I find it surprising that Charles Krauthammer’s music library includes Wham! However, I do not find it surprising that Krauthammer’s latest column in The Washington Post would add to the orchestrated defense of Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. His column comes on the heels of an opinion piece in the Post by Melvin Laird and Robert Pursley that makes the same argument. [Aside: Melvin Laird is the architect of "Vietnamization" so the Administration mantra "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up" should give him Goosebumps since Vietnamization worked out so well]
You cannot blame Krauthammer (and Laird) for shooting the messenger, after all, the message is hard to discount. Krauthammer sees a danger to our Republic. He sees a collapse of civilian control over the military. He sees a military takeover of the United States.
I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense. The antiwar types think this is just swell.
…
We’ve always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.
….
It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.
Charles, Charles, Charles. Calm down and breathe into the brown paper bag. I would share your alarm but I have not been able to find a good way to detach my brain from my skull and still function as a human being. But fear not you have many who will carry the water with you.
Let me take it from the top:
-
Not withstanding the last holdout, American policy in Iraq has been a disaster.
-
We were lied or bumbled (no practical difference) into this preemptive war by this Administration.
-
We failed to take any steps to plan for a post-conflict peace. We have reigned over chaos since 2003.
-
We have handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iran.
-
We have put in power in Iraq the same group of people that killed 241 marines in Beirut in 1983.
-
We have no exit strategy in Iraq other than to say, "Stay the course" or "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up".
-
We have lost over 2000 American lives and at least 30,000 Iraqi lives.
-
Civil war rages in Iraq with ethnic cleansing at its core.
-
We have been taken to war on the backs of two ideologies. That of the neo-cons like Mr. Krauthammer who argue for Pax Americana at the barrel of a gun; and that of Mr. Rumsfeld that is bent on proving his concept of a light and agile military is superior, facts or circumstances be damned.
According to the latest Fox News poll only 33% of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job. Of those who disapprove, the most frequently cited reason is the debacle in Iraq. In this environment, does this surprise you, Charles, that retired generals would also disapprove of our Iraq policy. The public is well ahead of the military on this one – as they should be. Krauthammer argues rather disingenuously that the generals should have spoken out while on active duty:
Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld’s disregard of their advice, why didn’t they resign at the time? Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?
Nice one Charles, but by your own thesis, didn’t the generals do what they should have done. While on active duty, they accepted the civilian control of the military, registered their complaints, saluted and followed orders. I applaud them for that – as should you, Charles. I think our Republic is safe from a military takeover precisely because our men and women in the military are a disciplined group of people who understand and respect the Constitution of the United States.
Of course, when all other arguments fail the fallback argument is always that dissent aids the enemy. Laird and Pursley conclude with this:
In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.
The real enemy is sitting in some cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan laughing at us for our fiasco in Iraq. When the majority of the public think the country is being mismanaged and when retired generals speak out, it is time to take heed. Attempting to dismiss legitimate criticism by suggesting that it is aiding and abetting the enemy is the same mindset and groupthink that got us embroiled in this mess in Iraq in the first place.
Mash. Only a commie bastard would post something like this!!
Nice rebuttal!! š
Bravo, Mash. Especially after Instapundit’s posting of a reader’s email calling the generals “fascists” after a cutesy ‘dare I say it’ tweak. I’ve been beating this drum since it all started.
Given the historical emnity between the Iranian regime and Saddam, it is truly amazing that the US did not use the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” meme as an opportunity to break some bread and find some common ground (worth noting, the Iranians themselves seemed open to this possibility when the US invaded Afghanistan). I suspect that had that occured, Ahmadinejad might not have managed to squeak into power and would’ve ended up as a very minor footnote in Iranian political history.
But then again, that has been the history of US-Iranian relations since 1979. One missed opportunity after another.
timewarp, you make way too much sense. Your plan would have put a crimp in their Iraq-Iran-Syria march.
Stop making sense š
James, I lost my commie id card in a urinal in Timbuktu. I tried calling the Pulitburo in Moscow for a replacement card but their number was disconnected š
tree hugging sister, Thanks for reading my post and thank you for calling out the Instapundit link.
