Reservations About Iraq
This conservative has some serious reservations about our continuing involvement in the war in Iraq.
I have some questions, but first let me give to you the context of the questioner:
*Understanding the news is important to me, but I’m not a “newshound”; I do not devote hours a day to research and understand the news.
*I think I’m bright enough, but I’m no scholar or genius. I can read a news piece or watch an in-depth report and gain a basic understanding.
Having offered the previous as a self-defence, I am pretty much in the dark with what is happening in Iraq right now, and particularly concerning the American policy.
Here’s some questions needing clarity:
*Why are we there?
*What’s our plan for winning this war?
*How much longer is it going to take?
*Who's in charge?
*When a soldier dies, who cares?
What are our troops doing?
I get the idea, by reading the news, they are basically riding around in Humvees until they inevitably roll over explosive devices, or they stand around on crowded streets until some fanatic walks along with a suicide bomb. We are supposed to be “the gallant knight” who has ridden in upon a white horse to rescue the Iraqi’s from oppression. So, why do these people hate us?
Basically, my support has hinged upon the integrity of our president.
I’ve continued to believe him to be a highly decent man, who has brought us into this war for good and right reasons. The message I have been hearing, for years now, is “Trust me.” And I have….but for how much longer?
Two pieces of news have hit me hard
Highest 3-day Death Toll
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Thirteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in Baghdad since Monday, the American military reported, registering the highest three-day death toll for U.S. forces in the capital since the start of the war.
The latest losses -- four soldiers who were killed at 9 a.m. Wednesday by small-arms fire -- are part of a recent spike in violent attacks against U.S. forces that have claimed the lives of at least 24 soldiers and Marines in Iraq since Saturday, the military said.
Seventy-four soldiers and Marines were killed in Iraq in September, representing the highest monthly toll since April, when 76 died, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.
Poll Of Iraqi People
The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland has conducted a poll on the war in Iraq.
Here are a few of the poll's findings:
*Six in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, up from fewer than half in an earlier PIPA poll in January.
*Nearly eight in 10 say the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it's preventing (as opposed to being "a stabilizing force.")
*Thirty-seven percent want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months; an additional 34 percent want them to withdraw within the next year.
So, let this simple observer of the news put these two together:
(1) The Iraqi people hate us. They support the death of our troops. The guerrilla-killings of our boys and girls is not the tactics of a few thousand al-Qaida operatives, but of the very people we are supposed to be liberating.
(2) 74 soldiers died in September, 2733 have died in total. No- they are more than soldiers. They are brothers and sisters, children loved by their mamas, church members. One of them may have been president, or discovered the cure for cancer. Even that one has died is to be sobering, and it has become angering.
My son wants to be a Marine.
I’m proud of that. And, God forbid, if he were to die for the cause of freedom, it would break my heart but I would stand proud. At this point I do not think I’d trade my son for one more grain of Iraqi soil, or even all of Iraq.
I’ll scan the news again....Now, what are we doing in Iraq?
10.05.06 (11:17 am) [
edit]
posted by:
thesilkshade (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (8:48 am)
We are in Iraq to get rid of the Al Qaeda stronghold. If we can change Iraq, it will give democracy some footing in the Middle East, something the radical muslims don't want. Any radical muslim leaders see Iraq as the centerpiece for their war against us and our war against them. If we lose in Iraq, it's over.
Iraqis hate us because they have been living in the Ayatollah Khomeini culture that has had roots in the Middle East for ages. The Western World is the "Great Satan." Propaganda has been fed for so long that they don't know the benefits democracy can bring.
On another note, I'd just like to say that my thoughts are with your family should your son ever set foot on a battleground. Just know that the Marine Corps is the best branch your son can be in militarily. They are trained the hardest and, most of the time, know what they're doing. You know that the guy next to him in his squad will keep him safe if he can't do it myself. I am also saying this as a soon-to-be fellow soldier, as I will be serving in the Air Force, probably working in intelligence.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (8:51 am)
I have many of the same questions myself. My step-son just graduated from Army Basic Training, while I'm proud of hime for taking the step to getting an education via the military I can't help but know how bitter I'd be if he were sent to Iraq and possibly injured or killed. Especially knowing the majority of Iraqi people don't want us there to begin with. Puzzling to say the least.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (9:47 am)
Reply to: thesilkshade
I know your first paragraph is the "company line" of the political supporters of this war. I'm responding to that by saying it has been poorly communicated, and many like myself are seriously considering no longer buying into it. What may have started as a noble cause seems now to have drifted into disarray. Why? The liberal press and the Democratic Party are big culprits, playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. Thus the war has not been waged with the extent and ferocity necessary for victory. We have become bogged down because of political expediency. Now the Iraqis hate us and our soldiers are dying needlessly. We brought al-Qaida to Iraq. We removed the one stabilizing force between the barbaric people of Iraq- Hussein. We should have taken care of business in 1990, but again American politics got in the way. So now, here we are. Not enough soldiers to do the job. Not enough guts/integrity in Washington to take care of business. And, I think, not enough character in the people of Iraq to make the death of one more American soldier worth it. We're not fighting al-Qaida; we're fighting the people of Iraq.
