I have been through a plethora of mixed emotions and positions about the war in Iraq. At times I have let it be known on this site and others my mixed sentiments about the war. Sometimes that acquired some hateful replies and other times it elapsed some very good discussion. I'm still amazed at how this war has changed, how I have changed, and how America has changed with it. The ideological polarity that this war has brought is nothing new for America, but it is something new for my generation.
The divisions that this war has provided, in all historical senses, are nothing out of the ordinary for a democracy. Anyone with a history book...CLICK CONTINUE READING
... will note that WWI was not the most popular war and the American public protested it greatly. The same for Korea and we all know about Vietnam. But this war in Iraq has done something very different with its divisions. Never before in the history of America has so much been placed on the shoulders of so few. The entire brunt of the war, along with all the responsibility, dangers, worries and sacrifices belongs solely to the military and their families. In essence, less than 1% of a population of almost 300 million has been asked to bear the total burden of a global war against an enemy that surpassed the devastation of Pearl Harbor with the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Now 2 and a half years into a war that appears to have no end in site as well as against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and with a president that has seemingly vanished, we are left with division after division. For the first time in my generation we have the "have'’s" and the "have not'’s", and the "do-something'’s" and the "do-nothing'’s." There are those of us who have everything and done nothing to guarantee it. And there are those of us who have nothing and done something so that the rest of us will have all the opportunities this great country has to offer. I belong in the former. The division this war has created for this generation will be felt for its entirety. It will always be those who went and those who didn'’t.
The task that this generation has taken upon itself is the most important we will face. It will take more than a handful of us to accomplish it. All of our lives we have heard the stories from our grandfathers and grandmothers and how they saved the world. We have also heard the stories from our fathers and mothers and how they still cannot understand Vietnam. Which story do we want to belong in? Which story do we want to tell our grandkids? The choice is now. We have to make Iraq work and we have to support our troops. It will take all of us to do that.
Sminklemeyer, again, has a great post about a soldier's feelings about the war. It is evident that we all have changed and are still changing. But no matter what, we cannot, and with "we" I mean the soldiers and the civilians, give up now and we have to do whatever to make this work. The soldiers will do whatever we ask as long as we keep supporting them. And if we are going to ask them to shoulder our future, the least we could do is support them. People this is not Vietnam. We cannot let it become Vietnam. If it does it will not be because of the soldiers, it will be because of us at home. Let's not let the soldiers down. They would never do that to us.
8.22.2005
Support the Troops
Posted by Chris at 11:21 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I'm torn in this. I don't see it as WW2 in any way so I can't support it in that way, and more and more I am seeing it as Vietnam. I am not sure of which generation you and your readers are but I take it there is some span across a couple generations posting here.
The recent week of news and reports on Iraq has indeed been extremely troublesome and overwhelming because it is really just sinking in. I am going to have to digest everything before I form a final opinion. I just don't know what to think at this time.
I left this off without meaning too. I do support our troops.
I'm torn too businessman. I'm torn that I'm not over there, and I'm torn that Bush isn't over there, and I'm torn that all of us are torn.
But I see no realisitc way to make the Iraq situation better by opposing the war effort. If we pull out now, then Iraq will fall in to complete and utter chaos (it's close now). Then in ten years we will have to go back in there and wage war again to correct our mistakes. We have to finish the job now. We cannot threepeat Iraq.
Iraq is a war of choice. Bush chose to go after Saddam. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and apparently did not have WMD either. Bush has his war, and I think he has done a piss poor job with it. But we cannot pull out now. I think we should demand better from our presidents than what we have received from Bush. All the while still supporting our troops. It is possible.
Thanks for reading.
I would put your ad right up your ass but because your asshole is so big it would probably fall out.
I'm not torn on the war I opposed it from the very beginning, yup way back when I was in diapers I opposed it.
I can however at this point in time look beyond that because quite simply there is no choice in the matter as far as I can see. I know there is an increasing sentiment from some factions to just pull out but to what end? We have lost our soldiers lives how dare we pull out now, for the sake of the soldiers and for the sake of the country we have taken part in putting on the edge of civil war. Don't even go into the “women will be better off” “they will be a democracy” thing because it just isn’t a valid argument.
We should have let them find their own democracy, if that isn’t obvious to everyone now they are blind.
That having been said, right now we need a full blast of troops and some real training of the Iraqi army, we are not doing that, we don’t have the numbers. I would be all for sending fifty times the numbers and taking it seriously and getting it done. It is almost like the re construct is a joke.
If you can’t do that then maybe you need to get out.
I say again get over yourself Mr. Bush, get back to your job and get back quickly.
I think everyone in here is presuming to have a power which may not be afforded to us. When our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power we unleashed forces swayed by dreams and ambitions way beyond our control and we are now going to pay for it.
Our influence in Iraq is waning as the new powers-that-be carve Iraq up into their own domains to the north and the south. The Shi'ites and Kurds shared a common enemy with us - Saddam Hussein - but we did not share a common interest in presering Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty. We shared that with the very tyrannical enemy we deposed.
