Where Do You Stand Today About the War in Iraq?
For some of you bloggers, who have been around since the commencement of this blog in April 2005, you will know that I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the onset. Although I did not approve of Saddam Hussein, it was still my position that our country, the United States of America had no business being there since there were more problems closer to home that deserved attention.
Now almost two years later, over 2,500 Americans killed, countless others wounded, and thousands of Iraqis killed, and injured, and billions of dollars spent, I ask myself the question once again: do we have any business being in Iraq? Today, we know that Saddam had no WMD, and our presence inside of this country has actually, according to some theorists created more damage than good. If some of you have read the newspapers over the weekend, you can see it was reported that the situation inside of Iraq now is actually about 30 percent more likely to be a breeding ground to recruit terrorists than ever before. Moreover, in today's Los Angeles Times, the headlines read, 'Army Warms Rumsfeld It's Short Billions." What this means is that the Pentagon must increase its budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere. As Americans, we are overextended financially in a war that is not our own.
So the questions become, why did we go? Why do we stay there? Who is to gain from our presence, and what is to be lost? Where do you stand today on the war in Iraq? Is it different from where you were two years ago? What needs to be done to restore some dignity to America, and how do we recover financially?
Thank you for your minds.
Now almost two years later, over 2,500 Americans killed, countless others wounded, and thousands of Iraqis killed, and injured, and billions of dollars spent, I ask myself the question once again: do we have any business being in Iraq? Today, we know that Saddam had no WMD, and our presence inside of this country has actually, according to some theorists created more damage than good. If some of you have read the newspapers over the weekend, you can see it was reported that the situation inside of Iraq now is actually about 30 percent more likely to be a breeding ground to recruit terrorists than ever before. Moreover, in today's Los Angeles Times, the headlines read, 'Army Warms Rumsfeld It's Short Billions." What this means is that the Pentagon must increase its budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere. As Americans, we are overextended financially in a war that is not our own.
So the questions become, why did we go? Why do we stay there? Who is to gain from our presence, and what is to be lost? Where do you stand today on the war in Iraq? Is it different from where you were two years ago? What needs to be done to restore some dignity to America, and how do we recover financially?
Thank you for your minds.
22 Comments:
Speaking as a non-American, nevertheless I couldn't agree more.
Why meddle when there are so many people in the civilised world that could use the army (like evacuating Americans for e.g.) and the money spent.
Too bad you aren’t the president.
Thank you, prag, for the kind compliment. Being a woman, and a Jew, it is doubtful that a Presidency would ever be in the picture! Besides, I have neither the ambition nor the temperment, but do appreciate your kind words.
By the way, I did not realize you were a non-American. May I ask where you are from?
Hi Barbara, war is good for business. More ordinance was dropped on Iraq by the USAF in the first six days of Gulf War II than in the whole of World War II. Then there are the reconstruction of Iraq contracts and the profits for Texaco and other Oil companies.
No, not cynical but fact. Add to that, that it is actually good for the american (US) economy and the US dollar, to have hundreds of thousands of troops in the Europe, hundreds of thousands in Japan, Hawaii, South Korea, and hundreds of thousands in Iraq -
and that is why you went to war.
For the good of the US economy. Not a good enough reason or justification to destroy another country, but as long as your rulers are narrow minded numbnuts, who have no imagination to look at the future and lead the world in new ways to develop economies, they will keep on falling back by default to these barbaric methods.
They are not kidding when they say "war is good for the economy" otr when they talk aqbout destroying more countries.
Always difficult to criticise, but it would make more sense to build spaceships and satellites and dump them on the moon, than to look for excuses to keep the arms industry in riches. Alas there is no one presidential candidate that is willing to say as much, and literally put his money where his mouth is.
You know there is only one other nation on earth that has elected a president who is commander in chief of the military in the last 60 years (since WWII) - most other countries elect civilian leaders,
and though Blair has made much about being supportive of Iraq and glorifying war - he and his cabinet were all opposed to war in their student years, and when in opposition. Blair just became besotted with the idea of glory and scribbing his name in the gistory books. And sadly war fills history books, gets in the news, is given privileged Media coverage and of course CNN feeds off it, and hollywood scripts it into films.
But i'm not telling you anything you didn't already know.
Wishing you a lovely day!
PS - Have you heard:
"The Magician of Lublin"
When you reach for a star
Only angels are there
And it's not very far
Just to step on a stair
Take a look at those clowns
And the tricks that they play
In the circus of life
Life is bitter and gay
There are clowns in the night
Clowns everywhere
See how they run
Run from despair
You can be thrilled
And you can be free
"How?"
But only my friend
If you'll listen to me
When the fantasy bells
Of the universe ring
You can fly through the sky
On a dragonfly's wing
There is magic within
There is magic without
Follow me and you'll learn
Just what life's all about
Just what life's all about
lyrics by KATE BUSH
I am re-evaluating my position and haven't come to a firm conclusion yet.
Some people claim that the war with radical Islam began with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.
But if we pull it in closer we can see numerous more recent examples. There was the first attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on the African Embassies in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and of course September 11.
So when I read comments about the war creating more terrorists I am not sure that I completely agree with it.
In any case, I am re-evaluating my position about the war. Hindsight is 20-20, at one time Saddam did have WMDs, so the question is where are they now.
I have this gut feeling that the government isn't telling us everything.
I was not happy when we went into Iraq. Our ostensible reason was invalid (WMD) was wrong. Ironically, it appears part of our intelligence problem was because Saddams own people were lying to him about their WMD efforts and we were reading their lies.
Just as importantly, Iraq served as a brake on Iran and now we see that place is becoming another cauldron ready erupt.
What a mess. It seems we did not learn from Viet Nam
Today I stand where I did when we first invaded Iraq, directly opposed. The difference today is that I stand deeper in that conviction. We are fighting those who do not care if they die for their cause, get further enticed by our presence in Iraq and will never back down. They are made of difference stuff than we.
What a mess indeed, which is exacerbated by the strong-arm that Iran, who has so much oil now, seems to have on the world.
The entire situation disturbs me deeply.
All I can say is that we opened a Pandora's box.
You know this is one of m issues. My cousin leaves to go back in March or April. He's only been home about 6 months now. There is no reason to be there, our troops are overextended, underprotected, and ill-equipt. We're going to be there for quite some time.
From my vantage point, I have never been in favour of it, and I'm glad the Canadian gov't decided not to follow suit so openly. I see the need to be in Afghanistan completely, but not Iraq.
The Bush gov't and the extreme right wing media seem to have attempted to manipulate the public into believing the need for this war and I believe their tactics worked initially. Because the war continues and continues and was not wrapped up neatly like the "powers that be" wanted and expected..........well more and more citizens are realizing the dupe.
We will never know the real reasons behind the invasion.
I'm with you Barbara. The whole Middle East scenario frightens me. The potential for Iran and their crazy dictator/leader to implode just adds fuel to an already out of control fire. I am beginning to believe that when we look back on this time in our history we will realize that we had already begun World War III.
So many innocents killed. So many American troops killed. For what?
A Jewish Woman for President? Sounds like a very good idea.
Some great comments here.
It indeed is a mess, a sticky situation, and one that will, more likely than not plague our country, for many years to come.
What concerns me is the very reason by which the Bush Administration felt compelled to attack, i.e., 'to stop the terrorists,' and make us safer, has back-fired, and if you look at the Times today, and over these past few days, you can see that the exact opposite has occurred: Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. And of course, the lives lost and the money spend is heartbreaking to accomplish this end.
What concerns me is the very reason by which the Bush Administration felt compelled to attack, i.e., 'to stop the terrorists,' and make us safer, has back-fired, and if you look at the Times today, and over these past few days, you can see that the exact opposite has occurred: Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists.
Actually that seems to be up for debate. If you look at the report from the NIE it says:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.
