[brite750]

Bob is a well known conservative radio personality in the Rochester area, very pro Iraq war, very pro military, even he is starting to wonder what the deal is. I know I started feeling this way about a year ago, because as I have stated before, I hate waste, and this is starting to sound like a major "waste" a waste of time, people, money, etc. If you do not fight to win, you won't.

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

[linskyjack]

It is a major waste---it really irks me that we are losing men and spending enormous sums of taxpayer dollars on first creating, then getting in the middle of a civil war. I mean this is a disasterous way of conducting foreign affairs.

[MSM Hobbes]

Not that I agree in all points made w/in this essay, but... there are many points herein worth considering, debating, and at the least thinking "what if". Especially since this article was written before the war, and therefore gives a glimpse of what we actually are seeing, to various extents.

http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html

Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War*
The administration’s claim of a right to overthrow regimes it considers hostile is extraordinary – and one the world will soon find intolerable.
by Paul W. Schroeder

Most Americans seem little concerned at the prospect of an American war on Iraq. This is surprising considering that, of America’s friends and allies, only Israel openly supports it, while other states in the Middle East, including longtime rivals and enemies of Iraq, warn against it, and the Europeans view it with alarm and growing frustration. Those challenges to the planned war now being raised, moreover, tend to center on prudential questions – whether the proposed attack will work and what short-term risks and collateral damage might be involved – rather than on whether the war itself is a good idea.

The practical risks are indeed serious. The attack would entail a new military campaign while the so-called war against al-Qaeda and terrorism is far from over, involving many thousands of American troops in ground fighting with corresponding casualties, fought with few allies or none and paid for entirely by the United States in troubled economic times. Across the Muslim world hostility toward America is already inflamed, and radical Islamic movements are active. The global economy – particularly the oil and stock markets – is vulnerable to shock. Such a war would also come at a time when America’s alliances in Europe and the Middle East are strained, certain fragile Middle Eastern and South Asian regimes are at risk, and other international dangers (tensions between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, and China and Taiwan, and economic crisis in Latin America, to name a few) are looming. If the war succeeds in toppling Hussein, the United States will be saddled with the new responsibilities of occupying, administering, rebuilding, democratizing, and stabilizing Iraq (beyond its existing responsibilities in Afghanistan), tasks of unreckoned costs and manifold difficulties for which neither the American public nor the administration have demonstrated much understanding, skill, or stomach. In the light of all this, the enterprise merely on practical grounds looks remarkably rash.

Yet even these grave considerations should not take priority over questions of principle: do we have a right to wage preemptive war against Iraq to overthrow its regime? Would this be a necessary and just war? What long-range effects would it have on the international system? If the answers to these questions make this truly a necessary and just war, Americans ought to be willing to make sacrifices and undergo risks for it.

On these critical issues the administration has so far won by default. The assumption that a war to overthrow Hussein would be a just war and one that, if it succeeded without excessive negative side effects, would serve everyone’s interests has gone largely unchallenged, at least in the mainstream. The administration’s justification for preemptive war is the traditional one: that the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now. Saddam Hussein, an evil despot, a serial aggressor, an implacable enemy of the United States, and a direct menace to his neighbors must be deposed before he acquires weapons of mass destruction that he might use or let others use against Americans or its allies and friends. A few thousand Americans died in the last terrorist attack; many millions could die in the next one. Time is against us; once Hussein acquires such weapons, he cannot be overthrown without enormous losses and dangers. Persuasion, negotiation, and conciliation are worse than useless with him. Sanctions and coercive diplomacy have failed. Conventional deterrence is equally unreliable. Preemptive action to remove him from power is the only effective remedy and will promote durable peace in the region.