Glenn Reynolds is tilting at windmills (or is that strawmen?). Glenn’s readers need a refresher course on the definition of “fascism”. It must be fun to blithely throw words around and think they are making sense. Fascism indeed!
Mash:
I think you can be an honest opponent of this war, but in order to do so you need to be able to give an alternative. After reading your article I have a small suspicion you don’t approve of the action taken, but here’s the question: What would you have done to prevent another 9/11 from occurring?
This war was mandatory, is making the US safer by freeing millions from dictatorship, and is one of the best-run military operations in human history, with some of the lowest casualties in military history. Again, I think you can have an alternative view without being ‘unpatriotic’, but not unless you can answer that question.
Regards,
usnjay
“timewarp, you make way too much sense. Your plan would have put a crimp in their Iraq-Iran-Syria march.”
Mash, didn’t you just have a large article stating the US has to stop being allied with oppressive regimes? I’m not criticizing you here, but I think you show that the world is not a simplistic place where one solution, like diplomacy or war, fits all situations. It would be a mistake to ally with Iran, but not a mistake to ally with Islamic fundamentalist groups willing to participate in a democratic process.
Regards
usnjay
usnjay, I was not suggesting allying with Iran. My point in responding to timewarp was simply that we are not very flexible in responding or mitigating challanges from other countries because we are trapped by ideology.
The real world requires pragmatism and forethought. There is a vast middle between being allies and bombing someone. I would say that we and China are not allies, but I do not see bombs flying.
usnjay said:
This war was mandatory, is making the US safer by freeing millions from dictatorship, and is one of the best-run military operations in human history, with some of the lowest casualties in military history.
I have to take strong exception with your suggestion that the war in Iraq was mandatory. Explain why it was mandatory.
Are we really safer because of our action in Iraq? I do not think so. A look at the new power structure in Iraq confirms my thinking quite easily.
If freeing people from dictatorships is in itself a reason to launch preemptive strikes, I want to see missiles flying at China, North Korea and the umpteen little banana republics around the world. Why wait?
I recall the reason for attacking Iraq was its link to al Qaeda and its possession of WMD. We did not want a mushroom cloud in our cities, remember? Are we still looking for WMD? Or have we now fallen back to the freedom agenda? You want to spread freedom in the Middle East, start with the most repressive regime there: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia where you cannot practice christianity, where you are torured for doing so. Instead, we hit the most secular Arab country and have created the chaos there.
I would hardly call that the “best-run military operation[s] in human history”.
Mash:
All fair, though in my opinion incorrect, positions to hold. I will be glad to answer, but you haven’t answered my question. What alternative would you have suggested to prevent another 9/11 attack from the Islamic extremists? The fact you can’t answer that is really the answer to most of your questions as to why we went to Iraq.
Bush & others said repeatedly we were going to Iraq for multiple reasons. PNAC, which liberals use as proof of American arrogance, laid out the case loudly and publicly before 9/11 even occurred. We went to war in Iraq b/c establishing a democracy in the middle east was the best way to protect America, and Iraq was the best way to do that, for many reasons. WMD, oil, religion, and history all played a role. Again, unless you can provide an alternative you can’t honestly oppose the action in Iraq.
Regards,
Jason
Nice; however there is a slight type-o:
It is 30 000 (not 3000) Iraqi casualties. And the 30 000 is Bush’s estimate, not the Red Cross’s estimate of 100 000 casualties just before our attack on Falluja.
usnjay-
Acutally 9/11 happened because we had bases in the Middle East and many people, but especially Bin Laden wanted us out. How does building PERMANENT U.S. military bases in the second holiest place in the Arab World (Iraq), while not seeking Bin Laden, prevent another 9/11?
“Democracy in Iraq” sounds really great and it makes for a great talking point, but try being honest with yourself and viewing it as the chaos that it really is.
Chaos does not equal Peace and Peace IS what we want. Right?
usnjay, there are many reasons why attacking Iraq was a bad idea, I cited a bunch in this post alone. You seem to suggest somehow that not attacking Iraq would have caused another 9/11 ?!? I find the logical inversion extremely peculiar.
You say: What alternative would you have suggested to prevent another 9/11 attack from the Islamic extremists?
