I have often wondered if opposition to the Iraq war is based on principle or based upon the fact that the Bush Administration's policy isn't working and hasn't really worked since the looting started in 2003. I don't know where the anti-war camp stands and I am curious.Well, I'm kinda new to the blogesphere, so I really can't speak for anyone else. Furthermore, I had the luxury of being a relatively young writer when we went into Iraq, and thus no outlet worth its salt would let me hold forth. Thank god. I think I would have said something pretty stupid.
At the time I remember making fun of anti-war protesters, despite being vaguely anti-war myself. I think I believed that Saddam had weapons, and thus thought that it wasn't the worse idea in the world to take him out. Turns out I was wrong--and with many thousands now gone--the people I laughed at were right. I'm just being candid.
In answer to the very specific question, I don't think it's possible to object to all wars, and I don't think most of us on the left do.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
To be fair, most of the anti-war protesters would have protested regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's. So they were right. But they weren't all necessarily right for the reasons they thought. This is not to take anything away from people opposed to the war from the beginning, because they've obviously showed better judgment than most.
The war in Iraq has been a terrible, terrible blunder, but those protesting it from the beginning would probably be claiming that regardless of whether or not that were actually the case.
"I have often wondered if opposition to the Iraq war is based on principle or based upon the fact that the Bush Administration's policy isn't working and hasn't really worked since the looting started in 2003. I don't know where the anti-war camp stands and I am curious."
Sadly, a lot of the opposition to the war that I've seen recently is more based on a (rational or irrational) hatred of Bush than anything else. It's a lot more fashionable to do that now than it was in the security-obsessed months following 9/11, Anthrax attacks, etc.
I don't think it's possible to object to all wars
Not only is it possible, it's a requirement if you want to be classified as a conscientious objector in the US.
As for the question of principle vs. pragmatics, as far as I'm concerned you can take your pick. The war was illegal, being a war of aggression, which is a matter of principle; it was also based on a mountain of lies, which were obviously lies to tens of millions of people in the US and elsewhere, which you could consider either a matter of principle or a pragmatic matter; and the pony-planning of the warmongers was absurdly optimistic and baldly moronic, which is really a pragmatic matter.
The war in Iraq has been a terrible, terrible blunder
Stacy, a "blunder" is a mistake. This war has been a premeditated, largely bi-partisan crime.
If you want the public to support a war, you have to be honest with them about the war.
Bush and his administration LIED about the rationale for war. I'm still confused as to why we went into Iraq, but i know it had absolutely NOTHING to do with WMDs as the Bush Administration claimed at the time.
they also lied about the cost, both in human terms and in economic terms. We would be "greeted as liberators" with flowers and chocolates and marching bands...It would be over in a course of weeks, or months, rumsfeld once said.
And Remember the hugest whopper of all: The war would pay for itslef!
Not all wars do I oppose. I oppose dumb wars, i oppose rash wars. I oppose war as anything other than a last resort, and this war was not a last resort.
Why weren't there massive protests opposing WWII? because that war was justified, our government didn't lie to us about the cost or the realities.
I have a feeling if the bush admin had been 100% honest about everything regarding Iraq, we wouldn't have gone to war.
But they wanted war for war's sake. And they knew the only way to do that was to lie, exaggerate, and fabricate claims as to how dangerous Iraq was.
So i guess my point is, the way to get americans behind a war is to tell the cold hard truth about it, and let them determine for themselves whether or not it is justified. Bush and company didn't do that because they knew decent americans wouldn't support a war for war's sake.
Seems like you need the people who are going to object to and protest every war, just like you need criminal defense attorneys. Yes, they won't always be right, but they provide an important check on the rest of us. The day that our country is considering bombing another country and NOBODY is out there making the case against it will probably be a very frightening one for America.
I guess the real way to answer the question in the title is to answer another: Did you support the war in Afghanistan?
I, too, was young when the Iraq war started (turned 22 a month before we invaded). I was more than vaguely opposed; I was totally against it. Part of that was undoubtedly the influence of the rock music of the 1960s I was enamored with and all the anti-war activity associated with it. I was also a budding liberal and was taking that (almost) as far to left as I could. So my position was not based solely on the best information available to me at the time, but more of an immaturish desire to belt out Country Joe McDonald songs and be relevant.
