CAN WE WIN THE IRAQ WAR?
Posted in political on March 21st, 2006
With the third anniversary of the war in Iraq here, I feel I can no longer avoid commenting on it. Until now, I had felt I had nothing to add to what the legions of bloggers, news reports, and newspaper opinion columns had to say about the war. To me, it all sounds so repetitive, blah, blah blah, Bush, blah, blah, W.M.D.’s. Every angle debated, every move analyzed. I guess I hoped I could uncover something brand new to give you, something no one else had, you know, “Bodies found in Rumsfeld’s crawlspace,” something like that. Unfortunately, all I can do that hasn’t been done is give you my opinion, the H.C. analysis, of this expensive and questionable war.
I don’t hate Bush. Let’s get that out of the way first. Hate clouds your judgment. Hate someone enough and anything, no matter how ridiculous, seems possible. (If you thought my statement about Rumsfeld was likely, then I’m talking about you.) The Republican Clinton haters were just as bad in their time, some of them still think poor Bill killed Vince Foster for Christ sakes, but like I said, hate clouds your judgment.
When George W. Bush was just beginning his bid for the presidency, I was already warning my friends of this war. I’m no great soothsayer, it just seemed obvious. W’s dad had a history with Saddam, and they don’t like each other at all. George Sr. would even mispronounce Saddam’s name into “Sodom” as in “and Gomorrah” just to piss him off. Saddam for his part, has always claimed he thought the U.S. didn’t care if he invaded Kuwait and that he was tricked so that George Sr. had an excuse to attack Iraq. (I don’t put a lot of stock in what a tyrant like Saddam has to say though.) Saddam even tried to kill W’s dad at one point, as I said, they don’t like each other. This along with the fact that Saddam had repeatedly defied the U.N., was supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists, and was fast becoming a defiant martyr for other subversive nations; all led me to believe, if elected, Bush would attack Iraq. For that reason alone, I did not vote for Bush the first time around. Maybe that’s the reason I can’t seem to get as upset as my Democrat friends about the war, for me, this has been coming for a long time and was almost inevitable.
Now, as for the weapons of mass destruction, I’m not much persuaded by the “Bush lied, people died” mentality some of you have. Too many other nations also believed this to be true for it to be a Bush conspiracy. Once again, hate clouds your judgment. What Bush did do, was use everything he could to make this war happen. Saddam for his part, gave him lots of reasons. Saddam was a vicious, evil dictator, who never really cooperated with the U.N. inspectors, and given a chance, would have done anything in his power to get back at the U.S. for Kuwait. Saddam hated Bush at least as much as Bush hated Saddam.
However, Saddam was being kept on a short leash, I don’t feel, and never felt, that he was an imminent threat. The biggest problem with the U.N. trying to control Saddam was that too many other nations such as, Germany, Russia, and France were dealing with Saddam under the table, through the “Oil for Food” program orchestrated by the U.N.. This made it very hard to keep Saddam under the kind of pressure needed to keep him under control. Without the support of these nations Bush went into Iraq without the world consensus needed to pull it off. That and, of course, lack of planning for the aftermath. Given these facts, I believe the the war was risky from the start. Surely a better plan would have been to expose the “Oil for Food” program, (we knew enough to start an investigation) and then embarrass Germany, France, and Russia into supporting better inspections and a harder line against Saddam. Time was something we still had and a unified (if that’s possible) U.N. could have kept Saddam from posing any real threat. Failing all of that, we would of at least gotten better support when we did go in.
Now, once the war had begun, I had to shift my thinking. Before an unnecessary war, you try your best to stop it, but once it’s underway, your goal has to be to get the best end result. Losing this war, or retreating out of it too early, is not going to give us the best result. A stable Iraq could become a useful ally in a lot of ways, an unstable Iraq could lead to WW III. Anyone who is hoping we lose this war just to embarrass Bush, or to help the Democrats politically, is really not thinking it through. A drawn out civil war would destabilize oil supplies, redraw maps, empowers Iran, and leave terrorist with one in the win column, something they will use for future efforts. We must make sure this doesn’t happen. At the very least we owe it to the Iraqi people, you can’t destabilize their country and then just turn away. A lot of people I talk to think it’s hypocritical of me to oppose a war and then support it, but living in the past, without considering the future, is a very short-sighted policy.