• The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its
vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslimsall of which jihadists exploit.
You can find more about thishere
We went because Bush has issues with his father and wanted to prove that he was man enough to take out Saddam...
That coupled with Dick and Rummy's obsessive support of the Military Industrial complex and there we are...
I've stopped and dwelled on this post several times now. I'm not sure I have much to add. It's all been said and my views are hardly unique.
1) We never should have gone. I thought it was a bad idea at the time and it turns out I was right. I get no pleasure from this.
2) I always have and always will support our troops. No matter how they or I feel about our involvement on a personal level, they deserve my admiration, respect and support for doing a very dangerous job.
3) Although I don't refer to it as "cutting and running," to simply bug out at this stage is irresponsible and stupid. True we never should have gone, but we did. Now we need an exit plan.
4) The exit plan does not have to look like victory... I'm not sure what it is we're supposed to be winning. If stability in the region is what defines victory, then we took like ten steps backward to get there. We have probably eight more forward left just to break even.
We need a plan. "Staying the course is tantamount to watching the train ahead of us disappear over the cliff - and we're still on the train.
I think it's too late to debate why we went. I'm more in tune with our withdrawal.
Unless we set a date, the Iraqis can take their time. I'd like to see things move along quickly so that we're home in two years or less.
The exit plan does not have to look like victory.
I have to disagree with this. It is imperative that when we leave it is not seen as our having lost.
It may sound silly, but you have to remember that there are some strong cultural differences.
Defeat will encourage more attacks. There is an ideological war that is taking place. This is not about oppression.
It is imperative that when we leave it is not seen as our having lost.
By who? The problem is that there is no clear definition of what victory is. Is it the eradication of radical Islamic fundamentalism? Is it a free and stable democratic society? And what if that free and democratic society turns out a government that is not quite what *we* are looking for? Go back in and straighten it out?
I say that we need to find a way to get out without the whole region going into meltdown. True, we need to be "victorious." But we have only a vague idea of what that is. The conventional definition of a war victory no longer applies.
Before we can extricate ourselves from this quagmire we've embroiled ourselves in, we must define the terms of victory - and it might mean something other than what we think victory looks like. It might mean that good enough will have to be.
The problem is that there is no clear definition of what victory is.
I can agree with that. Here is my response. If I were king (every time I say that I think of Mel Brooks in History of the World) I would want to leave an impression.
And that impression would be an understanding by the terrorists that attacking us is a huge mistake. I want them to be scared silly, so much so that only the most dedicated and committed would consider challenging us.
Just to be clear, I am a big proponent of military action in conjunction with diplomacy. This requires both and part of the current problem is that we are lacking in these areas.
Although I should add that I am not convinced that it is as bad as some people want to portray it to be.
There is a reason why they say that war is hell.
Barbara
I MUST tell you - I stopped reading after the first few lines..and havent continued just yet -
all this to tell you -
that you have literally inspired me - lump in throat and all - someone who has MADE THE EFFORT to wake up early - SET ASIDE TIME to make a CHESHBON HANEFESH - and I'm so enthralled - it's something I always WANT to do...but forever procrastinate...
anyway...
back to reading.....
If I were king (every time I say that I think of Mel Brooks in History of the World) I would want to leave an impression.
"It's good to be da king."
When dealing with the religious extreme (and it doesn't have to be Muslims), logic goes out the window. I don't think they are capable of fear (silly or otherwise) and don't consider anything they do "in the name of God" a mistake.
I believe, however, that the fanaticism is peculiar to the rank and file - we don't see the leadership rushing off to martyrdom - they aren't that stupid and as such, might be persuaded by fear. If we could direct our aggression to surgically take out those in charge and their immediate surroundings, then perhaps we would see results.
As long as those attacking us believe they are going to have 80 some odd virgins and eternal bliss upon their departure from this world, there is little that shooting at them will accomplish.
I’m not so sure what the right course is – it just seems to me that we were led up the garden path. Whether that was intentional or not at this point is really moot.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home