That being said, I never went to any anti-war marches. I don't like (modern) hippies or anarchy kids, and even as a 22-year-old wannabe radical I had no use for the signs and chants of the crowd. So I didn't really establish my position against the war anywhere except message boards.
Anyway, I did turn out to be right. It didn't seem logical that Saddam had weapons; and even if he did it didn't seem logical to think that he'd actually use them, considering that that would obviously mean his own destruction. So, yeah: I was right, but I'll admit that I basically lucked into it.
I'm more sophisticated in my thinking now (so I like to believe), but I'd still oppose the Iraq war if I had to do it again. The underlying strategy seems to be too optimistic for reality, and I have serious doubts about the morality and efficacy of projecting American/Western values onto the rest of the world via unprovoked military action.
Pesto,
Fair enough. No arguments here.
Holy crap. The comments work normally.
Since this is my first comment on this blog, I'll resist what would be IMO an appropriately snide response to the first comment, and treat it more seriously than it deserves.
I think that both you and our host are missing a significant, albeit not nearly large enough, group of people: principled non-interventionists. Contrary to stereotype, few of them are opposed to "all" wars; they are opposed to non-defensive wars.
Now, it's true that any non-interventionist worth his or her salt would have "protested regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's." But that doesn't mean that "they weren't all necessarily right for the reasons they thought." A non-interventionist will (correctly, in my view) see many, many things about the course of the war in Iraq to vindicate their world view).
Obviously, if one takes the position that the main reason, in retrospect, that the war against Iraq was a mistake was that the WMD claims were wrong, than in that sense some anti-war folks were "right for the wrong reasons." The problem with that argument is that the premise (that the lack of WMD was the main reason why the invasion was a mistake) is wrong. Even apart from the little problem with WMD, the war has (a) resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, (b) failed to miraculously turn Iraq into a western style liberal democracy; (c) failed to bring peace, prosperity, basically anything good, to Iraq, (d) has served as a recruiting tool for militant Islam, (e) has strengthened immeasurably Iran and (f) wrecked the U.S. army (not that non-interventionists care much about the last two; in fact, the last one is a GOOD thing). That's just the stuff any reasonable person can agree with. Non-interventionists of course predicted that the first four, at least, would happen. Moreover, the other reasons why non-interventionists oppose ANY aggressive warfare also obtain, and were vindicated, but that argument is too long for this already too long comment.
Finally, sadly, most anit-war protesters were not principled non-interventionists, and, while they, like even the typical bloody soaked imperialists who favored the war, lacked the ability to see the future, they did, indeed, make many, many correct predictions about the course of the war. To argue at this point that the course of that horrible war crime fails to vindicate the judgment of those who opposed it is, frankly, verging on raving lunacy.
See, I couldn't help myself.
Finally, many opponents of the war indeed were very skeptical of the WMD claims. You may regard such skepticism as a lucky guess; I prefer to regard it as reflecting a healthy understanding of how hegemonist nations operate. Certainly had the shoe been on the other foot, I feel certain that the murderers of Iraqi children - sorry, war supporters - would have claimed that they were vindicated by events.
I wasn't really against war, I was just against rushing into war. The UN inspectors thought they needed more time, so I didn't understand what the big deal was giving it to them. We weren't in any imminent danger. No one was alleging that Saddam could somehow attack the US with those weapons. It just seemed to me to be rushed for no apparent reason.
Back before the lead up to the war I was "meh" on Bush. Didn't hate him, just thought he was a rich frat boy riding on his name - but there are a lot of those. I shrugged my shoulders and went on with my life with occasional mocking about the pResident but never any real animosity.
However, during the run up I was quite against the war for a number of reasons - and not because I don't believe war can't be used. One I never believed that Saddam would have ever had to much to do with al Queda because he would have never tolerated a power base (other than himself) that wouldn't hesitate to act (possibly not in his favor).