I'm thinking we have made our statement to Islamic extremists. Now, let's pack up and go home. Now I would like to be convinced otherwise- that it is worth the price to "stay the course", that victory under the current political scenario is possible, that indeed this is still a "noble cause".
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (9:51 am)
Reply to: FinalyFree
I'll pray for your step-son. I would like to think he joined the army fully understanding that he may have to fight and die. That's what the military is about- not getting an education. I think it is somewhat deceptive to say "Join us and get an education" or "Join us and see the world". You join the military to fight.
I am becoming more convinced this is not a fight worth having. Why defend someone who will then stab you in the back?
I'm angry.
posted by:
TheRockSays (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (10:33 am)
There isn't a typo in your stats there, is there? If six on 10 approve the attacks on the occupying forces, but only 37% want them to leave, then over two on 10 approve of attacks, but want the US to stay or are indifferent to their presence.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (10:50 am)
"What may have started as a noble cause seems now to have drifted into disarray. Why? The liberal press and the Democratic Party are big culprits, playing politics with the lives of our soldiers."
You're trying to lay blame on the Democrats and the media for Bush's mess caused by his deception? Nice. He's the one playing with soldiers' lives.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (12:04 pm)
Reply to: TheRockSays
No typo. It is a somewhat contradictory survey. So, what if 37% approve of the attacks upon our troops? That's about 4 out of every 10. These people do not like us, and do not appreciate us, and many of them want to do us harm- therfore, I surmise, they are not worth dying for.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (12:47 pm)
Reply to: bawdy
Maybe they are all using human lives for political gain; disgusting, to say the least.
Here the scenario as I view it:
The Democratic party, connected with the high brow and the media elite, absolutely despie George Bush and the conservative political/religious constituency he represents. They are totally convinced he stole the 2000 election and will never forgive him. They think they are smarter and better than his ilk, and continue to be incredulous that they are not in charge. Therefore, they oppose everything for which he stands. It is a slow, simmering, unrelenting opposition. It is an intent to destroy. It borders upon hatred.
So comes the Iraq war. They must be opposed, because it is associated with George Bush and his supporters. They must see to its failure, come hell or high water. And these people are smart- they know victory is not attained quickly. The effort will continue, having an eroding and finally destroying effect. Such is despicable and almost unforgivable, but it works.
Enter the current brand of Republicans. It's about appeasing, trying to placate the opposition. But when you do battle with a "true believer", then enemy will never acquiesce. The enemy will only accept you annihilation. And these people are dead-set on at least the political assasination of George Bush. So they have sought to destroy our possibility of success in Iraq since day one. the media has helped, and so has the liberal educational establishment.
What we now have is a quandary. America is weak and sick, with nary the resolve necessary to win this war. I'm afraid it is not going to get better.
I think, unless my understanding can be changed, the best thing to do is to get out. Let the liberals and the media win- even though America loses- and get out.
It should have been better.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
10.05.06 (5:02 pm)
Something Worse
I am glad to see that you are questioning this war. Unfortunately, you still don’t understand what has happened here. Bob Woodward’s new book gives us new insight into the Bush administration and why they did what they did. Mr. Woodward should not be considered a leftist or Democrat or liberal. He actually lauded the White House in his first two books on this administration. The White House was giving copies of the books as Christmas Presents. Bob Woodward was given access to many in the White House and got in depth interviews with Rumsfeld and other high level people. So, the picture painted by this book paints a gloomy situation where George W Bush has set his mind on something and he doesn’t listen to anyone when they tell him something that is contrary to his belief that the war is going fine. “Stay the Course” is his mantra.