This essay proposes to confront this case for preemptive war on Iraq head on. My argument stresses principles and long-term structural effects rather than prudence and short-term results. It rests not on judgments and predictions about future military and political developments, which I am not qualified to make, but on a perspective missing from the current discussion, derived from history, especially the history of European and world politics over the last four centuries. Rather than criticizing the proposed preemptive war on prudential grounds, it opposes the idea itself, contending that an American campaign to overthrow Hussein by armed force would be an unjust, aggressive, imperialist war which even if it succeeded (indeed, perhaps especially if it succeeded), would have negative, potentially disastrous effects on our alliances and friendships, American leadership in the world, the existing international system, and the prospects for general peace, order, and stability. In other words, a preemptive war on Iraq would be not merely foolish and dangerous, but wrong.

...more...

Let no one reply that this is what we did to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan after World War II, with great benefit to them and the rest of the world. We went to war with these powers because they attacked us and many other nations. That was a justified defensive war, and the dimensions of the war, the enormous damage it did, the crimes and atrocities Germany and Japan committed in it (though we and our allies were not blameless), and the dimensions of their defeat justified and virtually compelled an occupation and period of tutelage. A preemptive war on Iraq is a totally different proposition.

Besides being imperialist in violating one fundamental basis of world order, the recognition of the independence and equal status of states, this war also would violate its counterpart, the principle of association and the need to observe community rules and bounds. In planning and preparing for this war, the United States is declaring to the world that it really does not consider this principle of association binding upon it; that the American government intends to decide what is best for the United States itself, on its own, listening perhaps to what allies and friends have to say, but acting strictly for its own self-defined interests; and that we do not need the sanction of the UN, NATO, or any other association or institution to which we belong and lead to justify it – this despite our knowledge that in this issue and decision the vital interests of many other countries, some of them our closest allies, are at stake even more than our own.

Once again, we cannot want a world that operates by these rules – but that is the world we would be promoting.

Why A Preemptive War On Iraq Is Unnecessary And Unhelpful For Security

One possible response to this argument might go as follows: “If you are right that we should not do this, what do you suggest as the alternative – that we simply sit on our hands and let Hussein and other dangerous leaders develop weapons of mass destruction with no control on their possible use by themselves or by terrorists? Must we really wait until we (i.e., the United States and allied countries it protects) are actually attacked or at least overtly, directly, demonstrably threatened before we may justifiably respond?”

That this does not guarantee perfect security for us or anyone else is true – but nothing can, least of all preemptive war. We have, however, powerful means of defense and deterrence both within our own hands and available through the international system – another good reason for not wrecking it by preemptive war. If new, more effective means to check new dangers are needed, this system is the way to develop them. If we use these means and this system sensibly, we can enjoy a measure of security far greater than most of the rest of the world has enjoyed in the past or enjoys now.

If this seems not good enough, it is because of our own unrealistic perceptions and expectations. There can be no perfect security against either terrorism or weapons of mass destruction – especially not through the use of military force. Trying to eliminate all the possible nests and sources of terrorism through military action is like trying to kill fleas with a hammer: it does more damage to oneself and the environment than to the fleas. (This does not at all rule out armed police actions like those against the Taliban or identifiable rebel groups.) The idea of eliminating all evil regimes that might use weapons of mass destruction or let terrorists use them is impossible and counterproductive, a bad dream.

What too many seem to forget, however, is that we and others have lived through this sort of danger before, and that defensive measures short of war can work. The menace of having nuclear weapons in the hands of mortal enemies who might use them against us was far greater during the Cold War than it is now. A few then called for preventive war to eliminate it; they were, thank God, not heeded. Terrorism has been around for centuries, and several countries in the 19th and 20th centuries, notably Spain, Russia, Italy, and the United Kingdom, survived worse terrorist campaigns and threats than we have experienced or are likely to experience. Right now the threat of terrorism is greater for the Philippines, Israel, Colombia, Peru, Nepal, and Sri Lanka than for us. Terrorism, like nuclear war, is an evil we must of course combat, but cannot hope to extirpate and must learn to endure and outlive.