The alternative I would have suggested is not attacking Iraq, plain and simple. There is a major logical inconsistancy in your question. Let me state a simple one here: “I drive to work. There is not another 9/11.” Therefore usnjay, “What alternative to me driving to work would you have suggested to prevent another 9/11 attack from the Islamic extremists?” Kind of nonsensical.
I have given you plenty of reasons why attacking Iraq was a bad idea. That should answer your questions. While UBL chills out in a cave, we waste our time making things worse in Iraq. By anyone’s barometer, and increasingly even the President’s, we have failed in Iraq. We are likely to leave Iraq in the hands of Iran or muslim extremists – either option makes us less safe than we were vis a vis Iraq in 2002.
What could we have done instead of attacking Iraq? We could have rolled up al Qaeda. We would be much better positioned to counter Iran now. Having blown our wad in Iraq and demonstrated to the world the limits of American power, we are rather naked and defanged. The only legitimate detterent left to us vis-a-vis Iran is now a nuclear strike. And that is in the realm of the crazies.
Each additional day of chaos in Iraq lessens American credibility. Its no accident that Iran can taunt us. You want to see power, look at the price of oil today. Might is not simply military. The United States must use military, economic, diplomatic, moral and other levers that it has in unison to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Otherwise we win the military fight and are left to hold the bag on everything else.
So, the net effect of our boondoggle in Iraq has been to weaken this country. That makes us less safe in a post 9/11 era.
usnjay, these are my views. And I respect yours. Just because I express my views forcefully does not mean I do not respect what you are saying. I look forward to our disagreements. Thanks š
Sven:
Right, & I agree with some of what you said. So what alternative to Iraq do you have to prevent another 9/11?
Jason
Sven, I fixed the type, thanks. I went with the President’s estimate because as the low number, it is not controversial, yet still is a lot of deaths for an unnecessary preemptive war.
er, typo! <---- that was another typo š
Mash:
Historical events & universal acknowledgement agreed that 9/11 was the first attack among many, even after we ārolled-upā Al Qaeda as much as possible in Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda was not source of the attacks, Islamic extremists oppressing the middle east (nearly all of it) were and continue to be. So Afghanistan dealt with the immediate attack, not the source. This is a war between competing ideologies just as the war between capitalism and Communism, or freedom and the facism of WWII.
So clearly ānot attacking Iraqā wouldnāt have gotten the job done, b/c it left the source. Unless you have a viable alternative, that leaves Iraq. Iraq has been and continues to be a huge success, in part b/c it gives us a base of operations against countries like Iran. I’m assuming you believe Iraq is a mess b/c you see it in the media, which is pushing its own political agenda. Donāt be mistaken into believing they represent the military. We can easily wage a major campaign against Iran, and Iran knows this.
I am never offended by honest debate & enjoy a friendly discussion, so thanks for providing the forum.
Regards,
usnjay
usnjay asks:
So what alternative to Iraq do you have to prevent another 9/11?
Answer: finish the job in Afghanistan.
Instead, we (i) went to war against Iraq — the most secular country in the Arab world and an enemy of Osama bin Laden’s fundamentalist streak — and (ii) outsourced the capture of Osama bin Laden in Tora Tora.
Regarding the ārun-of-the-mill banana republicā metaphor used by Krauthammer ā and one that Iāve seen posted in other places:
Unlike what Krauthammer implies, there was no dissent or ācoalesced factionsā within the military ranks during the military dictatorships in Chile, Iraq or, if I may add another example, Argentina.
It was indeed the absolute lack of dissent or public discourse that led to the unchecked brutality and massacre of thousands and thousands of human beings under each of these oppressive regimes.
Krauthammerās use of the metaphor is wholly misapplied: the United States is in fact not a ārun-of-the-mill banana republicā because civilians (including retired military personnel) are able to speak openly when they see that the country is tragically headed in the wrong direction.
Further, to suggest, as Krauthammer does, that the six generals waited for the safety of their retirement, with their pensions secured, before they spoke up is disingenuous at best, or another vulgar example of Krauthammerās smearing abilities.
