How Many More?
So now we have passed the mark of 2,000 American dead in Iraq. Is the best way to “honor” them adding more to their number, as the President says he plans to do?
The parallels to the Vietnam War are striking. Presidents Johnson and Nixon both wanted the nation to “stay the course” lest the dead had given their lives for nothing. Neither had an exit strategy, though it galled me when Nixon hinted at a “secret plan” to end to war and thus conned his way into the White House.
This President is caught in the same bind as his predecessors in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. If we leave Iraq, does that mean that all those soldiers died in vain? Are we locked into this war like it or not? Do we stay and hope for the best—that the
I’m not pretending that this is an easy problem to solve, but it is Bush’s to solve, since he initiated all this. No doubt Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, but the original rationale for the war has never been borne out.
Certainly not every mother feels like Cindy Sheehan. It must be wrenching to feel that your child died for nothing. I cannot imagine her pain. Other parents cling to the hope that there is a greater cause here—I cannot fault them either. We must respect both views. Vilifying either only produces deeper alienation. Oh--alienation--another product of the Vietnam era.
posted by Career Guy @ 9:37 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Well said, John, well said.
John, you know I vehemently disagree with you on this subject in general.
Please tell me, why the emphasis on the number 2000? Doesn't that in a very obvious way trivialize all the deaths, by turning them into "just a number"? And how would you have us fight the war on terror? Not at all, I suspect.
Well, you know, there's the war on terror and then there's the war with Iraq. They are two completely separate things.
The war on terror has to be more than just boots on the ground. It has to involve improving how we collect intelligence, protecting our cities, addressing the root causes of terrorism, and stregthening our relationships with other countries to improve co-operation and understanding.
The war in Iraq was an ill-conceived notion that, back when it started, had nothing to do with the war on terror. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with September 11. If you're concerned about terrorists getting weapons or weapons-grade material, I'd be way more concerned with them obtaining them through corruption or theft in a former Soviet republic.
Saddam was a bad guy, absolutely, but so are at least 40 other leaders and the US has managed not to invade their countries. Up until the war, Iraq had never had a suicide bomber. Now they have them every day. You might say that the US occupation brought terrorism to Iraq. Plus, scandals like Abu Ghirab don't exactly help spread understanding and acceptance of Americans and the American way of life.
So, how does all that help the war on terror? It doesn't. Iraq has been a dangerous distraction and diversion of resources and energy.
Why the emphasis on 2000? People count things. They mark milestones. It's not trivialization. It's not just a number.
It's a reality check - 2000 people who were very much loved and appreciated by someone - are gone. Forever. And for what?
If you can go to bed every night, comfortable with the idea that they died for freedom or a better Iraq or or justice or your protection, good for you. But if you can't, if you feel that those 2000 people plus countless innocent civilians died in an unreasonable, unjust and unfair war that is looking to have no end, no exit strategy, no resolution, then what else can you do but speak out?
Nor can they replace this post with the Teddy Kennedy "I didn't kill Mary Jo Kopechne" talking points, or the Dick Durbin "all US troops are just like the Nazis" talking points, or the John Kerry "I support the troops" talking points.
And the war on terror most certainly DOES include Iraq. Who do you think our troops are fighting over there? It's terrorists. Suicide bombing, ideologically zealous Islamic terrorists. That is more than obvious--it is truly irrefutable by any fact-based argument.
My question: would any of you who clearly don't support the war against terrorists who are striving to destroy not just Iraq, but the entire non-radical Islamic world, have made as big a deal if # 1999" had been the last one to die? What about # 1998? 1997? Why make an artificial threshold of one particular soldier's invaluable life, given willing in sacrifice for the greater good--an artificial threshold that serves simply to undermine our troops' morale, embolden our enemies, place more soldiers' lives at risk, and dishonor those who happened not to be a "big number ending in zeros"? I find that disgustingly unpatriotic.
My heart hurts with every daily report of more Americans killed. I think of the families and how their lives have been irrevocably changed by a president who has no more idea of what to do except "stay the course." Unpatriotic? Au contraire, dude, I'm doing my job in a democracy--the loyal opposition, you might say.
In regard to "emboldening the enemy, etc." you proved my point: those are the exact same arguments used to perpetrate the Vietnam War and squelch dissent. Didn't work then, ain't gonna work now. Peace!
I don't follow it much, but I do want it all to end.
Maybe you didn't read that 2000 is a milestone, a way to observe that a critical point has been passed. Is soul 2002 any more or less valuable than soul 1999? Absolutely not. How about Iraqi civilian soul 1999 vs. American soul 1999? Again, absolutely not.
Your circular arguments are really not interesting to me, particularly when combined with an ability to listen or process an opposing viewpoint.
There was absolutely nothing controversial with CareerGuy's original post, but since you disagree with the stance he has on the war, you feel the need to manufacture something to argue about.
He's against having people die. I'm guessing you're probably also a pretty decent sort who is against having people die. But your so against his anti-war stance that you can't agree with anything he says. It's just a silly waste of time to "debate" on those terms.
"2000 is a milestone":
Only to those who see the lives of America's finest as mere numbers to be tallied for a political/ideological agenda of anti-Americanism.
I do not have any agenda of anti-Americanism. But, I appreciate that you can't understand this. Selective hearing limits you to tracing the same circles and spouting the same phrases.
2035 - another reality check that comes due each day. When you go to war based on nothing more than lies and faulty intelligence, you're not making the world a safer place.
So, now American service men and women who are killed are "reality checks" instead of "milestones".
May God have mercy on your soul.
Reality check: n. An assessment to determine if one's circumstances or expectations conform to reality.
Two years, six months and two days since the President landed on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed that the mission was accomplished.
If the missionw were truly accomplished, I'd expect Iraq to be a safer, better place. I'd expect that American soldiers would be participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. I'd expect that the causes for the war (like weapons of mass destruction) would have been born out.
In that time, over 15,000 have been wounded and 2,000 have been killed. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. The human intelligence that precipitated the war was faulty and much of the paper intelligence was either erroneous or counterfeit.
The world is a more dangerous place, Osama bin Laden (yeah, remember him?) is still out there, and anti-American sentiment is at the highest point it's been since the Iranian Revolution.
So, exactly what mission was accomplished? Or would you rather participate in another round of name-calling and circular logic?
Those who accuse Bush of lying are themselves either liars, or not well enough informed to make a reasonable judgement--or are ideological zealots bent on the destruction of the presidency.
Read Podhoretz here for more, though I doubt it will have any effect on your already made up mind.
A little bit of veiled name calling and then a link to an op ed piece by a neocon. Hardly an unbiased source.
Op Ed pieces are not fact - they are either opinions or arguments supported with selective use of facts. If I posted a link to Salon, you would dismiss it out of hand.
But what the heck, I can play this game too:
The Downing Street Memo
The Timeline is particularly interesting.
Just in case anyone still thinks Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with al-Queda
Post a Comment
<< Home