If the press reports are correct, the Iraqis are drafting their version of our Articles of Confederation, not their version of a Connstitution with the ability to protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The one uniting principle that is spoken of is Islam. It presumably would have a very strong role to play in Iraq but the compromise that allowed the three (excuse me, two of the three factions) to sign onto to potentially unifying (and perhaps tyrannical) principle is also its very undoing. The individuals are allowed to decide for themselves if they will bind themselves to Islamic law or civil law - thereby allowing Kurds and Sunnis to adhere to that constitutional principle while ignoring it in effect.
We are now caught in a bind and our options are limited. Withdrawal now is not an option but continued support for the victors is not either. Buffering Iraq's military force may seem counterintuitve in a state whose people to the south and north no longer believe in but it is the only institutional force that could pose a challenge to the Kurdish and Shi'ite paramilitary forces in the north and southern parts of Iraq.
Our chance for success in that endeavor is not entirely clear either, for doing will add the Kurds and Shi'ite paramilitary forces to the list of enemies and it is still unclear where we can build and maintain a base who are willing to fight as "Iraqis" and not "Sunnis", "Shi'ites", or "Kurds."
We really don't have a good option.
theheretic,
great point about the different sects and ethnic groups of Iraq. if iraq is to be a successful country, the people must think as Iraqis and not as shiites or sunnis or kurds. but honestly, it's hard to fathom this happening. i mean, for thousands of years, these groups have hated each other. it's just part of that culture. i think the next generation may change, but there will always be those who hate.
mj, great post my friend. you really need to be a professional speech writer, if you're not already.
If the coalition of the 'not really that willing anymore' do succeed in defeating the insurgency (or counter-insurgency depending on whether you prefer accuracyor not) what will be left?
The Iraqi people reserve the right to oppose occupation, it is their right to oppose the privatisation of Iraq, it is their right to vote for a government that calls for coalition withdrawal. This has been. And this has been ignored.
"Article 1(4) of Protocol I (additional to the Geneva Conventions) considers
self-determination struggles in the context of international armed conflicts:
the principle of self determination itself provides that where forcible action
has been taken to suppress the right, force may be used in order achieve selfdetermination."
Support the troops. But remember, 'War of the rich, death of the poor'.
""The Army is the gateway to get away from poverty here," Bocanegra says. "You go to the Army and expect to be better off, but the best job you can get (back home) is flipping burgers. ... What am I supposed to do now? How are you going to live?""
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq
/2005-02-28-cover-iraq-injuries_x.htm
"A lot of the people I've had contact with are not doing very well," says Kaye Baron, a clinical psychologist in private practice in Colorado Springs. Baron estimates that 60 to 70 percent of people she sees are in the military, and of that, roughly half have served in or been affected by the Iraq war. "For one thing, they're injured psychologically or physically, and on top of that they feel they're getting disposed of by the military - like no one really cares."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_092304A.shtml
"Sexual-assault organizations across the country are shipping rape-evidence collection kits to each member of Congress in hopes that more of the investigative tools will end up in the war zone to help troops who are victimized.
That move is in response to growing concerns among victim-rights leaders and several lawmakers that not enough kits are available to help soldiers. Nearly 200 U.S. women soldiers have sought assistance from civilian rape-crisis agencies since the war started, saying they were assaulted by fellow troops. Many have reported their cases were mishandled, in part because of inadequate forensic and medical treatment."
http://www.notinourname.net/troops/rape-17jul04.htm
Damn, you guys are good!
Alice, I'm with ya girl. I agree there isn't much we can do about how we got to Iraq, even though nothing about why we are there has checked out, but we have to push forward. Whatever comes out of Iraq will be blamed on us; whether it's a terrorist state, theocracy or a bustling democracy, our fingerprints are all over the place. The responsibility is ours.
Heretic, you have taking us to a whole new realm here. Maybe more so than what this blog can withstand. I don't disagree with you at all, but I do have to make mention that I don't think our influence is waning. After all, we still have the biggest guns and really the only organized fighting force in the region. I would have to contend that our influence is not so much in question as our motives are. Our motives are questioned throughout the world and at home. What are we fighting for? It's sure not WMD, or to strike back for 9/11.
I do agree with you about the Iraqi constitution. All signs so far are pointing towards failure, at least in the realm of federalism. If sectarian rifts are allowed to be acknowledged and influence the constitution, then again, I have to ask what are we fighting for? You couldn't be any more right about not having any good options.
Smink, thanks again big guy. You of all people have changed my mind about this war more than any one person. I'm really not much on speech writing, but occassionaly I do some of it. But I do nominate you for office. I'd write your speeches any day.
Dav, I have absolutely nothing to disagree with you about. You are very well read. I am going to check out your links. As messed up as the war is, and as messed up as Bush has made it to be, I can see how people oppose it. And it's not that I'm in total agreement with the war either, but I keep having to hope that we have do make it right. I have no faith in Bush, however. Maybe when he gets off vacation he will pick up a newspaper.
Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting.
You talk alot about why we are there. WMD turned out to be much more light than we thought. Although Saddam did not directly have anything to do with 9/11, he surely had some kind of hand in the cookie jar.