Each military person on active duty is bound by the oath of allegiance and the Uniform Code of Military Service Justice. The code specifically states that no one on active duty may issue public statements against his or her civilian leaders. As Marsh points out, āWhile on active duty, they [six retired generals] accepted the civilian control of the military.ā And like Marsh, I applaud them for that.
usnjay-
I have to go with Mash on this and disagree with the framing of your question.
If the more honest question were posed for me to provide an alternative to our Imperialistic goals in the middle East then I do not have one other than taking over Iraq; however, the question is about preventing 9/11 and in all seriousness ‘not attacking Iraq” IS the alternative.
Al-Queda WAS the source of the attack and we should have remained focused on discrediting and capturing the ones responsible. Instead Iraq has provided a boost to their cause and recruiting efforts while our own recruitment rates have plummeted, again, because of Iraq.
I was also in the slim minority who disagreed with attacking Afghanistan because although we have temporarily removed the Taliban they had nothing to do with 9/11 and, in fact, tried to talk Osama bin Laden out of carrying out the attacks.
So, along with the murders of literally countless innocent Afghani lives, we provided the chaos to allow the actual perpetrators of 9/11 to escape.
My immediate and personal lesson learned from 9/11 was that violence is not the answer. It only proves to create more violence. This has unfortunately been playing out ever since.
Pacifism is not an ideal solely attained from naivety of how the world works, but is an inevitable conclusion by becoming more aware.
Now I would like to pose this simple question to you: What did Bush do to prevent the first 9/11? And based on that answer, why should the American people trust his tactics to prevent a second one?
Thanks for your time. By having this discussion, we are doing exactly the responsible thing that Americans should be doing right now.
“Answer: finish the job in Afghanistan.”
Alfredo:
Although I don’t agree we didn’t finish the job that is irrelevant to Iraq. Had we killed Osama that would have still left the source of the attacks, the Islamic fundamentalists. They control many countries & millions of people by force and terror.
Iraq was b/c of them (yes, combined with WMD’s, oil, etc). You need to provide an alternative solution to them prior to criticizing the motives of the war.
usnjay
Sven:
Clearly ānot attacking Iraqā would do nothing, by definition, to prevent another 9/11. Itās not as if we were attacked b/c we were planning to attack Iraq. We were attacked b/c we showed weakness to terrorists before, and showed weād retreat when attacked (Beirut barracks bombings, Somalia, a few others).
So Bush didnāt do anything special to prevent 9/11, b/c until that time few people thought the Islamic fundamentalists could seriously hurt us. 9/11 made it clear they could, and mandatory to do something to stop them. Hence the need for Iraq, or some alternative, which Iāve yet to hear.
Regards,
usnjay
usnjay, I do want to point out the most obvious of facts about Iraq. That Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. The Islamist forces in Iraq were the Shia in the South and Islamist militants based in Kurdish held Iraq. Both parties were regularly attacked by Saddam. Saddam in fact, with our support, put into exile the Dawa party in the 1980s. This is the same Dawa party who are now in power in Iraq.
The Dawa are hard core Islamists who invented the modern car bomb. Read my earlier post for background on the terrorist activities of Dawa. Dawa and SCIRI in power in Iraq is a huge defeat for the US and a win for Iran (both parties are Iranian nurtured and funded).
I am also working on a post that I will release tonight on Iraq’s new (and predicable) Prime Minister and why it bodes really badly for the US.
Mash:
I agree with everything you said. The fact Saddam was hated by 80% of the country was a prime reason Iraq was the country we chose to attack.
9/11 required America to resort to military force to force democracy in the middle east. Youāve stated why Iraq was a good starting place.
I look forward to your next article on the new Prime Minister.
Note itās the new Prime Minister, not the new Dictator.
Thatās why attacking Iraq was necessary.
usnjay
Where to begin…
USNJAY says : All fair, though in my opinion incorrect, positions to hold. I will be glad to answer, but you havenāt answered my question. What alternative would you have suggested to prevent another 9/11 attack from the Islamic extremists? The fact you canāt answer that is really the answer to most of your questions as to why we went to Iraq.