Two, even I could see that there was no plan for after the invasion. Even if (and that is a huge if) everything went down like the script the hawks were pushing, this was a country that was seriously dysfunctional and would need help no matter.
Three, the whole thing felt a bit cavalier and way to quick. It was all about the glorious world altering endeavor, we know the right way to do things, all of you who disagree are traitors (the most obvious clue that the whole endeavor was a cock up), it will be a success, etc. Seemed like a bad John Wayne movie where the caricatures come to life and everything works out like they expect it to - even when common sense says it won't. Anyone who wanted to slow down and do the due diligence was mocked and their concerns weren't taken seriously. This is not the way to wage war - not if you want to be successful.
Four, while this relates to three, when you advocate for war you need to be completely honest about evidence, motives, capabilities - the whole shebang - and I felt that those yelling the loudest were lying to everyone including themselves.
Well, LarryM, I knew there would be some type of response like that. Thanks for taking the time to take it so seriously, but maybe you should have stuck with your first insticts to NOT take it too seriously. I happened to be in college when the Iraq war started. I was simply pointing out that many of the people protesting the war were doing so as blindly, and with as little evidence, as those blindly supporting. I never said 'all,' and I probably made a mistake in saying 'most.' I was very skeptical of the reasons we were going, but ultimately was young and naive enough that I still had some faith in our government. I've learned, but that still doesn't mean ALL those protesting the war from the very beginning were privvy to some great truth that others weren't. Maybe it just had to do with the fact that I was in college and many of the protesters came off as pretentious idiots. Ultimately, though, they were right so I guess I'll just shut up about it.
As someone who protested against the War in Iraq, in the days leading up to it, I object to the characterization that "To be fair, most of the anti-war protesters would have protested regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's." You need only look at the lack of protests regarding the US entry into Afghanistan to see that this is false. I know people who are hardcore anarchists and like nothing better than to protest who felt that the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate response to 9/11. Such were my feelings as well. There are certainly people who are anti-war out of a deep-seeted pacifism but they make up only a small percentage of the 100,000's who marched in protest of the war in Iraq.
My own feelings about Iraq were that there wasn't a legitimate reason to go in--there was not sufficient evidence that Sadam had WMDs or at least had any inclination to use them nor was there evidence that he was linked with Al Qaeda. What did seem clear at the time was that going into Iraq would weaken the US position in the Mideast, would lead to an extended guerilla war against the US (I don't know about the military's strategists but as a amateur I could see that would be the only way the Iraqis could carry on a fight against the US), and would lead to needless loss of life for Iraqis and US miliary personnel.
An analogy. Let's say that there is a family dispute about whether to murder the family next door, take their stuff, and burn the hose down. The oponents of said action say, well, my primary objection is that that course of action is deeply immoral. It also might backfire in many redicatable ways; they may defend themselves, putting our family in danger, we may get arrested, they may not have stuff to take, etc."
But the pro-murder faction wins. The home invasion turns into a fiasco. Three of the attacking family members are killed; two are arested; there is no good stuff to steal.
At that point, the family members who favored the attack don't get to say "well the opponents of the attack were right, but for the wrong reasons. Afterall, they would have opposed the attack even if it went well, with no deaths, no arrests, and lots of swag."
mark f writes: "I'd still oppose the Iraq war if I had to do it again. The underlying strategy seems to be too optimistic for reality, and I have serious doubts about the morality and efficacy of projecting American/Western values onto the rest of the world via unprovoked military action."
Yup. To those who say Saddam was a bad man who deserved to be taken out I say that there are plenty of "bad men" like that running countries. We could be in a state of constant war if taking them all out was our credo. And that would be insane.
I supported the campaign in the former Yugoslavia and the war in Afghanistan. As far as I can tell the only benefit of the war in Iraq is it opened my eyes to error of my thinking.
Since I'm committed to constitutional democracy I have to admit the possibility that the Republicans (or their heirs) will someday again hold the sway. Since I'm a Democrat, I have to admit the possiblity that when they do, the feckless leadership of the Democrat party will cave to their blood-lust lest they be called weak on foreign policy. So now I'm against all wars - even ones that liberals and Democrats support, so I can oppose the right's insatiable demand for death with a certain amount of consistency.