So, why are we in Iraq? We are there because George W Bush has expectations that exceed reality. He believed that going into Iraq would transform the Middle East. He still tells us that. It wasn’t to fight al Qaeda as your early commenter proclaimed. Only 7% of those fighting in Iraq are associated with al Qaeda now. Even less were there before we went in to the country. But, we are stuck in the middle of a civil war, and it is getting worse not better. The Iraqis don’t want to take responsibility, because they all have their own agenda. The Kurds have withdrawn into their mountain haven, and the Sunnis are afraid that the Shiites will take control of the oil and enforce that claim with the help of their friends from Iran. We need to leave to let the Iraqis take control, but if we don’t do it right the country will be controlled by Iran. But, actually Iran is gradually gaining more power in Iraq as long as we are there as well. Our leaders are afraid to do anything, because anything we do has risk of something worse than we have there now.
If you accept what I am saying, then maybe John Murtha’s plan makes more sense to you. He suggests that we pull back and let the Iraqis actually do the enforcing of the rule of martial law. They speak the language and understand the culture better than our soldiers do. He has proposed that we should be ready to send forces in, if and when a hot spot erupts. Eventually these eruptions will become less frequent, because the Iraqis don’t like being occupied by us, but if their own soldiers are enforcing the rule of law, then the people will accept them as legitimate force and they will accept responsibility for security. When people feel secure they are less likely to revolt. Unfortunately the longer we wait the more violence is committed against each other in this civil war, and that breeds a revenge mentality that may be difficult to control. But if the US pulls out, the new Iraqi forces can use the US occupation as an excuse for the violence and the common enemy will breed peace among Iraqis. Obviously it is a psychological phenomena. But, look at how violence subsided in South Africa when the white rulers gave up power.
The current “stay the course” approach promises to cause more violence and death. At some point twenty years down the road a new generation will come to power and perhaps they will be more amiable toward each other. But, if you think of the 100 years of war in Ireland, or other long drawn out conflicts it doesn’t make much sense to expect that outcome. What is really sad is that all of this was predicted by many in the military and the state department, but the Bush administration ignored everything. They acted like the rebels of the 1960s who believed that if government was torn down then a new government would rise up and be better than the old one. Fortunately they didn’t succeed in doing this; unfortunately the Bush administration did succeed.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (10:49 am)
I think you're wrong, Dave. Liberals oppose the war in Iraq because it has no relation to 9/11 whatsoever. It's not fighting the war on terror, but it is making it worse. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to U.S. citizens. Democrats do not oppose the efforts in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden. They oppose the Iraq war on principle, not just because it's Bush's strategy.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (11:41 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
I think you and I see the military that way but I'm not sure impressionable young men and women do. My step son knows full well me and his Father would struggle greatly to provide him with a 4 year education at a state university. Not to say that was a motivating factor for his enlistment--but I know he was well aware of that fact. After visiting with him last week I do feel more comfortable with his decision, he seems very 'at home' with his new life and excited about the future. The Army is not the same as it was 20 years ago when my children's Dad was active duty, not sure if that's a good thing or not. I could never, ever justify losing one life to the particular cause in Iraq, let alone my own flesh and blood. But for whatever reason my step son took this path, I am proud of him--however, is it enough to compensate me or his other family if he is killed defending a country that despises our mere presence? No. I guess "all's fair in love and war" certainly takes on new meaning where Iraq is concerned, huh?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (11:48 am)
Reply to: drforbush
You've got to know that Bob Woodward is no friend of conservatism and & particularly whatever is good for the Republican Party. Remember Watergate? This man was, and is, a "righteous" crusader.
For whatever reason, it is time to pull the plug on this war. I do not share your faith in the people of Iraq. They have not demonstrated the character necessary to make freedom work. If Murtha's plan will work, then let's give it a try. On the surface it sure sounds similar to the Vietnam debacle, another surrender to be credited to his ilk.
We actually agree on some things.
*If Bush has a worthwhile message, it has been communicate quite poorly.
*Our soldiers are dying needlessly.
*The current situation makes success in Iraq an impossibility.
*We need to get out, and quickly.
*The people of Iraq do not appreciate the taste of freedom America has sought to give to them.
We differ, quite a bit, on which political party has the most blood upon its hands.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (11:54 am)
Reply to: bawdy
I think the reasons you list are just expedient excuses for a seething opposition from the start. A few had the character to state their opposition from the start. The others were too cowardly, and thus voted for the war. Then, as these excuses were groomed to be politically advantageous, they became their reasons for opposition.
I'm a bit jaded with my attitude concerning Washington at this time. what really irritates me, though, is that the Democrats rejoice that I am so deeply unhappy with the Republicans. They desperately want people like me to stay home from the polls. I know Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are not the answers. But, maybe it is time for the American public to find out?
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (12:47 pm)
You said: "Remember Watergate?"