So you just said it right there. That you think Iraq would have committed another 9/11, regardless of the fact that even Bush admitted they had nothing to do with it. Nor did they have WMDs. Which was Bush’s ONLY claim to invade. When he learned they had none, he kept changing it. ” We are liberators.” Then when Iraqis started to kill soldiers, it became..” We are here to spread democracy..”
Oh and as for you calling it the best miltiary campaign ever waged, well…that is too ignorant for words. We have lost almost 3000 men and women there, AND, we have also had over 18,000 seriously injured and crippled. Something cowards like you like to leave out.
Also, you claiming saddam was one of them shows you are just an idiot who does not check facts. Saddam, tried to infiltrate Al Qaeda. Why? Because Saddam is NOT a radical Islamist. His nation was secular BEFORE the US invaded.
Christ, you are just a blithering idiot. And that was not an ad hom btw, I am just stating a fact.
Oh and BTW, the new PM in Iraq is basically the same guy the US did not want in charge. So much for us letting Iraq run their own nation.
Firstly, my apologies to Mash for mistyping his name earlier.
Secondly, to usnjay’s point:
“Although I donāt agree we didnāt finish the job that is irrelevant to Iraq. Had we killed Osama that would have still left the source of the attacks, the Islamic fundamentalists.”
Respectfully, I’m having a hard time following the logic inherent in your arguments. If you believe, as is implied by your reply, that:
(i) we have indeed finished the job in Afghanistan, and
(ii) the source of the 9/11 attacks are the Islamic fundamentalists,
then could you kindly explain why:
(a) the Islamic fundamentalists and the Taliban have been able to regroup once again in Afghanistan?; and
(b) Osama bin Laden — the mastermind behind 9/11 — is still at large?
Further, if I’ve understood you correctly, you argue that we had to attack Iraq because “Saddam was hated by 80% of the country” (perhaps implying that these 80% were Islamic fundamentalists, the source of the 9/11 attacks?)
Yet a direct consequence of our engagement in Iraq has been the rise and assumption of power by Islamic fundamentalists — incidentally, an outcome that was foreseen by many in our intelligence and military, experienced voices that were systematically silenced by the Neo-cons in the Bush administration.
Given this, how can you critically argue, therefore, that we had no choice but to attack Iraq, diverting resources away from dealing with the real source behind 9/11?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your arguments; if so, could you kindly clarify them for me? Thank you.
usnjay,
You have repeatedly stated that the Bushies have “finished” Al Quida as much as possible in Afganistan. This is completely untrue. As has been mentioned, we allowed OBL to escape in Tora Bora. How? Subcontracting to lesser local forces in the mistaken belief they would do the nasty work for us and keep our body count low. It didn’t work out too well, did it.
Had we stayed completely committed to wiping AQ off the map we would not have attacked a contained, regional, externally toothless, Secular (non-fundamentalist) monster. Yes he was a monster, but the world is full to the brim with that type of ruler. All the above adjectives were known to the Bushies Before we invaded Iraq.
The larger question you ask though, is, what do we do now that we have screwed up? There are no easy alternative answers, and that frightens you into believing The Great Leader once again.
What, exactly, is The Great Leaders plan? Finish the job! Please tell me what the job for us is?
1) No one has ever imposed democracy from the outside that I am aware of. It comes from within.
2) Don’t dishonor the fallen with retreat. By sacrificing more lives? If we have no clear objectives, how do we succeed? The Great Rush-bo once said the military has one mission – “to break things and kill people.” One of the few times I agreed with him. What part of this organization is fully prepared to democratize Iraq?
3) Their lives are better now than before. I agree to a limited extent with this. Certain political prisoners are not sumarily executed (by us at least). However, I have read to many posts, in to many places, to believe that the average, non-political person, is now better off. I have recently read about the Iraqi army, the local police, and a private militia having a tag team fight against each other with the US army inbetween. How, exactly is this good for anyone?
4) The last dregs of the dead enders will exhaust themselves against our steadfastness. Sure, they are now focusing on sorf targets like political leaders, Mosques, schools, commerce; you know, ordinary , defenceless people. The ones we claim to want to help. The ones who want us to leave along time ago. Now would be nice, thank you.