Now, for the finale, can we win this war? The answer is of course, yes. Now I know a lot of you are screaming at me right now, but let me explain myself. America has plenty of resources to win, the big question is what are we willing to do to win? Most of our media is actually helping the insurgents more than the U.S.. Are we willing to censure our media to suit U.S. interests? Probably not. Tough tactics like those used against the insurgency in Germany after WWII could stop it, ( yes, Germany had an insurgency too) but I doubt we’ll allow that (the French and Russians would kill the families of insurgents.) We won’t allow torture, or a draft to increase troops, we won’t allow propaganda, even if it’s true, (remember paying Iraqi newspapers to run positive stories?) We will however, allow liberal newspapers to make 7 soldiers in Abu Ghraib seem the normal behavior of 140,000 troops. Now, I’m not advocating torture, or killing families, or even a draft, I’m just saying, that if we were willing to go that far, we could win. A bigger question is can we win with what we’re willing to do? To that I have to answer, I’m not sure. The media in America is the biggest problem in my eyes, just look at how they’ve made it so hard to win over the Iraqi people. In their effort to slander Bush, they degrade our troops, our motives, and our country. Dissent is O.K., but it depends on your motive. If your only searching for things gone bad so you can bash Bush, with no regard for how it effects America, Iraqis, or the stability of the world, then shame on you. CNN seems to lead the crowd in this regard, their pessimism knows no bounds. I’ve often wondered how they validate their opinion that 7 people in Abu Ghraib is proof of how horrible our military is, but 100 U.N. representatives raping children in the Congo is no reflection on the U.N. That’s very revealing as to how bias their reporting has become. I know that a lot of you think that Fox news paints too rosy a picture of the war, that if you don’t report accurately when things are going south, we could end up in a Vietnam-like scenario where we’re fighting a protracted war we can’t win. There is some basis to that argument, but I don’t think we’re there yet. Vietnam and Iraq have some similarities, but far more differences, such as sectarian issues and the urban nature of the fighting. One thing I feel will work out in our favor is that the Iraqis, both Sunni and Shite don’t want civil war. The Shite see their chance to have power and pull themselves out of poverty, the Sunni for their part, are basically surrounded, a civil war for them would be a disaster. They would rather use the insurgency as a tool to broker more power for themselves than to fight a civil war trapped between Iranian Shites and Iraqi Shites. I believe they can be brought around once they know they can retain a place at the table.
All this can happen, I still have faith, but we need to help the Iraqis by not being a propaganda arm for the insurgents and terrorists. News agencies in America need to be careful how they are portraying issues. We all need to be less critical of every move our military makes, and stress that our motives, (the American people’s) are for the Iraqi people to have a stable country, that benefits them, without any exploitation of their resources. Our payback will be a world that sees us a benevolent, and an Iraq that is grateful for our sacrifices. With a price tag running into the hundreds of billions and 2,300 plus lives given, this is the only answer that honors everyone. Lose this war and the potential consequences for Iraq, for the U.S. and for the world are too horrible to be considered. We owe it to the Iraqis to fix the problem we created for them and ourselves. H.C.
Posted in political on March 21st, 2006
With the third anniversary of the war in Iraq here, I feel I can no longer avoid commenting on it. Until now, I had felt I had nothing to add to what the legions of bloggers, news reports, and newspaper opinion columns had to say about the war. To me, it all sounds so repetitive, blah, blah blah, Bush, blah, blah, W.M.D.’s. Every angle debated, every move analyzed. I guess I hoped I could uncover something brand new to give you, something no one else had, you know, “Bodies found in Rumsfeld’s crawlspace,” something like that. Unfortunately, all I can do that hasn’t been done is give you my opinion, the H.C. analysis, of this expensive and questionable war.
I don’t hate Bush. Let’s get that out of the way first. Hate clouds your judgment. Hate someone enough and anything, no matter how ridiculous, seems possible. (If you thought my statement about Rumsfeld was likely, then I’m talking about you.) The Republican Clinton haters were just as bad in their time, some of them still think poor Bill killed Vince Foster for Christ sakes, but like I said, hate clouds your judgment.
When George W. Bush was just beginning his bid for the presidency, I was already warning my friends of this war. I’m no great soothsayer, it just seemed obvious. W’s dad had a history with Saddam, and they don’t like each other at all. George Sr. would even mispronounce Saddam’s name into “Sodom” as in “and Gomorrah” just to piss him off. Saddam for his part, has always claimed he thought the U.S. didn’t care if he invaded Kuwait and that he was tricked so that George Sr. had an excuse to attack Iraq. (I don’t put a lot of stock in what a tyrant like Saddam has to say though.) Saddam even tried to kill W’s dad at one point, as I said, they don’t like each other. This along with the fact that Saddam had repeatedly defied the U.N., was supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists, and was fast becoming a defiant martyr for other subversive nations; all led me to believe, if elected, Bush would attack Iraq. For that reason alone, I did not vote for Bush the first time around. Maybe that’s the reason I can’t seem to get as upset as my Democrat friends about the war, for me, this has been coming for a long time and was almost inevitable.
Now, as for the weapons of mass destruction, I’m not much persuaded by the “Bush lied, people died” mentality some of you have. Too many other nations also believed this to be true for it to be a Bush conspiracy. Once again, hate clouds your judgment. What Bush did do, was use everything he could to make this war happen. Saddam for his part, gave him lots of reasons. Saddam was a vicious, evil dictator, who never really cooperated with the U.N. inspectors, and given a chance, would have done anything in his power to get back at the U.S. for Kuwait. Saddam hated Bush at least as much as Bush hated Saddam.