I thank Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for this transformation in my thinking.
There are situations in which a successful war can provide a solution and there are situations in which it can't.
In 1990-1991, removing the Iraqi army from Kuwait by force was a logical and ultimately successful course of action.
Invading a sovereign country to depose their leader (even a dictator) and attempting to run that country while establishing a new government from scratch that is 1) friendly to the West and 2) democratic (note: these two will often be in direct opposition when talking about the Mideast), is not. A "war to win hearts and minds" is, without needing to know the specifics, an inherently ludicrous proposal.
Armies are built to destroy things, repel invasions and to capture and hold territory. They're ill-suited to do what we've been asking ours to do.
On top of this, there was a massive imbalance obvious to anyone without clouded judgment between what a war in Iraq would cost us and whatever threat Iraq supposedly represented, not to mention a stunning naivite among Bush's "experienced" cabinet.
I was simply pointing out that many of the people protesting the war were doing so as blindly, and with as little evidence, as those blindly supporting,/i>
Let's assume that for the sake of argument that you are correct. So what? Not to sound too cynical, but most people on all sides of most issues are relatively uninformed. But at the end of the day, when the dust settles, usually one side or the other is vindicated. In this case, the protesters were vindicated. Talking about how some of them opposed the war "blindly" is carping at best. At worst (apparently not in your case) it is a way of de-legitimizing the people who were correct, so that the next bloody invasion can go off without too much opposition.
Max,
You're correct. I shouldn't have said 'most.' Because that's not the case. But a large portion of the people I knew, friends included, that opposed the war didn't really do so based on any evidence or lack thereof. It was more of a principled stance against any type of military aggresion.
That's probably what I should have said in the first place.
When you say "many thousands now gone", you are referring to the vast tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqis who have perished because of this war, in that figure, correct?
Whenever casualties of the war are discussed, we hear numbers like 5,000 American men and women have been killed. But no one ever mentions the large number of Iraqis killed. Believe me, I am not belittling the number of US forces killed, but I think the greatest tragedy is the number of innocents who have died.
Let's not forget as well the number of casualties that have survived their wounds, both civilian and military alike, and the lives they will lead with those scars/reminders of this war and b*llsh*t policy in Iraq.
a principled stance against any type of military aggresion
What is really, really horrifying (and this isn't directed at Stacy, but more generally) is that in this country "a principled stance against any type of military aggression" is considered a fringe position that only naive "isolationists" hold.
Bones writes: "Whenever casualties of the war are discussed, we hear numbers like 5,000 American men and women have been killed. But no one ever mentions the large number of Iraqis killed. Believe me, I am not belittling the number of US forces killed, but I think the greatest tragedy is the number of innocents who have died."
I think the major reason no one talks about the number of Iraqis killed is that we don't have anything approaching reliable numbers on them. And the reason for that is that the Bushpigs apparently haven't cared enough to keep track. Maybe they realize that they're engaged in a criminal enterprise after all.
I opposed the Iraq war mainly based on Catholic principles, that teaches that aggressive wars are never justified and that even defensive wars can only be used as a last resort, and that places a lot of stress on concepts such as proper authority and proportionality.
The rationale for the Iraq war clearly fell short according to Catholic criteria.
So I was pretty confused when all these prominent Catholics insisted all good Catholics had to vote for Bush and support the war. This was especially confusing given that even the pope opposed the war.
Things got even more confusing once we learned about the torture of prisoners. Under Catholic doctrine, torture is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. Yet now these same prominent Catholics, who for years insisted that you had to vote Democrat because they supported abortion, now argued that torture was actually ok.
Then one day I was taken to the Ministry of Love, where I learned that up is down and black is white, and now I understand that Jesus is a Republican.
I opposed the Iraq war mainly based on Catholic principles, that teaches that aggressive wars are never justified and that even defensive wars can only be used as a last resort, and that places a lot of stress on concepts such as proper authority and proportionality.
