I recently wrote the post I support the troops, I do not support the war. In this post I will try to answer the objections made in the comments and trackbacks to that initial post. If there are trackbacks and/or comments to this post, I will write a 3rd post in another couple of weeks.
1. This provides support to the enemy
First off, I agree that we are in a war with Islamic Terrorists. (I don't call them fascists because in practice they are more nihilists than anything else and they definitely don't fit the definition of fascist.) And they are an enemy that can do us great damage.
Second, I agree that saying we should leave Iraq helps the terrorists in Iraq. While we can never win in Iraq, we can also never lose. We can stay there the next 800 years if we wish and Iraq can be our Ireland. In this sense it is like Vietnam, we're there until we decide to leave. And that decision will be made in America.
However, that is not a reason to then say we must blindly choose to remain in Iraq forever. That staying is not up for discussion. To take some real world examples, as WWII drew to a close, the Germans chose to fight to the end. This was the support the troops and support the war to the last bullet model. All it meant was that more of the country was destroyed and more people were killed on all sides. Hundreds of thousands, both Russian and German, dies in the battle for Berlin alone.
Compare than with Japan. With the atomic bomb dropped and the allies (including Russia) poised to invade the home islands, the Emperor chose to surrender. In doing so he did a good thing for the remaining Japanese troops. There were those in the Japanese military who wanted to follow the German model and fight to the last man. They probably did tell the Emperor that he could not support the troops if he stopped supporting the war. But I think most Japanese feel the Emperor continued to support the troops when he stopped supporting the war.
With all that said, it is a hard thing to say to people who served - that your sacrifices have been in vain. A terribly hard thing to say with the loses we have had. But if the war is not winnable, then continuing to support it is a great disservice to our troops.
2. This hurts the troops
Unquestionably not supporting the fight in Iraq negatively impacts the troops on the ground. Asking fellow citizens to put their lives on the line for something we don't believe in is a recipe for disaster.
But again, does this mean once we engage in a war that it must continue until won or lost? To give a good example that hits close to home, once England sent troops to put down the American revolution, should they have continued fighting forever? England could have eventually won that fight, but it would have bled the empire. They finally chose to give up. It was the intelligent decision for England and it meant no disrespect to the troops who had fought.
As a democracy we cannot say that once a war starts, choosing to end it is not up for discussion. Whether to continue the fight in Iraq or not is the biggest political decision facing this country right now. Instead of saying it is an off-limits topic, it is a topic that everyone should be discussing.
3. We've had setbacks in every war
Yes we have. In the American revolution from the battle of New York to Washington's crossing of the Delaware it was one disaster after another. In the Civil War from the start to basically Antietam it was a disaster. The 1st 6 months of WWII as well as Kasserine Pass were disasters.
On the flip side, in each of those wars we learned and progressed. The most obvious of them was the Civil War where Lincoln went through General after General until he found Grant, Sherman, and Meade. In WWII immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor many senior generals and admirals were retired including Admiral Stark. And a lowly Colonel was made commander of the U.S. forces in Africa and the Europe because he had the most skills for the job.
In Iraq we are not learning. Name one General who has been retired or moved out for not figuring out how to win this mess. There isn't one. The ones bounced out are the ones like Shinseki who spoke honestly about what was needed.
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results. We are still doing the same thing as we did from the start. And yet we're amazed when we don't get different results.
If I see a new plan, a radically different plan, and I see it having a reasonable chance of success, then I would reconsider it on this point. But complaining about a bloody head and then continuing to pound her head against a brick wall - that will not solve the problem.
4. We must win this war
Yes we must. A peaceful democratic Iraq would be a tremendous blow against the Islamic Nihilists. An Iraq mired in a civil war would be a source of additional terrorists, a destabilizing influence on the rest of the Middle East, and would almost certainly cause a severe shortage of oil sending the global economy into a major recession.
I had cancer 3 years ago. And what I told myself was, I have to beat it because dying was not an option. And I did. But you know what, I also could have died from it. Saying I must beat it did not mean I would.
The question is not what must happen, it's what can we do. We can still easily win the war. But the campaign in Iraq is lost. We can cut out loses or we can let it continue to bleed us in men and money and our standing in the world. But we can't win it.
Or to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you fight the war with the administration you have, not the administration you wish you had. We cannot win this war with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Pace/Abizaid in charge. No way/no how/not happening.
I wish Iraq had worked. It would have so many positive influences throughout the world. But we have to face the fact that we have made it such a mess that we can't fix it. We pushed humpty-dumpty off the wall and we don't have any good options left.
5. Things are getting better
To anyone who says this I point you to the recent testimony of Generals Pace and Abizaid to Congress. Even Bush & Rumsfeld are aware that things are getting worse. Only someone psychotic on this issue (like Cheney) thinks things are still as good or getting better.
6. Lincoln & FDR made mistakes too
Yes they did. Lots of them. But they learned from them and tried new approaches. I think one of their strengths was that each had advisors who disagreed with them and argued with them. Lincoln appointed his two main challengers for the Republican nomination to his cabinet. FDR appointed Republicans as Secretary of War and of the Navy.
Both also were focused on winning the war, not on political advantage. Lincoln almost lost re-election yet refused to compromise on the prosecution of the war in the campaign. The allies invaded North Africa days after the 1942 election yet FDR never pushed to have the invasion moved up 2 weeks so that more Democrats would win.
And again, they fired those who didn't do a good enough job. Fletcher won the battle of Midway but he was no Halsey or Spruance so he was reassigned to do PR tours in the U.S. Learning from mistakes I respect. Giving the Medal of Freedom to loyal incompetents I abhor.
7. This is Vietnam all over again
In many many ways this war is nothing like the Vietnam war. But in two ways it is very similar. First, while we could never win either, we could also never lose either. We could have fought the war forever.
This can't win, can't lose is hurtful to a democracy. War is awful. Even with no "atrocities" it is awful. People die and are wounded. Property is destroyed leaving people with no livelihood. And atrocities happen. And all of this reflects badly on America and hurts the American Psyche.
And when we do choose to leave, and we always do as Americans will not stand for an endless war, it leaves those in favor of continuing the fight remonstrating against those who wanted us out because we didn't have to leave. And because of that, we supposedly could have won. And that leaves a deep wound in the body politic.
Second, Iraq and Vietnam are the only two wars where we have inserted ourselves into a civil war. Granted Iraq did not start that way but with our inept handling of Iraq over that last 4 years, we've turned it in to one and we're now right in the middle of it.
So in Iraq and in Vietnam they are very different wars. But in America (and we American's tend to look at everything in terms of how it affects us), it is similar to Vietnam in that it will split the country politically.
But this has nothing to do with if we should leave Iraq.
In Conclusion
I have the utmost respect for the troops on the ground in Iraq. Each and every day they are performing miracles. We have the most professional and most effective military force in the history of the world. And they go to great lengths to both try and help the Iraqis and to hold collateral damage to an incredible minimum. I support them and am in awe of the job they are capable of performing.
We are also responsible for them. We as a country choose when to put them in harm's way. We should only do so when necessary. And we absolutely must not continue a fight that is not worth their blood and sacrifice. If Ronald Reagan could pull our troops from Lebanon, we can pull them today from Iraq.
It is our responsibility and our duty to do so if our efforts there are not worth the price paid. And in this case our efforts there will not end their civil war, much less create a peaceful democracy.
trackbacks: DailyKOS, Mudville Gazette, Dave's Not Here, The Strata-Sphere, Max Conservative, The Right State, One Utah, The Point Rider, B36, Smash, The Command T.O.C., Morning Coffee
ps - What are the odds that any major conservative blogger would link to this? I'm guessing 0 as they want a straw man argument on this, not a reasoned debate. If one does, please let me know.
