Constructive gadfly
Published on September 15, 2007 By stevendedalus In Politics

Why do “you people” on the right seem most of the time when arguing the current war to reference ancient history—WWII, Korea and Vietnam—to justify staying the course in Iraq?

It goes without saying that troops still in Germany and Okinawa that had been there to protect the West from Soviet menace in Eastern Europe, and from China and Soviet designs on the Pacific rim, but now no longer serve a useful purpose and should be withdrawn but for those as a contingency of NATO inasmuch as the threat of another colossal skirmish, but for the cries of warmongers, has diminished—even the vast Pacific fleet at full strength has outlived its usefulness. These troops would be better honored by enforcing our borders or some to assist in Afghanistan.

We are stuck in Korea because the US seems ill-equipped or unwilling to negotiate through the truce toward unification and eventual draw down of US troops. We have no leaders to say, “Kim-Jong Il, tear out the barbed wire.” The “lost” cause in Vietnam attributed to “if only we had stayed a little longer” is sheer nonsense. Those Viet crazies, had all the time, driven by centuries of culture, to wear us down—as they did the French.

The same applies to Iraq because we let the crazies out of the bag, the Shia, and having no leanings toward democracy, to wreak their revenge and come hell or highwater establish a theocratic regime. To carry out a potent surge we would have to forge a reign of terror, almost as brutal as Saddam’s, across the hapless country. We don’t have the troops for that, and such tactics would further tarnish our already tarnished image, let alone the excruciatingly rise in casualties on both sides.

It is time to stop wasting our resources—human and matériel—and turn away from the Calamity Janes who are privy to Clytemnestra’s voice of doom that if we withdraw there will be total annihilation, which is unlikely; at worst there will be three partitions sniping at each other. Despite Bush, McCain, Petraeus the chaos has been with us and more in the shadows whether we stay or leave.

To honor our troops bring them home for they gallantly did all they could for a people glaringly unappreciative.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 15, 2007

I can't speak for all "you people on the right" but for me, the answer to your question is... Becuase history didn't start with the swearing in of the last president.  Guess what, some decisions of a president can last half a century or more.  I also have the brain power to see through the myopic "well it was ok then, but this is different" bullcrap.

If it was acceptable to lose over 1,000 American troops just in training for Operation Overlord, but it's a waste of human life to lose over 3,000 in Iraq, then your logic should be questioned.  If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.

What is the point in studying history if we simply reduce it to answers for Jeapardy contestions to provide the questions? 

If any of those blowhards in Congress, many of whom CAUSED the U.S. to lose in Vietnam would learn the lesson of Vietnam, they would realize that there is good reason the Founding Fathers deliberatly kept Congress out of the business of fighting wars.  Instead they go around bleating out their bilge about "another Vietnam" when the ONLY way the war in Iraq will ever become "another Vietnam" is if Congress blows it again.

My question to you is, why do "you people on the left" insist that lessons learned from out past cannot be used to back present decisions.  Could it be that they simply don't fit your agenda, so you simply throw it out as irrelevent?

 

 

on Sep 15, 2007

To answer your first question - Because the left (Congress mostly) brought it up first.

To them, I would challenge them to find any 2 wars that are identical.  The truth is no 2 are.  And this one is different as well.  Sure there have been mistakes.  But there is progress as well.  If we are to throw up our hands and say (as has been said on the left) "it only took 4 years in Europe", we are comparing apples to oranges.

Quite simply, having read most of your stuff, I do agree with some of your positions.  Iraq must take the bull by the horns so we can get out.  The only disagreement (of those who want an honest discussion, and not a 30 second sound bite) is how long that is going to take.

I think that setting a public deadline is suicide.  And I think the clowns in congress are being the stupid fools they are.  And when they continue to bring up past wars as examples, how can "you people" on the right not help but point out there stupidity and ignorance?

on Sep 15, 2007

I wonder if the left would accept us fighting the war in Iraq like we fought in WWII, to bring it to an end.

Should we carpet bomb cities to take out factories?  Should we torture (not just tantamount to torture, but REALLY torture prisoners to get them to talk?  Should we lock up all Muslims in America "just in case"?  Should we hold all prisoners in camps until the end of the war plus six months? 

What about on the homefront, we are whining about gas prices, but shouldn't gas, sugar, rubber, steel, coal and other necesities or the war effort be rationed?  Shouldn't we convert be converting all the factories we have left to producing items needed to fight the war?  Shouldn't we be looking at any young man 18-25 who is not in uniform with contempt and distrust?  Shouldn't we be putting our life savings into war bonds?

yeah!  Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!