A new team, with nothing invested in the current failure, would be able to look at this mess with fresh ideas and, perhaps some humility. New regional allies may then be willing to assist in diplomatic efforts (I know, boring). Will it work? We won’t know till we try.
Mash, I also drove my truck today. Was I successful in keeping OBL from attacking the USA? I think I was.
Alfredo, as my 5-year-old might say: Mash, Marsh same difference š
And now its 5 against 1. Hardly fair. We need more from usnjay’s side in this debate. Although I would have to say that usnjay is holding his own quite well all by himself.
I’m going to go stare at the picture of Cheney napping for a while. It cracks me up – there is a larger metaphor there, I know. But, I…just…cant…put…my…finger…on…it.
Alfredo:
Addressing (a) and (b): The mission in Afghanistan was to replace the Taliban w/ a democracy & remove Al-Qaedaās operating base, not kill every Taliban (which would be impossible) or capture Osama.
We attacked a country in the middle east to defeat the source of the 9/11 attacks: the Islamic extremists who prevent freedom & prosperity & start bringing democracy to the middle east. We picked Iraq for many reasons, the fact most of the population hated Saddam was one of those reasons.
So. my position is that to honestly oppose the Iraq war you have to present an alternative action that would stop the source of the 9/11 attacks. I disagree w/ much of the criticisms Iāve seen of the war, but they are irrelevant unless you have a workable alternative. The WWII Normandy invasion was a military disaster which just happened to be the best option available.
Since there was only two choices, attack or surrender, opponents of the war tend to either not think about this or surrender to cognitive dissonance (US is imperialist, war for oil, etc). Most opponents are in the former category, so Iām asking you to think about it.
usnjay
usnjay said:
Since there was only two choices, attack or surrender, opponents of the war tend to either not think about this or surrender to cognitive dissonance (US is imperialist, war for oil, etc). Most opponents are in the former category, so Iām asking you to think about it.
Was the choice really between attacking Iraq or surrendering? That does not make any sense to me. If you wanted to stamp out extremism, why would you attack Iraq? Why not start with Saudi Arabia if you were serious about getting at the roots of extremism? Or Egypt? Any number of countries. Saddam would have been the last one on anyone’s list as a sponsor of extremism ?!?
Here’s a blog that a reader named ‘dude’ pointed me to that catalogues some of the extreme practices of the religious police in Saudi Arabia. Visit and then try to convince me that we attacked the right country.
TedB:
Addressing your points in order:
The military defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq by driving them out of power and starting a democracy. Does the fact there are still Naziās in Germany mean WWII isnāt over?
Para 2: We didnāt attack Iraq b/c Saddam was bad, we attacked to begin instilling democracy in the middle east. Iraq was the best choice for many reasons.
Para 3: The larger question Iām asking is how can you oppose the warās motive without offering an alternative way to defeat the Islamic extremists before they smuggle a nuclear bomb into NY?
I donāt agree with the premise of your version of the larger question.
Your point labeled ā1)ā: Democracy has been forced MANY times. Japan, Germany and Afghanistan directly, other countries like Nicaragua & Russia less directly.
ā2)ā The military is there to force out the oppressors and maintain security, not create democracy. Thatās up to the Iraqis. Progress is slow, but thereās really no alternative to democracy as long as weāre there, & America maintains its resolve.
ā3)ā: Even if day-to-day life were worse now (I donāt think it is, but thatās a point of honest debate), having hope for a free future makes life better than under Saddam.
ā4)ā: If we left now it really would be worse. Even if you thought the war was a mistake (but remember youād need an alternative to Iraq or surrender) it would be terrible to leave now.
āA new team. . .humilityā
Perhaps. US presidents can only hold office for 8 years, so weāll soon see.
usnjay
Mash:
The choice was between attacking a middle eastern dictatorship or surrendering. Iraq was the best choice b/c, in order of importance:
1) The history of the previous 12 years. The UN resolutions, his failure to comply with inspections, the war of 1991, etc. This alone made Iraq the best choice.
2) Most of Iraqās population hated Saddam. Not so much so in Saudi Arabia, not NEARLY so much in Egypt. Those countries are two of the intended targets of the Iraq invasion. With a democracy next door, pressure on Arabia and Egypt grows exponentially over time.