In other words, a preemptive war against Iraq would be unnecessary as well as wrong, and would serve no useful purpose (4) while doing us, the Iraqi people, the world, and the international system great harm. When the great American historian Charles A. Beard was asked at the end of his career what was the most important thing he had learned from history, he replied, “That the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small, and that chickens always come home to roost.” He was an agnostic, and so presumably meant only that this was the way history ultimately worked out, and that long-range systemic consequences were the most important. He was right. If we carry out what we are now planning, then regardless of any short-term success we may have, our chickens will ultimately come home to roost.

I still want to believe that the war in Iraq is indeed justified, and the greater good in the long run will be worth the sacrifices [both in blood and dollars] being spilled and spent now... I do hope so.



Lastly, I enjoy this quote: "The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with" - Pat Buchanan, NY Times, Sept 8, 2002

[brite750]

I guess the way I look at it is, I'm not questioning the reasons for war, I'll reserve the right to address that some other time, however I am questioning how we are going about the aftermath of the regime over throw. It appears now that we did not have a clue as to what was going to happen, and there is just no excuse for that. Europe telling us that it wasn't a good idea, I have to discount somewhat, especially with all the UN money for food scandal stuff coming out, it's hard to tell at the moment if that was old world wisdom or cover up. The point of the thread is that at some time we are going to have to decide when enough is enough, and that conservatives are not going to keep supporting a war fought with Viet Nam tactics, we don't raise our children to become meaningless cannon fodder anymore than liberals, as is illustrated in the Tillman case, the military's knee-jerk reaction is still to "cover up", I understand morale but having your superiors lie to you I feel is more demoralizing than telling the truth, in fact not just lieing but actually trying to use the story as a recruitment tool, I'm sure many parents are seeing this cynicism and telling there sons/daughters to stay the he** out of the military.

[linskyjack]

Speaking of the Tilman case, the family is very upset at the coverup, and how the brass used their son as a recuritment poster boy. I'm telling you, the American people have got to start questioning everything that this ruling group in Washington tell us. The lies are piling up and so are the casualties. Here is the article on Tilman's family:

Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army

By Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writer Mon May 23, 1:00 AM ET

Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in
Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.


More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.

"Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did," Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. "The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting."

Tillman, a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in
Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004, where they were to hunt for the Taliban and
Osama bin Laden. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.

Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men.

In separate interviews in their home town of San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death.

The latest investigation, written about by The Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. The investigation also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman's uniform and body armor.

That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death on April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot.

Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. But the Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after a nationally televised memorial service that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004.

Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a "botched homicide investigation" and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Patrick Tillman said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Army spokesmen maintain that the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information.

Army officials said Friday that the Army "reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war." Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty.

"In the case of the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family," Brooks said. "For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes."

Brooks said the Army has "actively and directly" informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family "was as well informed as they could be."

Mary Tillman keeps her son's wedding album in the living room of the house where he grew up, and his Arizona State University football jersey, still dirty from the 1997 Rose Bowl game, hangs in a nearby closet. With each new version of events, her mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men.

"It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way," she said. "You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest."

Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command, from Tillman's direct supervisors to the one-star general who conducted the latest investigation, to face discipline for "dishonorable acts." He also said the soldiers who killed his son have not been adequately punished.

"Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore," he said. "Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has."

That their son was famous opened up the situation to problems, the Tillmans say, in part because of the devastating public relations loss his death represented for the military. Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism -- just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when
President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted.

"Every day is sort of emotional," Mary Tillman said. "It just keeps slapping me in the face. To find that he was killed in this debacle -- everything that could have gone wrong did -- it's so much harder to take. We should not have been subjected to all of this. This lie was to cover their image. I think there's a lot more yet that we don't even know, or they wouldn't still be covering their tails.

"If this is what happens when someone high profile dies, I can only imagine what happens with everyone else."

[iltos]

Originally Posted by MSM Hobbes

I still want to believe that the war in Iraq is indeed justified, and the greater good in the long run will be worth the sacrifices [both in blood and dollars] being spilled and spent now... I do hope so.

personally, i find myself in a paradoxical situation....unlike brite, i've felt all along that the war was not justified, although it did perhaps answer some socio-political need in the moment that i just don't agree with....

but politics is just the grander version of life, and events start things in motion that cannot be predicted....people will continue to die in iraq...the only difference is that now some of them will be americans, and it will undoubtedly continue for some time

still....the process that has been started there is fitfully headed in a long term beneficial direction, imo, which, i also hope, will end up being worth the effort and the loss and the waste.

