I have seen numerous posts that it is impossible to support the troops, but not support the war.
And to that I say that unquestioned support of the military mission is not supporting the troops but instead treating them as a disposable tool.
First I want to make it clear that I supported the war in Iraq initially. My present opposition comes from the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration and the leadership of the military. Sending our troops to fight under these incompetents is sending them to die needlessly.
Second, I have incredible respect for the job our troops did in the initial run up to Baghdad. This part was one of the most amazing campaigns in the history of warfare. No other country could do this - ever. It was fast, it was effective, and it was accomplished with less collateral damage than probably any battle in a populated area in the last 200 years.
Third, I have a lot of respect for the job the troops on the ground are doing. In an impossible situation they are accomplishing miracles daily. And they are doing good things. Things would be a lot worse if not for the efforts of the troops on the ground.
The fight in Iraq is not an isolated war. It is (and was sold as) part of the Global War on Terror. So Iraq is not a self contained war we must win in order for our country to survive. Instead it is a single theater of operations or a campaign in the GWoT.
The GWoT must be won. But we should not fight every campaign. Doing that lets the enemy determine where we will apply resources. Fighting a pointless battle that merely kills our soldiers is akin to the battle of Fredericksburg. I postulate that you cannot both support the troops and support fighting these types of wasteful fights.
Our military and civilian leadership in Iraq is similar to that Gen. Burnside in the Civil War. Except that unlike Lincoln, Bush keeps the incompetents. Bush does not use the option of replacing the Burnside's with Sherman's. Bush is no Lincoln, he is no FDR. So in this case the only way to support the troops is to leave Iraq.
We also face the problem that things are not getting better in Iraq - they're getting worse. Yes you can find some statistic somewhere to show something is improving (there are lies, damn lies, and statistics). But by any realistic measure the trend has continued downward over our time there. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Fighting in Iraq is not working. Yes our troops have made tremendous sacrifices there; dead, wounded, PTSD, etc. And yes if we leave some of those loses will have been in vain. But continuing to have more loses won't change that.
Finally, there is only so much we can do for the Iraqis. Eventually they have to decide what government they are willing to fight for among themselves. This may mean a civil war, this may mean a democracy, this may mean a dictatorship. But as long as we have troops there, the Iraqis do not need to stand up and make their decision.
So yes, I respect and support our troops. And yes, I think we need to leave Iraq.
Please click here for part II of this post.
postscripts: SGT Mike Stokely, Thank You
trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, DailyKOS, California Conservative, FullosseousFlap, Sweetness & Light, bandit.three.six, The Thunder Run, Iraq The Model