However, Saddam was being kept on a short leash, I don’t feel, and never felt, that he was an imminent threat. The biggest problem with the U.N. trying to control Saddam was that too many other nations such as, Germany, Russia, and France were dealing with Saddam under the table, through the “Oil for Food” program orchestrated by the U.N.. This made it very hard to keep Saddam under the kind of pressure needed to keep him under control. Without the support of these nations Bush went into Iraq without the world consensus needed to pull it off. That and, of course, lack of planning for the aftermath. Given these facts, I believe the the war was risky from the start. Surely a better plan would have been to expose the “Oil for Food” program, (we knew enough to start an investigation) and then embarrass Germany, France, and Russia into supporting better inspections and a harder line against Saddam. Time was something we still had and a unified (if that’s possible) U.N. could have kept Saddam from posing any real threat. Failing all of that, we would of at least gotten better support when we did go in.
Now, once the war had begun, I had to shift my thinking. Before an unnecessary war, you try your best to stop it, but once it’s underway, your goal has to be to get the best end result. Losing this war, or retreating out of it too early, is not going to give us the best result. A stable Iraq could become a useful ally in a lot of ways, an unstable Iraq could lead to WW III. Anyone who is hoping we lose this war just to embarrass Bush, or to help the Democrats politically, is really not thinking it through. A drawn out civil war would destabilize oil supplies, redraw maps, empowers Iran, and leave terrorist with one in the win column, something they will use for future efforts. We must make sure this doesn’t happen. At the very least we owe it to the Iraqi people, you can’t destabilize their country and then just turn away. A lot of people I talk to think it’s hypocritical of me to oppose a war and then support it, but living in the past, without considering the future, is a very short-sighted policy.
Now, for the finale, can we win this war? The answer is of course, yes. Now I know a lot of you are screaming at me right now, but let me explain myself. America has plenty of resources to win, the big question is what are we willing to do to win? Most of our media is actually helping the insurgents more than the U.S.. Are we willing to censure our media to suit U.S. interests? Probably not. Tough tactics like those used against the insurgency in Germany after WWII could stop it, ( yes, Germany had an insurgency too) but I doubt we’ll allow that (the French and Russians would kill the families of insurgents.) We won’t allow torture, or a draft to increase troops, we won’t allow propaganda, even if it’s true, (remember paying Iraqi newspapers to run positive stories?) We will however, allow liberal newspapers to make 7 soldiers in Abu Ghraib seem the normal behavior of 140,000 troops. Now, I’m not advocating torture, or killing families, or even a draft, I’m just saying, that if we were willing to go that far, we could win. A bigger question is can we win with what we’re willing to do? To that I have to answer, I’m not sure. The media in America is the biggest problem in my eyes, just look at how they’ve made it so hard to win over the Iraqi people. In their effort to slander Bush, they degrade our troops, our motives, and our country. Dissent is O.K., but it depends on your motive. If your only searching for things gone bad so you can bash Bush, with no regard for how it effects America, Iraqis, or the stability of the world, then shame on you. CNN seems to lead the crowd in this regard, their pessimism knows no bounds. I’ve often wondered how they validate their opinion that 7 people in Abu Ghraib is proof of how horrible our military is, but 100 U.N. representatives raping children in the Congo is no reflection on the U.N. That’s very revealing as to how bias their reporting has become. I know that a lot of you think that Fox news paints too rosy a picture of the war, that if you don’t report accurately when things are going south, we could end up in a Vietnam-like scenario where we’re fighting a protracted war we can’t win. There is some basis to that argument, but I don’t think we’re there yet. Vietnam and Iraq have some similarities, but far more differences, such as sectarian issues and the urban nature of the fighting. One thing I feel will work out in our favor is that the Iraqis, both Sunni and Shite don’t want civil war. The Shite see their chance to have power and pull themselves out of poverty, the Sunni for their part, are basically surrounded, a civil war for them would be a disaster. They would rather use the insurgency as a tool to broker more power for themselves than to fight a civil war trapped between Iranian Shites and Iraqi Shites. I believe they can be brought around once they know they can retain a place at the table.
All this can happen, I still have faith, but we need to help the Iraqis by not being a propaganda arm for the insurgents and terrorists. News agencies in America need to be careful how they are portraying issues. We all need to be less critical of every move our military makes, and stress that our motives, (the American people’s) are for the Iraqi people to have a stable country, that benefits them, without any exploitation of their resources. Our payback will be a world that sees us a benevolent, and an Iraq that is grateful for our sacrifices. With a price tag running into the hundreds of billions and 2,300 plus lives given, this is the only answer that honors everyone. Lose this war and the potential consequences for Iraq, for the U.S. and for the world are too horrible to be considered. We owe it to the Iraqis to fix the problem we created for them and ourselves. H.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment