4 explosions, over 20 dead
I’ve been writing for months now that just like Bush rushed the war in Iraq he also rushed the elections. That argument is in no way anti-American, anti-patriotic, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-democratic or remotely close to anything liberal.
The simple labels people use in politics amaze me. I will state once again for clarity that I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. All this talk about democracy and answering the call of the oppressed is new in this war for Iraq. And still not living up to it’s full potential. All along I have argued the necessity at which to rush to elections without securing Iraq first. What would have been wrong with securing Iraq before imposing elections?
Democracy is a very delicate matter. The slightest tangles can cause huge eruptions. Just look at Europe. It may turn out that Iraq will one day be peaceful, democratic, oil rich with huge Texas pumps and a model for the entire Middle East. That scenario in no way debunks my argument that a constant rush to impose American views on a foreign land has led to way too many unnecessary deaths and a near unbearable strain on our soldiers and their families. Today in Iraq is a perfect example. What would have been wrong with securing Iraq?
Hey MJ
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I think the confusion in this country comes from not knowing just exactly what happened during and after WWII. When we "took" Germany, that country was leveled. Absolutely destroyed. Thousands of innocent women and children were killed in the masssive bombings that took place. And there's Japan, we all know what happened there.
Since the end of WWII I think we've tried to redifine the way war against other countries. In Germany and Japan we had to decimate cities, infrastructure and people. Then when it was all over, we were charged with rebuilding.
Since then I believe we have tried to go to war without actually killing people if it can be avoided. We don't attempt to decimate cities instead choosing to use precision munitions in the hopes of preserving some of the infrastructure. That was the whole point of the neutron bomb...to kill the people and save the buildings.
This experiment in taking a country with systematically destroying has been tried in Iraq. In some ways it's failed and in others it's succeeded. I hear you argument about elections but I seriously doubt we could have waited any longer. Regardless of how the country is goverened there will be terrorism. Iraq is right inbetween Iran and Syria, both sponsors of various groups including al Qaeda. Iraq is in close proximity to Yemen and Saudi Arabia both of which supply the people that join terrorist groups. This problem isn't going away anytime soon.
This war is mostly fought with symbols believe it or not. Showing the terrorist groups that we cannot be run out of the Middle East no matter what you try is actually more effective than you might think. Unfortunately it's also deadlier than we all want.
As for your comments, I think it's fair that if I'm going to rant on my blog than I should not be surprised when someone rants right back at me. Touche'
I think if we actually sat down and hashed it we could have civil debate about Iraq, the War on Terror, etc. The aforementioned rant wasn't necessarily directed at those who believe differently than I who actually are thoughtful enough to research this stuff. I have no quarrel with you per se. I think I was just frustrated by those who are very loud and very uneducated about what's going on now and excised it on my blog.
Keep writing, reading and leaving comments.
quick correction
ReplyDeleteThis experiment in taking a country withOUT systematically destroying has been tried in Iraq.
ok, now that makes sense
Mark, I agree with your assessment that Germany and Japan were entirely defeated at the conclusion of WWII. Had Iraq been bombed with two atomic weapons or it's capital city completely leveled with fire bombing, it too would have been much easier to impose our will. Thankfully that's not the American mode of fighting wars anymore. But, I do agree that there are huge differences when imposing democracy on annihilated enemies and those in a power vaccuum.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that we probably could not have waited much longer to hold elections in Iraq. But my argument has never been elections shouldn't be held. It has always been, let's secure Iraq first, because security is so much more important than the electoral process. Instead, Bush chose his approval rating over security in Iraq. If Bush was serious about democracy in Iraq he would have put security first and foremost. That is not what has happened in Iraq and because of his insistence that Iraq must hold elections, there have been thousands killed.
When I say that Bush rushed elections, what I mean is that Bush rushed elections over security. Not that they were rushed with a timeframe.
Security is the number one priority in Iraq, not voting.
It's interesting that you mention Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Those countries pose a far greater risk to America than did Iraq. Those countries also have concrete links to Al Qaeda- Iraq never did.
So why are we in Iraq? Bush said it was to disarm Saddam from his WMD and remove the dictator, because he could supply Al Qaeda with weapons. Since no WMD were found, now we are there to spread democracy.
And still to this day, Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia have close contact with Bin Laden.
I suppose I could go on all day about this. So I will try to sum it up quickly. If are initial reason for invading Iraq, which was WMD, didn't prove true, then how about making our secondary reason, which now is to spread democracy, work. And to me, to make Iraq a viable, thriving democracy, security must be achieved. And it could have been achieved months ago by placing an emphasis on security rather than elections.
As far as the ranting goes, I'm all for it. That's why I post on this blog. I have thick skin and take your arguments against mine purely as a blogging rant, nothing personal at all.
One quick note: I have never listend to Air America or whatever that crazy radio show is, nor have I ever watched an episode of the Daily Show. And for that matter I can't stand entertainers in politics at all. And the same is true for Arnold, Fat Limbaugh (who is a drug addict) and O'Reilly. It's all the same on both sides of the spectrum.
Thanks again Mark.
"And for that matter I can't stand entertainers in politics at all. And the same is true for Arnold, Fat Limbaugh (who is a drug addict) and O'Reilly. It's all the same on both sides of the spectrum."
ReplyDeleteWell, I think one should differenciate from a celebrity pontificating about what should be done in politics (Sean Penn, Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin), and celebrities who roll up their sleeves and actually do something, be it through charities they start or support, or actual positions in government (Sonny Bono, Gary Sinise, Arnold, Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura, even Jerry Springer). Just because someone is in entertainment, it doesn't mean they have adbicated all rights to take part in politics and lack the understanding to do so too.