The rationale for the Iraq war clearly fell short according to Catholic criteria.
So I was pretty confused when all these prominent Catholics insisted all good Catholics had to vote for Bush and support the war. This was especially confusing given that even the pope opposed the war.
Things got even more confusing once we learned about the torture of prisoners. Under Catholic doctrine, torture is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. Yet now these same prominent Catholics, who for years insisted that you had to vote Democrat because they supported abortion, now argued that torture was actually ok.
Then one day I was taken to the Ministry of Love, where I learned that up is down and black is white, and now I understand that Jesus is a Republican.
"At the time I remember making fun of anti-war protesters, despite being vaguely anti-war myself."
I know this wasn't intended as a terribly serious point, but I think it's a key perspective on what went wrong in America between September 2001 and March 2003.
Personally, I was strongly opposed to the war, but the one anti-war demonstration I witnessed (in Urbana, Illinois) was a fiasco. There were a number of people who joined in with good intentions, but at heart it was the same group of campus lefties who protest something or other on a weekly basis, plus some seriously wacked-out ANSWER Maoists from out-of-town, a few anti-Israel banners thrown in for good measure, and some dudes in Che T-shirts. The closest thing to a coherent political statement on a sign was "No Blood for Oil". There was singing and chanting and not the slightest damn possibility of changing a single mind.
When all the "serious people" on TV are treating administration propaganda as fact, Democrats are falling all over themselves to look tough, and Americans are still stinging from being sucker-punched on 9/11... and the anti-war left looks like THAT... we didn't have a chance in hell.
Mass protest can be a powerful weapon. But there is a time and a place. And that time is when a broad cross-section of society is willing to risk their necks to provoke a thuggish regime into beating them down and showing the world its true colors. But in this country the thugs are usually too smart to take the bait, and most folks don't share your interest in street theatre and papier-mâché. More often than not, our protests are just self-indulgent. We accomplish nothing except alienating the middle class and making the cause seem marginal and weird.
And really, there isn't anything marginal or weird about thinking that it's pretty damn stupid to kill thousands of people and take over their country because it might have weapons that it might give to our enemies.
Oddly, I think that my reaction to this is in some sense similar to LF P's hilariously obtuse reaction, but from the other side of the mirror.
Granting that some (not most) of the protesters were, even by my from-outside-the-mainstream standards, a little on the kooky side, they did happen to be right - and, as stated above, for mostly the right reasons.
The problem is that most Americans are supportive of the basic status quo foriegn policy - hegemony, American exceptionalism, etc., etc. Real critiques of that consensus fall on deaf ears. Given that fact, the protests probably were doomed.
But whereas LF P wants to blame the protest movement, I'd put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the American people, who support a foriegn policy that necessarily demands that we use coercive violence to preserve our role as the "sole superpower." Which is to say, that, when push comes to shove, most "progressives" who are unwilling to adopt a fundamental critique of U.S. forgiegn policy, are not well positioned to object to specific uses of coercive violence to acheive (essentially) agreed upon aims.
Which reminds me of the probably apocryphal Winston Churchill story, with this twist. A Neocon walks up to a liberal, and asks, "Madam, would you agree that we should invade and occupy Iraq if it can be done at a low cost?" Receiving an affirmative response, he asks, "would you favor invasion if it would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and a devastated nation?" The liberal says, "why Mr. Neocon, what kind of a liberal do you think I am? Of course not!" At which point, the Neocon says, "madam, we have already established what kind of liberal you are, now we are merely dickering over price."
And another thing that would have traction only in a country that has seriously lost it's bearing. What, exactly, is wrong about the statement "no blood for oil?" Like any statement short enough to fit on a sign, of course, it does somewhat simplify a more complex reality. But does anyone SERIOUSLY deny that oil is central to our presence in the Middle East generally, and Iraq in particular? Of course not.
The only difference between war supporters and war opponents is that war supporters will talk about "preserving a stable oil supply to prevent global depression," whereas war opponents will (correctly, in my view) argue that obtaining and preserving a favorable and profitable role for western companies in the extraction of oil plays a rather significant role as well. But either way it's about the oil. And I think it's fair to suggest that that is not a good idea - not wise or moral - to kill people and to put our own young men in harms way to those ends.