3) Iraqās oil would allow it to recover faster than a non-oil state. Also, we werenāt getting as much oil from Iraq, so weād suffer less from the loss. (I never said America was filled with angels). š
4) Geography. Iraq borders most of the extremistās states.
Again, I strongly believe the choice was between forcing democracy through invasion or surrendering. Iām certainly willing to listen to other options.
But I do hold that if you donāt have one, you canāt be an intellectually honest opponent of the war and still say you support America. I think most war opponents do support America, but either havenāt thought about it or refuse to because it requires uncomfortable change.
usnjay
usnjay said:
The military defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq by driving them out of power and starting a democracy.
That is news to me. I thought we defeated Saddam? I did not know al Qaeda was in charge in Iraq.
You suggest that day-to-day life might be better now in Iraq. In point of fact, people are dying at a faster rate now then ever under Saddam. The country is in Civil War with ethnic cleansing systematically being carried out. The death rate is at, near or above rates in the Algerian or Lebanese civil wars. That is not progress.
Here’s the kicker. All of this was predictable and was predicted even by the US government. Read my post Disintegration in Iraq – A Call For Withdrawal on the scale of the problem in Iraq.
Mash:
“The military defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq by driving them out of power and starting a democracy.”
typo, I meant Afghanistan.
I agree people are dying & war is bad. It’s a last resort, but sometimes it’s the only resort.
Millions died in WWII, but it was necessary. The blame lies with the Islamic extremists and the dicators.
usnjay
usnjay, you are suggesting that the blame for civil war in Iraq lies with the Islamic extremists and the dictators?
My 5-year-old has an expression she uses when she accidentally does something wrong. She says: “Hey, look what you made me do.” I think that about sums it up.
Mash:
Yes, similar to the blame for WWII lying with the Nazi’s and Japanese fascists.
Who else is to blame? America?
For that to be the case we’d need an alternative to Iraq. There wasn’t one.
Blaming America for the deaths is like blaming cops when people die during high-speed chases. Yes, they’d still be alive if the cops hadn’t chased the criminals, but it’s still the criminal’s fault.
Wouldn’t you agree?
usnjay
Answer: finish the job in Afghanistan.
Oh, HELL yeah, If we’d done that and whipped that little housewife executing bearded bunch into shpe, everyone would be looking at US with shock and awe.
usnjay, I happen to think that we have done great harm to the United States and to Iraq and the Middle East by an unnecessary war of choice. And yes, we unleashed a predictable civil war. Our CIA predicted it, the INR predicted it. So, yes, this Administration bears responsibility for unleashing the civil war that it knew going in would happen. It has clearly determined that the harm done by this civil war is offset by some benefit it sees and apparently you agree. I disagree.
I would also point you to Daniel Pipes who happens to think Iraqis killing Iraqis is good for America. Maybe you feel the same, I do not know. But somehow pretending that we had no hand in this is nonsense. Atleast Daniel Pipes is more intellectually honest, though maybe a little off his rocker.
On whether on balance the invasion of Iraq was a plus or a minus, you and I can argue until the cows come home with no resolution. But if you start a war you cannot deny the costs that come with it. You may live with it, but you cannot deny it. When we bombed Hiroshima, we calculated that the deaths caused that day would save us more deaths in the long run. But I do not recall Truman ever arguing that the people of Hiroshima had it coming to them. It was a casualty and tragedy of war that ultimately led to American victory.
So we cant have it come up roses in Iraq just by closing our eyes. We chose this war – no question about it. Your false choice makes very little sense.
usnjay:
Thank you trying to clarify the logic of your arguments. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. And here is why:
If, as you suggest, the means for defeating the source of the 9/11 attacks is to bring democracy to the Middle East, then a patently obvious and more relevant target should’ve been Saudi Arabia — a country with a rigid aritocracy and one that houses the jihadist Wahhabi strain of Islam — rather than Iraq. Think about it.
usnjay wrote: “The choice was between attacking a middle eastern dictatorship or surrendering.”
Two questions: Was this really the choice? I do not think so.
