I don’t talk about politics or personal things on this blog very much, but today I came across an article from the New York Times I thought was especially good.
Americans, as a whole, are woefully ignorant of their history and the price that has been paid so that they may enjoy the comfort of that same ignorance. The result is a lack of perspective which hinders our ability to make effective decisions and skews our expectations, ultimately to our collective detriment.
As an aside, I’m especially pleased that the author of the linked article calls our current military action the “war against terrorism”. I have long detested the usual phrase “war on terror”. It sounds grammatically questionable, but that’s a minor pick: “War on terror” is a war “on” (perhaps placed on top of it?) a concept, whereas “war against terrorism” is a war against (which means to actively oppose) a particular action and/or ideology and, necessarily, those who practice it. Perhaps our news media, the creators and perpetuators of “war on terror”, prefer the nebulousness of the phrase in order to call into question the importance of our effort.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
October 30th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
2000 deaths is a relatively moderate cost for toppling S. Hussein and attempting to promote Democracy?
And compared to past conflicts, we’ve never had it so good?
So we’re getting another military intervention policy at a bargain price in lives.
I still don’t like the policy because it doesn’t work.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Several groups in the United States have chosen to use the number of dead as a metric for success or failure in Iraq, not the least of which is the press. If that’s the absolute by which our military actions are to be measured, let’s provide some context to see how Iraq compares to other wars. This article wasn’t about justifying those deaths, it was about providing a perspective that the day-to-day news often doesn’t cover. Whether the end justifies the means is a personal decision for each voter.
Last week the media breathlessly counted down to the 2000th dead American in an effort to make the point that the war isn’t worth it. I shudder to think what today’s media would have made of World War II. How could we justify fighting the Nazis when they had never attacked us? They would focus on Japanese internment camps rather than Nazi extermination camps. The corpses on Normandy beach would be the headline story rather than the fact that allied forces had breached the continent and were well on their way to finally crushing the increasingly desperate and weak Nazi army. Harry Truman would have been turned into a war criminal after dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and special prosecutors would have contorted petty charges of every kind against his advisors in an effort to discredit him and force him to resign. Had today’s media existed in WWII, it’s not unthinkable that we’d be glaring across the ocean right now at a Nazi super power, if not actively fighting it.
As for our policy, I think it has worked rather well. Saddam Hussein has been captured and is currently on trial for genocide. Iraqis have enacted a new constitution and are on schedule to seat their first democratic government in December. Iraqi security forces are well on their way to handling duties now covered by American troops. Women are once again participants in society. The one weak point of our policy in Iraq is our lack of aggressiveness. The so-called “insurgents”, another media misnomer, are no such thing. They are not Iraqis rebelling against American forces, rather they are foreigners sent by neighboring governments to stir up trouble to create an Iraqi uprising against Americans, a plan which has failed. Our weakness is that we’re not more aggressive in stopping the influx of these murderers from Syria and Iran, among other places.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq isn’t aggressive enough?
Should more American soldiers be sent into Iraq to seal the borders against Syria and Iran? I hope you don’t advocate military intervention within those countries also.
But even if the borders are sealed, Iraq’s internal social and political conflicts haven’t been solved. Both the Iraqi Democratic and Military gains are feeble and rushed.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I argue that in Iraq, the continued American (and Iraqi) casualties are caused by foreign intruders present for the purpose of undermining democracy. To properly conclude America’s role in Iraq and provide security for Iraq’s citizens, these intruders need to be stopped.
I don’t have an answer for that because I am not a military strategist and I do not know all of the facts about how many troops we have in Iraq and how they’re distributed. I know, like most ordinary people, the picture of the situation painted with a somewhat broad brush in the news. I think America should do whatever is reasonably required to win the war sooner rather than later. If that means more troops, so be it. If that means a redistribution of current forces, I approve.
The establishment of a democratic government is a giant step in the direction of solving those problems. Decades or perhaps centuries of tension between factions in Iraq won’t be solved in a few years. We’re providing the framework for those disagreements to be worked out. Lack of immediate peace doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
I wouldn’t call the new Iraqi nation either feeble or rushed. The elections in January went smoothly, the constitutional ratification process went smoothly, and there is every reason to expect that this December’s elections will proceed smoothly. The fact that all of those events were so successful indicates that the time span for these events isn’t detrimental. It will take time for Iraq to grow and become stable - after all, almost no new nation begins from a position of strength (including ours). I think feeble is overstating Iraq’s situation, but it would be nonsensical to abandon them now because they don’t meet some arbitrary criteria for strength from the get-go. We’re there in part to help them grow.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:35 pm
The divisions within Iraq account for more problems than the foreign sources.
The entire US effort is feeble and rushed. It suffers from a lack of planning and leadership.
A two or three decade commitment with varying degrees of military and economic resources might be what’s needed.
But is Iraq the place to commit to this? Is Afghanistan going to get an equal or sufficient share of the commitment? Why would the US want to commit itself to ‘helping’ any middle east country grow? Why would the US commit itself to doing the job alone? Why, years after the decision that put us into Iraq, isn’t there a clear idea how Iraq fits into the terrorism picture?