While there is nothing really WRONG with the statement 'no blood for oil,' it does strike me as being about as lame and simplistic as, 'they hate us for our freedom!'
LarryM writes: "And another thing that would have traction only in a country that has seriously lost it's bearing. What, exactly, is wrong about the statement "no blood for oil?" Like any statement short enough to fit on a sign, of course, it does somewhat simplify a more complex reality. But does anyone SERIOUSLY deny that oil is central to our presence in the Middle East generally, and Iraq in particular? Of course not."
I wish I had a barrel of oil for every time I asked a Repiglican if he thought we'd be in Iraq if the country had no oil and its principle export was kumquats. It actually shut some of them up, though not for long. The idea that oil wasn't at the core of the war was always completely fucking ridiculous - something that could only be the product of malign stupidity or complete ovine gullibility. Or both.
The shameless way war supporters shed old rationales and adopted new ones on what seemed like a weekly basis was really something to watch. It convinced me that Bush worship was cultlike in the way Stalinism was in the 1930s. I will never again trust the political judgment of people I know who were caught up in Dumbya Fever.
Stacy writes: "While there is nothing really WRONG with the statement 'no blood for oil,' it does strike me as being about as lame and simplistic as, 'they hate us for our freedom!'"
You don't seem to be the brightest bulb in the Exxon sign.
So, MLandJ, you don't think that is incredibly simplistic? And lame? I've voted Democrat in all three elections where I've been of age, douchebag. I just think the phrase 'no blood for oil' is lame and isn't convincing anyone of anything. But I get it, you hate "Repiglicans," and "Dumbya." How very clever. Nerd.
Maybe it's because I'm "hilariously obtuse"... but I'm not sure what your point is, LarryM. I generally agree with your "fundamental critique" of US foreign policy and your assessment of the unfortunate willingness of the average American to fall for all the national greatness bullshit hook, line, and sinker. What I don't understand is how banging a drum in the street while stoned is supposed to remedy this situation.
For the record, I obviously don't "blame" the protest movement for the Iraq War. I think the anti-war movement was spectacularly ineffective and probably actively counterproductive, but blame lies squarely with the people who promoted the war.
When the President has an army of flacks on the airwaves saying the war is about terrorists, anthrax, nukes, and fighting eeeeevil... "no blood for oil" really isn't much of a rebuttal.
"Seems like you need the people who are going to object to and protest every war, just like you need criminal defense attorneys. Yes, they won't always be right, but they provide an important check on the rest of us. The day that our country is considering bombing another country and NOBODY is out there making the case against it will probably be a very frightening one for America.
Posted by Kerry | August 5, 2008 3:19 PM"
Good point. While if I had been a Congressman after 9/11, I would have voted for the war in Afghanistan, it did make me happy when Barbara Lee voted against it. The GOP base's inability to see any positive value in dissent is definitely disturbing. I remember being at a human rights event on women in Afghanistan after the start of the war where one of the speakers, an Afghan-American women who had been born in Afghanistan before leaving as a refugee, made an anti-war aside. While I disagreed with it, it also made me happy to hear it, especially considering how much racism, anti-Muslim bigotry and xenophobia was being aired in public after 9/11.
Maybe it's because I'm "hilariously obtuse"... but I'm not sure what your point is, LarryM. I generally agree with your "fundamental critique" of US foreign policy and your assessment of the unfortunate willingness of the average American to fall for all the national greatness bullshit hook, line, and sinker. What I don't understand is how banging a drum in the street while stoned is supposed to remedy this situation.
For the record, I obviously don't "blame" the protest movement for the Iraq War. I think the anti-war movement was spectacularly ineffective and probably actively counterproductive, but blame lies squarely with the people who promoted the war.
When the President has an army of flacks on the airwaves saying the war is about terrorists, anthrax, nukes, and fighting eeeeevil... "no blood for oil" really isn't much of a rebuttal.