But let's look at another option. The Middle East needs stability. This may be one way in which to do so, not neccesarily the best, but one way. Israel is attempting to look towards freedom, as well as the Palestinians. If we can get Iraq pointed in the right direction, we are well on the way.
Iran has a huge ground swell of dissent from their current government. Our generation there desperatly seeks to be ruled by civil law. Although I don't always agree with Sean Penn, this article is quite riveting.
Again, Craig, I'm not sure how to answer that. The official conclusion by the CIA in its final report concerning WMD concluded that no WMD existed, which is a far cry from its Oct. 2002 report which said Iraq not only possessed a program but weapons as well.
Even to suggest that the WMD were "light" is still to admit that we were wrong about WMD.
As far as 9/11 goes, the official findings of the 9/11 Commission explicitly stated that no link between Iraq and 9/11 existed. Not even evidence of a money trail, like many believed existed, could be proven.
Both of those combined are the officials findings of the US government.
I'm not sure what having his hand in the cookie jar means, but even to suggest the possibility of such is to also admit that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria played a much larger role with both hands in the cookie jar and with much more direct links to bin Laden than Iraq ever did. Even if we look at cookie jars, the invasion of Iraq doesn't make sense, especially when trying to link it to 9/11.
But I am going to check out your Sean Penn article, even though I think he's crazy. Thanks for reading.
This may have been mentioned before or not but WWII was different in many respects. The main reason that comes to mind is just the fact that media and information about the happenings "over there" wasn't as readily available as it was for Vietnam and now in Iraq.
Letters took months to reach their intended party and were often filled with neat little cut outs of material the military felt needed censorship. The gruesome details of a death of a friend weren't relayed until well after the soldier returned home and was often down played by that soldier as he attempted to cope during the span of the event and his return home.
Now and in Vietnam, death tolls and visual images of carnage are right there at the dinner table about six feet away, available at short notice. The majroity of the public wants to be well informed or at least doesn't want to be lied to but they don't understand just what that means - to demand instant imersion into a war zone, unedited and live. War is ugly, war includes death, the loss of life, war is (and was) never pretty.
So with being blasted with media coverage of carnage coupled with the fact that there is no clear cut enemy (as with WWII) it appears to be difficult for the public to back this war. There is no clear 'Hitler' to focus on as the man the world must stop. Yes there is Osama but it is more than just him that is creating terrorism in this world. Its hard to focus your anger and feelings of revenge on thousands of small groupings of people versus just one man.
If the media would just spend as much time on the benefits and accomplishments going as they do carnage, people would have a chance to see what good is coming out of all this mess. This is elementary psychology, folks not rocket science. If only the negative aspects are shown on a consistent basis then that is all that will ever be associated with it.
Hitler used the media, yellow journalism and propaganda to turn the Jews into something that they weren't. Current MSM needs to get a clue (of course unless it's not their agenda) and start to show more of the feel good stories, the benefits, postivie outcomes that are out there.
The MSM is a pet peeve of mine in case you can't tell. And yes, I do feel that they are having a direct impact on the public's view of the war in Iraq, especially if the only picture they paint is one of death and despair.
I may be going out on a limb, but I do beleive all the middle eastern states had a vested interest in seeing the United States take one on the chin. That includes Saudia Arabia, Iran and Syria. But the truth is, Saddam gave us a reason to attack. He was the one that refused to work with the UN.
I don't think you can treat all the nations in the Middle East the same as Iraq, but you can't treat them entirely different. A hard line must be drawn. Europe is discovering just how intense Iran is at pursuing nuclear weapons.
And I just don't fully trust government reports dealing with this issue, politicians all to often only cirlce the wagons, and it happens on both sides.
HH6, I totally agree about the differences. That was a very good little essay you wrote. I also entirely agree with you about the media. I don't know of anyone that actually likes today's media. Even with today's media the way it is, I agree with Bush, we have to stay and finish the job. If we don't we will be back in ten years to do it all over again. Although I do think I might have to slightly disagree with you about not having a villian to focus on. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Craig, you sure are lively this week. I hope you are getting your house all packed up :)
I agree with you about other states wanting to see us take one on the chin. But, Iraq not cooperating with the UN doesn't entirely explain the invasion either. N. Korea isn't cooperating, neither is Iran; no invasion plans for them. Israel has disobeyed more UN resolutions than any country on Earth. So I guess you are right about not every country needing to be treated like Iraq, because it is the only one as such.
The government reports that you speak of, and the article which I linked to, are not done by politicians. But I guess it was okay to believe the politicians and government when they said Iraq had the WMD. The CIA is non-partisan; their reports are contracted out to private citizens and experts. I mean, if the reports were done by the politicians I would think that Bush would surely had made the report conclude that Iraq did have them. It would have helped him a lot had that been the case. Yes they are government reports, but they are also independent. Not to mention the fact that I'm sure everyone involved in the CIA report will never get another government job or contract because they didn't tell Bush what he wanted to hear. Or maybe they will get awards and promotions. Nah, they actually did their job this time.
Thanks for reading. I've had too much coffee today.
Post a Comment