The US isn’t in Iraq to fight against terrorism, it’s in a struggle to escape the results of a feeble and rushed foreign policy of aggression. A foreign policy that alienated international support.
Aaron, more aggression, while satisfying, won’t help the situation. The point of training Iraqi forces is to get more forces in place to control the borders. Stopping foreign forces from entering would be nice, but getting foreign forces to come to support the effort is what is needed.
What is really needed is a more aggressive international political engagement. I’m not a political strategist, but more countries have to be given a stake in Iraq by giving them some control of the process. Iraq isn’t going to end up with a government that meets our expectations regardless of how ’smoothly’ some of the process goes.
Foreign policy is all about context. 2000 dead to put us and keep us in a foreign policy sinkhole is disgraceful.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Don’t misunderstand my use of ‘disgraceful’.
The lives lost in Iraq are honorable, both on the American side and on the side of brave Iraqi civilians who suffer even more from the violent attacks.
The lack of a comprehensive foreign policy effort on the part of an American leadership is disgraceful, because it abuses the sacrifices that American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians are willing to make.
The small steps that have occurred in Iraq, are due more to the courage of the Iraqi people and of the Soldiers risking their lives than to anything the American leadership has done.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Establishing a democratic government is a big first step in ironing out those differences. Right now, those divisions are not the source of the violence in Iraq, foreign invaders are.
That’s the second time you’ve asserted such without any supporting examples or facts. I’ve already responded to this assertion.
And a 5-year commitment to establish a democratic government and train Iraqi forces to fight for themselves might be what’s needed.
Whether it is or not, we’re already there and already doing it. Success is the concern now, not if we should be doing it.
Afghanistan has also established a new democratic government but it does not have the same influx of foreign fighters, so Afghanistan’s needs are different from Iraq’s. It’s a comparison between apples and oranges. However, we’re obviously as committed to standing Afghanistan on it’s own feet as we are with Iraq.
Because groups who actively, vocally, despise the United States and kill our citizens are located and grow there. Eliminating the environment where this hate originates by giving people a say in their own lives and a real chance at prosperity is the best long-term solution.
Because it has been our people killed by the aggression originating from the area, and it has been our initiative to prevent further September 11-type disasters. Other countries are welcome to join the effort, but in no case should we let the policy of other nations interfere with the United States’ best interests.
There is a clear idea. Saddam Hussein openly defied the United Nations for more than a decade and was a vocal antagonist to the United States. He was known to have chemical weapons and use them. He defied the UN’s attempts over 10+ years to verify his weapons status. It was known that he helped terrorist groups to obtain weapons from other sources and use Iraq as a recruiting and training ground. This is all compiled and verified in the 9-11 report.
Huh? The United States started a war to escape it’s foreign policy of aggression. That makes no sense.
The same international community that refused to join our coalition in Iraq is now the same international community that has been revealed to have made billions of dollars supporting Saddam’s status quo of genocide and murder. The current scandals at the UN prove that. International support is a nicety, but in no way a requirement. The United States is perfectly within it’s rights to act in it’s own interests.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:51 pm
I’m not advocating more aggression. I’m advocating whatever is required to win the war, to bring it to a successful conclusion. If that means more aggression, fine. If that means redistribution of current forces, fine. If that means diplomacy, fine. If that means something I haven’t thought of, fine.
Which, you have asserted twice, is feeble and rushed.
Syria and Iran, for example, will never support us. Democracy and the United States gravely threaten the powers that be in those countries, hence the reason they send forces into Iraq to fight us. Those who profited from Saddam’s regime will never support us because we’ve destroyed a major revenue stream.
We took the case for war directly to the United Nations and all but begged, after 10+ years of Saddam’s defiance, the world to join us. Some did, some didn’t. Those who oppose us in Iraq aren’t interested in political engagement, they are interested in subversion and damage to the United States, whatever it may take.
We offered them that stake before the first shot was fired and they refused. Again, for 10+ years, those countries had the opportunity to put Saddam in his place via the UN and they make a lukewarm effort at best. The time for fiddling around is over.
That’s quite a pronouncement and shows a complete lack of confidence in the people of Iraq, as well as the Americans there assisting them. The events of the past year also indicate otherwise.
Iraq is hardly a sinkhole. I’ve already outlined some of our more major accomplishments. Progress is certainly being made.
Our policy is certainly effective because of the reasons I’ve outlined before and reasons I’ll repeat below.
Small steps? Unseating a 3-decade dictator is not a small step. The first free elections in the country’s history is not a small step. The smooth adoption of a new constitution is not a small step. The upcoming elections are not a small step.
Soldiers don’t act autonomously, and the Iraqi people were unable to unseat Saddam for 30 years. Our leadership certainly had quite a bit to do with it.
These comments have become as far off topic as I care to let them. The original article is about historical perspective of today’s events, not a debate about the validity of the Iraq war. If anyone wishes to comment about the topic, that’s fine. All other comments will be removed.