Conservatives were lining up against Nixon over Watergate. It was about corruption, lies and criminal behavior. Most Republicans don't believe that these are the values to be copied by any political party, including the Republicans.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (2:11 pm)
You have peaked my interest. I intend to do some research about Watergate. I have the tendency to want to believe it was as much about the opposition party smelling blood as it was about the indiscretions of Nixon.
But, you are right, lying/corruption/criminal behaviour are wrong, no matter the culprit.
Is it true the Democrat members of the House gave Gerry Stubbs a standing ovation after his reprimand?
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (2:14 pm)
For you Dave, it will end up coming down to an "enough is enough" thing AND you finding a way to blame the thing on liberals. Fine. Whatever you need.
So what if it's not based on reality (I cite as an example you ignoring what DrForbush said about Bob Woodward's two prior books which indeed WERE highly praised and given out as Christmas presents by your president.)
Maybe another couple of years of this will convince you. Probably not, but my friend, if you feel the need to blame those who knew and said this was a mistake from the outset, go for it. Just get on board at some point - preferably before your son is sent over there - God Bless him. If he's willing to risk his life for our country, let's have him risking it for OUR country, and not for a foolish man's bad idea gone worse.
I think another year will do it for you - assuming, of course, you figure out a way to blame Al Gore, John Kerry or Bill Clinton.
posted by:
radiohead (
reply)
post date:
10.06.06 (2:52 pm)
I don't know, I don't associate myself with any poltical party, people get too wrapped up in labels I think...For people like me, I just wonder how much is enough. We have poor education systems, homeless people, a drug infected America and my best friend was in Iraq performing Hero missions recovering dead soldiers from a war torn poor country who doesn't appreciate anything the US has done for them. And we are supposed to be ok with that? Bush went off on the right intention but is now stuck in a situation where no one sees an end. For many seniors who have been through wars, this is being considered an World War III ... it is sad to me that children are losing parents all in an effort to be right and to find one person. I thought we had better intelligence than some vace diving fruitcake extremists. Or is this what the US wants us to believe? I'm sure people are gonna take my comment and run with it ... so be it, I am not all that passionate talking about this war. I'm just a simple minded alien who thinks we are wasting time and money to protect our freedom yet, we are putting up fences along borders to keep people out and don't know where the money should come from. I understand most of the political side but that is the problem with this country. It's all politics and no heart. We don't care about the hundred of people who have lost their life, we only care about sending replacements. I love this country, but really, where is compassion? What makes anyone think these cave divers WANT a democracy? Mexico shouldn't have drug kings in their military but we aren't over there seeking out the problem people. Cambodia has issues with child sex slaves but we aren't over there teaching people how to respect children. Call me immature, but this war stuff is wearing on a lot of us taxpayers.... Good post Pastor, gave me something to think about...now we need some intercessors... :)
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.07.06 (4:51 am)
Reply to: radiohead
Well said. If I have any disagreement with you it's that I don't blame the Iraqis for wanting us gone and I think I understand what they don't see it as us "doing so much for them." Ask yourself this: If WE were occupied, for any reason, and we saw our friends and families dying, our properties being destroyed and outsiders from still OTHER countries coming in an making it even worse, who would you blame? Probably the people who threw stones at the wasps' nest in the first place. That would be us.
I'm not saying their feelings are even justified, because, really, it just doesn't matter.
Just got through John Steinbeck's "The Moon is Down." It was a propaganda piece he wrote to help with the war effort in 1941, I think. It's written as a novel and had extremely wide blackmarket sales throughout Europe even after the war. In it he tells the tale of a small town in an unnamed country invaded by another. It tells of the outrage and ever-growing frustration of the citizenry as the occupation drags on, and how in time, even some of the folks who at first put up with the "temporary situation" become so hardened, that they begin attacking on their own. What's especially poigniant, to me anyway, is that Steinbeck goes out of his way to point out that the greater good that many think may evenually come from the war (on both sides) play little or no role in the way the people see the occupiers. They know they have but a few years on the planet and after a time decide that need and want to live them free of, at least THIS occupying force. In the end, who the force is, and what was to happen from the outset, makes NO difference to those folks.
Worth a read.
posted by:
radiohead (
reply)
post date:
10.07.06 (1:02 pm)
Thanks for not condemning me for my opinions, I will definately look up that book, sounds thought provoking. And I don't blame the Iraqis either, I personally believe they were caught up in someone else's mess. Before Sadam I think they were content living the life they had, now they are subject to someone else's persecution... Again, thank you for your insight...