Secondly, surrendering to whom? To the guys behind the 9/11 attacks? Hint: they were not in Iraq.
tree hugging sister:
“Oh, HELL yeah, If weād done that [finish the job in Afghanistan] and whipped that little housewife executing bearded bunch into shpe, everyone would be looking at US with shock and awe.”
To put my answer in its proper context: I was responding to usnjay’s question regarding another alternative to attacking Iraq.
By stating that we should’ve instead finished the job in Afghanistan, I was attempting to:
(i) lay bare the fallacy that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (Fact 1: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11), and
(ii) highlight that we’ve utterly failed to bring to justice the real culprits of 9/11 (Fact 2: Osama is still at large).
I did not mean to suggest that we should’ve blown Afghanis to pieces so that “everyone would be looking at US with shock and awe.”
Mash:
War is terrible, and the deaths caused tragic. To say Iraq/surrender is a false choice requires a third option. There isnāt one. If there were Iām sure you and many other people who rightfully abhor war would have thought of it by now. I would have, for that matter.
Itās time to decide what you believe.
Do you believe war is always wrong, even when it means you surrender to evil and oppression?
Or do you believe just people must stand against tyranny and violence, even at the cost of innocent lives?
There is a third option, you can refuse to think about it; but thatās really just the first choice all over again.
usnjay
I think we will agree to disagree. I would suggest though that you step back and look at the inverted logic of what you are saying. You are trapped within the confines of an argument that you have created. If you are convinced that attacking Iraq was our only option then I won’t try to argue that academic point anymore. We are in a mess now in Iraq regardless of how you believe we got here.
Clausewitz said that the purpose of war was to impose one’s will on the enemy. By that definition we have failed miserably. Pointing that out is not unpatriotic, it is both realistic and patriotic.
Mash:
You know I donāt think youāre unpatriotic. I agree with Clausewitz, we do want to impose our will on the enemy. How well weāve done so is not the issue.
The question is, what option to the Iraq war do you have?
I’m trying to force you to make a conscious choice. Not between the Iraq war or not, or Right or Left, but between reason and emotion. Between thought and feeling, intellect and instinct. Choose what you believe, but do so knowingly. Do so with full knowledge of what youāre choosing. Donāt blank out.
Iām done for now, Iāve said all I can. It’s your choice.
usnjay
“Itās time to decide what you believe.”
usnjay, Jason, usnjay…please.
We all stand firmly on the side of democracy and freedom. And equally firmly against oppression (in fact, having lived a quarter of my life under a military dictatorship, I can unequivocally tell you this).
The question you raise is wholly irrelevant to the discussion we are having here.
To borrow from Mash, your inverted logic is patently (and frankly, painfully) clear, if I may respectfully say so.
To highlight (once again) the obvious flaw of your premise:
If our engagement in Iraq was truly about getting to the source of the 9/11 attacks by bringing democracy to the Middle East via Iraq(your premise), then why didn’t we attack Saudi Arabia instead, where the jihadist Wahhabi’s lead a comfortable life thanks to the Saud dynasty and where Osama and a couple of the 9/11 hijackers come/came from?
Good night to everyone. I am going to read books to my daughter now who is now getting impatient at my typing away.
Thank you all for allowing me to join you in this discussion.
–Alfredo
Stopping in only to say I’ve bookmarked your site for when I can give it more attention and to express pleasure with my quick read of your posts and the conversations they generate.
Share and share alike….here’s one you and your readers may like:
http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com
*sighs* I see USNJAY has sucked you all into his spiffy, militarily run world. Where everyone is a die-hard patriot and we must fight to win….something.
Anyway, as you all see, it is pointless with him. He is a perfect example of the following quote by Oscar Wilde:
“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”
People like jay and his ilk do not WANT peaceful solutions. That goes against their nature. To them, killing is necessary.
Going to war to preserve peace is like having sex to preserve chastity. Both are illogical and well, stupid.
I say let him be so he can play with his little green soldiers.
Mash,
I meant to tell you this last night when signing off (my daughter literally pulled me away from my laptop before I could):
Your blog rocks! It’s Intelligent. Informed. Civilized. Fun. (I^2CF)
Keep up the good work! Thank you!