must be waiting in the wings which will suddenly make them all love us, make then all want never, ever to make the least hint of any CBN weapons which would make all right-thinking democratcs quail. How charming.
The notion of "winning" in Iraq is chimerical.
This from Salon:
The third anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq passed over the weekend, and Dick Cheney used the occasion to apologize for falsely optimistic statements he has made along the way. "'Greeted as liberators'? 'Last throes of the insurgency'? I don't know what I was thinking," the vice president said.
No, wait, he didn't.
On "Face the Nation" Sunday, Bob Schieffer asked Cheney about the rose-colored glasses through which he seems to see the war. "Mr. Vice President," Schieffer said, "all along the government has been very optimistic. You remain optimistic. But I remember when you were saying we'd be 'greeted as liberators,' you played down the insurgency 10 months ago. You said it was in its 'last throes.' Do you believe that these optimistic statements may be one of the reasons that people seem to be more skeptical in this country about whether we ought to be in Iraq?"
Cheney's response? Not a chance. The vice president said "the statements we've made" have been "basically accurate and reflect reality," and that, if Americans see it differently, it's because they've been influenced by media reports that focus on car bombings and other violence rather than on political progress.
"The facts are pretty straightforward," Cheney said. "The Iraqis met every single political deadline that's been set for them. They haven't missed a single one."
Maybe that characterization counts as "basically accurate" in Cheney-speak, but it's not what we'd call "true." Last summer, Iraqis missed several deadlines -- we stopped counting after three -- for creating a draft constitution amid disagreements between Shiite and Sunni leaders. While Iraqi voters eventually approved the constitution and elected a National Assembly, progress seems to have stopped right there. Three months after it was elected, the National Assembly met briefly last week, then adjourned because it still doesn't have a leader. Likewise, the feuding parties can't agree on a prime minister or a cabinet; as a stop-gap measure, party leaders have apparently agreed to the creation of some sort of security council that isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution voters approved last year.
Some Iraqi leaders say the security council could help the country avert civil war; others say it's too late. Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who once was as bullish on Iraq as Cheney still is, said over the weekend that a civil war has already begun. "We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi said. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Cheney was asked about Allawi's comments Sunday. He said he was wrong. Civil war has been the goal of the "terrorists" all along, Cheney said, "but my view would be they've reached a stage of desperation from their standpoint."
The March of Folly progresses......
Cheney won't resign: 'I'll serve out my term'
This after Democratic Congressman Murtha says Bush should accept resignations, then fire everyone responsible for misdecisions in Iraq war.
http://www.rawstory.com/
Re: Dilemma
coachryan wrote: Currently I'm leaning towards the latter but I really would like to hear the opinions of some reasonable conservatives (i.e. OCCOM BILL, Mc G. etc...)
I am neither reasonable nor a conservative, but if I had a vote, I'd vote for declaring victory and going home. Your option #1 boils down to a line of reasoning that Shakespeare discredited centuries ago: "I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er." (
Macbeth 3. 4. 136)
joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't wear rose colored glasses but believe Iraq is on the right track. Serious, serious growing pains, yes, but they are growing. The Iraqi army is becoming more capable all the time. Eventually, they should be able to handle most of their own security.
I don't quite understand the sanguine musings that some have recently expressed about the Iraqi military. If Iraq descends into a civil war (I mean a
real civil war, not the quasi-civil war that it is currently facing), then the army can play one of two roles: either it too will be riven by sectarian and ethnic divisions and, in effect, become part of the larger problem; or else it will be the only effective institution that will be able to rise about those divisions and impose order on society.
If the first alternative occurs, then any optimism about the army is totally misplaced -- the army will just be one more warlord's militia, and a better armed and equipped one at that. If the second, then we can expect that the leader of the military will become, by default, the leader of the country -- a not-entirely-unexpected result in a country and region where military strongmen frequently end up in charge. But the administration says that we invaded Iraq to bring down such a strongman and to bring democracy to the region. Surely we would not prefer stability in Iraq to come at the price of democracy. Or would we?
Honestly Joe, you make a powerful point about the potential backfire of a well trained military in the event of a Coup. I don't, however, think even a full blown Civil War is a fore drawn conclusion, let alone a coup. We survived our own Civil War without sliding into a military dictatorship. I believe our first legendary general pretty much turned down such a position in hopes of forming something better, too. Can Iraq produce no man such as George Washington? Why not? The incredibly encouraging percentage of Iraqis who braved their way to the polls speaks volumes about the gravitational pull of self-determination. I could be wrong; but it seems to me that having tasted it; the Iraqi people are going to want more. If the good people who are no doubt the majority will settle for nothing less, I believe they're going to get it. I further believe they'll eventually be very grateful to those who helped them achieve it. Unlike Setanta; I don't believe the PNAC has got it all wrong. I repeat; I hope beyond all hope that history views Iraq as an important first step towards an advance in Global Civilization. No doubt; I could be wrong, but idiotic I am not.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Honestly Joe, you make a powerful point about the potential backfire of a well trained military in the event of a Coup.
Nor do I, although I probably think there's a better chance of that happening than do you.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't, however, think even a full blown Civil War is a fore drawn conclusion, let alone a coup. We survived our own Civil War without sliding into a military dictatorship.
We also had the tradition of about four score and seven years of democratic governance and the rule of law. Iraq doesn't have that to draw upon.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I believe our first legendary general pretty much turned down such a position in hopes of forming something better, too. Can Iraq produce no man such as George Washington? Why not?
Well, Washington came from a culture that encouraged and rewarded that kind of renunciation of power.
OCCOM BILL wrote:The incredibly encouraging percentage of Iraqis who braved their way to the polls speaks volumes about the gravitational pull of self-determination. I could be wrong; but it seems to me that having tasted it; the Iraqi people are going to want more. If the good people who are no doubt the majority will settle for nothing less, I believe they're going to get it. I further believe they'll eventually be very grateful to those who helped them achieve it.
I hope you're right. I would add, however, that people in similar situations, when presented with the option of either freedom or security, gladly chose the latter at the expense of the former.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Unlike Setanta; I don't believe the PNAC has got it all wrong. I repeat; I hope beyond all hope that history views Iraq as an important first step towards an advance in Global Civilization. No doubt; I could be wrong, but idiotic I am not.
I'd never say you were.
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:I believe our first legendary general pretty much turned down such a position in hopes of forming something better, too. Can Iraq produce no man such as George Washington? Why not?
Well, Washington came from a culture that encouraged and rewarded that kind of renunciation of power.
I agree with Joe, so expect the end of the world real soon now. While I'm holding my breath for it, let me add that Washington could only be a general because a bunch of states had decided they wanted a military alliance, which he then could lead. Also, he could only be a president because a bunch of states had decided wanted a political union, which he then could preside over. Contrast this with Iraq: It seems fair to say that Kurds, the Arab Shiites, and the Arab Sunnites of Iraq wouldn't want a union if they had the choice. If they have a union anyway, it's for two reasons only: First, the British Empire carelessly drew random lines into the sand and called the inside of those lines a country. Of course, inside those arbitrary lines lived people who weren't consulted, and calling the place a country didn't make it one. This leads us to reason #2: Having been established as a country, a chain of dictators kept this British contrievance together against its peoples' will. And now that the people of Iraq are finally being asked for their input, the truth is finally laid bare: There is no `people of Iraq' to produce a George Washington, or a Napoleon, or whatever.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace