Hi Karen, I think the major basis of our disagreement on Iraq is highlighted in the following quote from your post:
[you say] I really do think that this War is entirely different than Vietnam. It is about changing the Middle East, at least one place to start, into a functioning democracy rather than leaving it to function as a terrorist haven and training ground as it was. If it doesn't work out, we at least tried. Maybe millions of people will live because so many of our Military men and women were so brave. I don't know if we will be alive when the results "are in", but I surely hope so.
I've seen nothing from the anti-war folks that even pretends to visualize what will happen if we leave before the young democracy is mature enough to defend themselves.
I don't see it that way. First, Iraq wasn't, by anyone's account other than the Chalabi misinformation crowd believers, a "terrorist haven and training ground" prior to our invasion. There were a handful of known terrorists in a millions strong population and Hussein was killing Wahabis on sight as well as radical Islamics who might have wanted to create a theocracy to displace his rule. If you have any credible evidence to the contrary please let me know because the only people now saying this seem to be the misinformed and the most radical "I'll believe what I want unless you can prove a negative" supporters of the war.
Second, you say this is not like Vietnam because it's billed as a war to create a functioning democracy....but that's exactly the way Vietnam was billed. There, too, we claimed to be "helping" them toward better, more free lives and to avoid the scourge of living under communism. There, too, we claimed that as soon as we trained and equipped enough of them they would take over their own defense. There, too, they seemed to be less willing to fight and kill their own people than we were. There, too, their combat efforts in general were weak and dispirited. And there, too, Americans were scared silly with dire predictions of what would happen to our own freedom and way of life if we somehow failed to "win."
But the most important difference between us is illustrated when you say; "If it doesn't work out, we at least tried. Maybe millions of people will live because so many of our Military men and women were so brave.." That reveals that you're turning your focus strongly toward "good motives" and the fall back of "no one knows if it will work."
That's a true-hearted way of looking at it but when men and women are killing and losing their lives in our name I think in pragmatic terms. I don't care what good motives one can attribute to our efforts in Iraq. In order for me to consider this a justified war worth continuing I have to see not only an arguably just cause but also a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise it's like giving hundreds of billions and sacrificing thousands of lives in a program to exceed the speed of light or prove there's a God. It would be nice if it would succeed but it's a waste of time, money and lives.
If you look at where you thought things would go in Iraq, and when, and why they didn't, and then honestly consider the number of times you've had to reduce your expectations then you'll understand why it is that you've now come to the point where you write: "I don't know if we will be alive when the results "are in", but I surely hope so, and employ the caveat, "if it doesn't work out."
You'll probably be alive when the "results are in" because they're coming in now and we won't be able to stay for too many more years but, tragically, there will be many more young, vibrant, and true Americans who won't be alive. Smart, caring leaders don't bet the farm on a sucker bet knowing they'll pay with the blood of American young and deplete funds that could be used to do so much good in the world. Ed |