[linskyjack]

Whats the long term "beneficial direction" ????????????????

[iltos]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Whats the long term "beneficial direction" ????????????????

its a good question, jack....and i don't have a "right" answer...part of it honestly just comes from my hope....another part is from this moment in time, which seems to be seeing more militant iraqis acquiesing to the political process, and part of it is just a philosophical crapshoot, borne of my belief that change is a catalyst, and we humans basically all want the same thing (regardless of how insane we are individually)...our success lies in our ability to adapt to new situations....this last falls loosely into the heading of education for me, which i have always maintained is the key changing the fear and mistrust that permeates the region.

keep in mind, however, that i have not been a fan of american foreign policy for years, and that, too me, is one big caveat to both of these posts

and therein lies the paradox.

[linskyjack]

Education, as they know it in the Middle East is controled by theocrats and thus is religious in nature. They teach their students wonderful things, like, the Jews practiced blood libel (this is sanctioned by both the Saudi and Egyptian governments), Americans are infidels and are closely alligned with the devil, Islam is the only true faith---all others are infidels. There are 200,000 insurgents in Iraq (according to the director of intelligence for the new Iraqi government) My stand is that not one American kid should die for another country, especially when the other country is fighting a civil war.

[MSM Hobbes]

When lies upon lies are heard, and even just hinted at, credibility is sacrificed. As much as I disliked Kerry and his cronies, the entire system, on both sides of the two main parties, in all aspects is tainted. And its tainted w/ money & power. Has been for a long, long time. Unfortunately, to strive for a solution requires a different tact and mentality than what we are seeing and experiencing. I may be naively optimistic, but a change has to come from "the people"... no matter what "party" a person allies with.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by MSM Hobbes

When lies upon lies are heard, and even just hinted at, credibility is sacrificed. As much as I disliked Kerry and his cronies, the entire system, on both sides of the two main parties, in all aspects is tainted. And its tainted w/ money & power. Has been for a long, long time. Unfortunately, to strive for a solution requires a different tact and mentality than what we are seeing and experiencing. I may be naively optimistic, but a change has to come from "the people"... no matter what "party" a person allies with.

well...you're right, imo....and too expand just a smidgeon on the education aspect...the process that has been started by our invasion of iraq, including all of the related policy and lies and actions, cannot help but promote change on both sides of this conflict....

which is one of the points of this thread, imo.

[linskyjack]

The people can start by demanding that the money be removed from politics. I have heard very few moderates and/or liberals critisize this. The naysayers are the conservatives who claim that free speech is involved. We all know that is utter nonsense, but until the American people demand TRUE campaign finance reform, close down the offices of the lobbiests, and demand that their politicians be held accountable for their actions, we will just continue along this destructive path.

[Dude044]

Leaving aside the issue's of why the Coallition went to war in Iraq, the way i see it that since the fall of Saddam (no loss there) the whole situation changed from a 'conventional' war to a guerrilla war ,which tend to be notoriously long and drawn out and hard to win .Personally i think we should have got the job done with GW1 ,but thats another story ,deserving a thread of its own.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by brite750

Bob is a well known conservative radio personality in the Rochester area, very pro Iraq war, very pro military, even he is starting to wonder what the deal is. I know I started feeling this way about a year ago, because as I have stated before, I hate waste, and this is starting to sound like a major "waste" a waste of time, people, money, etc. If you do not fight to win, you won't.

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

I couldn't agree more with the bolded statement.
If I had it to do over again, I don't think I would have been in favor of GW2.
.... At least not at that time.

However, we're there and we MUST be victorious.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Education, as they know it in the Middle East is controled by theocrats and thus is religious in nature.

The irony of it is that prior to invasion and occupation, that was certainly not the case in Iraq.