 

on Sep 15, 2007

Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!

to the left (to be honest, not Stevendedalus), the only good wars are the ones they start.

on Sep 15, 2007
We are stuck in Korea because the US seems ill-equipped or unwilling to negotiate through the truce toward unification and eventual draw down of US troops. We have no leaders to say, “Kim-Jong Il, tear out the barbed wire.”

!
That is a good one Steven. You are referring to a society run by one despot where the population has absolutely no outside information coming in. He has been told, asked, and begged to allow more border crossings, reunions and visits. The only thing the current economic cross border ventures do is to allow the North Korean elite hard currency to buy their Hennessy cognac and DVDs of the latest Hollywood movies for the jonger. The belief that words spoken by any person to the NK Government (Kim) could have any effect is nothing but wishful thinking. Kind of like thinking that Hillary actually respects people serving in the military.

There is a movement through the UN to open up a negotiated end to the Korean War; The current South Korean Government (President) wants to have something to show for their 5 years of appeasement and gifts of food and equipment other than the status quo.

Which will not change in the near future, even if there is an actual peace treaty rather than the current armistice agreement. It is not in the Jonger's interest to allow his slaves, oops! I mean citizens to have knowledge and the means to improve their lot in life.

You may take my statements skeptically but in my 16+ years looking at Korea, I have seen my projections and suspicions turn out to be more accurate than the folks from the State Dept.
on Sep 15, 2007
The belief that words spoken by any person to the NK Government (Kim) could have any effect is nothing but wishful thinking.
But it has to be done, and I personally believe with a serious ultimatum such as absolutely no international aid regardless of the effect on the common "slaves."
Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!
Yeah, why not?
Jonger's interest to allow his slaves, oops!
right the first time.
on Sep 15, 2007

"it only took 4 years in Europe", we are comparing apples to oranges.
wholeheartedly agree.

If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.
I don't propose a war in Darfur unless it is initiated by the UN and contingents from Arab and African leagues as well as NATO of which we are a part. There is no one starving in Iraq, but we certainly should support the displaced and refugees in Jordan and Syria.

on Sep 16, 2007
I disagree.
on Sep 16, 2007
I disagree.
In everything I suppose[?]
on Sep 16, 2007

I disagree.
In everything I suppose[?]

No, you are butting heads with your mirror image.

on Sep 16, 2007
when arguing the current war to reference ancient history—WWII, Korea and Vietnam


Ancient history?? World War II started in '37 or '39 depending on which of the primary conflicts you happen to be referencing. That's 70 years maximum. What terms would you use to describe the Ming Dynasty i wonder?

protect the Soviet menace in Eastern Europe


Don't you mean protect "against". A typo im sure but it completely reverses the gist of your argument.

We are stuck in Korea because the US


We're not "stuck" anywhere. For better or worse, we are where we "choose" to be.

The same applies to Iraq because we let the crazies out of the bag


We didn't let the crazies out their bag, we stupidly let ourselves becomes crazed and then jumped right in the bag with them.

Now everyone's surprised that "crazies + crazed = crazier". Who would have thought?

To honor our troops bring them home for they gallantly did all they could for a people glaringly unappreciative


Why should they be appreciative?? They didn't ask for our help. We didn't go there for their benefit. We were chasing fictitous WMD remember..... we bullshitted our way into invading their country... and you expect thanks and a fond farewell??

If it was acceptable to lose over 1,000 American troops just in training for Operation Overlord, but it's a waste of human life to lose over 3,000 in Iraq, then your logic should be questioned


His logic should be questioned.... but not over these points. Your point's hardly logically valid either since your comparing apples with oranges. It was "acceptable" or at least "accepted" to lose 1000 in '44 and it is definitely not acceptable to lose 3,000 now for this sham.

IRAQ: The US, the worlds only remaining superpower, with a military budget totalling almost 50% of the worlds military spending according to these figures

WWW Link

INVADES another sovereign state in a fictional War on Terror and loses 3,000+ lives (to date) in the process.... never mind they were actually Saudis who trashed the towers.

WWII: The US being attacked and defending itself in a war that was global in nature, universally supported and what's more totally neccessary...... (from our point of view).

Although you were specifically referring to a single operation we lost a hell of lot more than 1,000 in WWII and I for one have never heard a peep from anyone to suggest that every life wasn't worth it.

Its a highly reasonable conclusion, (if you want to use "count the dead" argument), to say a 1,000 there was better spent than 3,000 here. Thats not the problem with his argument. The problems actually yours because you suggest that every wars the same. "If you say this is fine, then you cant say thats not". That's idiotic.

If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.


No they dont. First of all Darfur is a region of Sudan not a country.

WWW Link

The fighting there is FOR Darfur not AGAINST it. Secondly no one is "screaming for war", they are speaking out against and are looking to defuse one.

Thirdly, the vast majority agree that Darfur is a legitimate crises vs some half baked ream of propaganda that only the US and it's lacky states Australia and GB were prepared to swallow re: Iraq. So again it's apples and oranges.

I also have the brain power to see through the myopic "well it was ok then, but this is different" bullcrap.


Im not sure you do because real brain power, to use your turn of phrase, essentially boils down to being able to run horses for courses. Your argument instead is essentially to run the same beast round every track, the same way.

Thats not smart. Thats dumb. That's not brain power but rather a lack of brain power.
on Sep 16, 2007

We're not "stuck" anywhere. For better or worse, we are where we "choose" to be.
Precisely, another illogical example of a war of choice.

Ancient history??
Can't accept a tongue-in-cheek expression, eh?

Why should they be appreciative?? They didn't ask for our help. We didn't go there for their benefit. We were chasing fictitous WMD remember..... we bullshitted our way into invading their country... and you expect thanks and a fond farewell??
Good point but not in the context of the troops who actually believed they were liberators.

You got me on the omission which should have been ...the West from...   Thanks.

on Sep 16, 2007

I don't propose a war in Darfur unless it is initiated by the UN and contingents from Arab and African leagues as well as NATO of which we are a part. There is no one starving in Iraq, but we certainly should support the displaced and refugees in Jordan and Syria.

oh mighty UN, we bow to thee and thy greatness and power.  Let us never do anything without thy permission.

 

The UN has already shown that they'll encourage rape and torture, as long as the price is right.  They don't deserve our respect, and we surely should never beg for their permission.

The UN, The Mafia, Street Gangs... only difference is the names and places. SPIT ON THEM ALL

on Sep 16, 2007
The UN, The Mafia, Street Gangs... only difference is the names and places. SPIT ON THEM ALL
Then why not include the Iraqis?
on Sep 17, 2007
Iraq must take the bull by the horns so we can get out. The only disagreement (of those who want an honest discussion, and not a 30 second sound bite) is how long that is going to take.


If we, all of us Ameicans, to honestly discuss this war we should start by asking the following question:

let's forget about the phony reasons that we were given as a reason for this war.Also let's forget all of the reasons that were introduced to justify this war after the original ones proved false. Let's start over and ask this: What exactly are we trying to achieve there?.

In trying to answer this question let's all keep in mind few facts about Iraq and the Irqis:

1- Iraq is a nation of hypocrites as Majority i.e. Shia. It is in their DNA. I say that with great pain. But it is the truth throughout all of their history. They assassinated their leader, the one they say they are his follower (Imam Ali, the cousin of Prophet Mohammad), then they mourn his death by beating themsleves on the day they killed him.
2- By nature, Shia is a theocratic-dictatorial brand of Islam. As such they will never allow Sunnis to even exist if they get full control. Look at iran after the Shah. That is iraq after Saddam if they get full control.
3- Sunnis in the region realized the two facts mentioned above from the start of the movement after they assassinated Ali. The way all the leaders of the area dealt with that problem is to make sure the leaders of both countries i.e. Iran and Iraq is a sunni who would not persecute the shia but keep them away from authority. The leaders of both countries before those two stupid leaders (Shah and Saddam) manged to do the job in a very reasonable way. The Shah and Saddam did that too at the start of their regimes then they started to be power crazy.
4- Unfortunately for the Iranians, the Iraqis, the region, the sunnis and the USA, we not only ignored the brutality of both men but we actually helped them and that inflamed the Shia against us and against those two men. Iran managed to get rid of the Shah on its own. and we helped Iraq to get rid of Saddam. These two actions in effect removed Sunnis from power. Iran became Shia once Khumini returned. and it was lost.
5-As for Iraq, now Saddam is gone and with him the sunni power structure.

Would we help retore Sunnis to power in Iraq? Can we do that? Is it even possible?

If we cant do that it will be a shia country as Iran. Even if we let it split we would still be faced with a Shia controlling the southern of Iraq and probably the center region too.

So what exactly are we trying to do there?

Depending on the answer, you will get an idea of how long it will take.

If sunnis control we are trying to restore, it will take forever.

If this is not the goal, then why stay there at all even one more day? To supervise Shia control?

If the goal is just to establish Bases and protect them regardless of what happens to Iraq itself, then you got your answer ..... forever again.

Get out NOW or stay fore the forseeable future.

Pick your pick.

Sad Sad choices, thanks to our Idiot-in-chief.

2 Pages1 2