Everyday, I wake up feeling like a fool, because I initially believed that we needed to invade Iraq to keep Americans safe. Doesn't mean I supported the war, I just wasn't against it. Now, I find myself hoping that someone, somewhere holds the people in power in this country responsible for what one of the Army's generals has described as war crimes (I'm not going to find the link, but it's pretty easy to google).
The thing that bugs me most about the saving grace argument on the right of "well, at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The world is better without Saddam Hussein" is that even if we assume that's true, since when is it the US's job to make that call. Indeed, wouldn't much of the world (and many in this country) say "the world will be better off without George W. Bush?" And, rightly so.
The sad fact is that the US invaded a sovereign country with a bunch of oil, deposed its leader, and attempted to install a friendly gov't (including 50-60 permanent military bases), so that American oil companies could be given no bid oil contracts in what was supposed to be a friendly stable Iraq. It's transparent corporate welfare at its worse. There is no other logical explanation. Seriously. We know the reasons we were given were false and that the administration didn't believe them. So, seriously, tell me why else we invaded that country.
Yet nobody just comes out and says this. Other than the left-wing blogs, it barely made the news that the oil companies were given the no-bid contracts. And they're just the latest pig feeding from the trough. It's really pretty sickening.
Everyday, I wake up feeling like a fool, because I initially believed that we needed to invade Iraq to keep Americans safe. Doesn't mean I supported the war, I just wasn't against it. Now, I find myself hoping that someone, somewhere holds the people in power in this country responsible for what one of the Army's generals has described as war crimes (I'm not going to find the link, but it's pretty easy to google).
The thing that bugs me most about the saving grace argument on the right of "well, at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The world is better without Saddam Hussein" is that even if we assume that's true, since when is it the US's job to make that call. Indeed, wouldn't much of the world (and many in this country) say "the world will be better off without George W. Bush?" And, rightly so.
The sad fact is that the US invaded a sovereign country with a bunch of oil, deposed its leader, and attempted to install a friendly gov't (including 50-60 permanent military bases), so that American oil companies could be given no bid oil contracts in what was supposed to be a friendly stable Iraq. It's transparent corporate welfare at its worse. There is no other logical explanation. Seriously. We know the reasons we were given were false and that the administration didn't believe them. So, seriously, tell me why else we invaded that country.
Yet nobody just comes out and says this. Other than the left-wing blogs, it barely made the news that the oil companies were given the no-bid contracts. And they're just the latest pig feeding from the trough. It's really pretty sickening.
Stacy replies: "So, MLandJ, you don't think that is incredibly simplistic? And lame? I've voted Democrat in all three elections where I've been of age, douchebag. I just think the phrase 'no blood for oil' is lame and isn't convincing anyone of anything. But I get it, you hate "Repiglicans," and "Dumbya." How very clever. Nerd."
Yes, chuckles, I hate Dumbya. Very much so. And "Repiglicans" is an endearing term I use to distinguish Republicans from Dumbya's remaining supporters.
I think "No Blood For Oil" is a quite accurate and succinct statement. Nothing especially lame about it - we're talking pithy slogans, after all.
I'm surprised you're old enough to have voted in 1996, though. Perhaps you're including this year's primary, or anticipating your vote in November?
"Maybe it just had to do with the fact that I was in college and many of the protesters came off as pretentious idiots. Ultimately, though, they were right so I guess I'll just shut up about it."
So when do we get to the part where you just shut up about it? Also, how can I distinguish between you and a pretentious idiot? Do you have a special hat you wear or something?
Everyday, I wake up feeling like a fool, because I initially believed that we needed to invade Iraq to keep Americans safe. Doesn't mean I supported the war, I just wasn't against it. Now, I find myself hoping that someone, somewhere holds the people in power in this country responsible for what one of the Army's generals has described as war crimes (I'm not going to find the link, but it's pretty easy to google).
The thing that bugs me most about the saving grace argument on the right of "well, at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The world is better without Saddam Hussein" is that even if we assume that's true, since when is it the US's job to make that call. Indeed, wouldn't much of the world (and many in this country) say "the world will be better off without George W. Bush?" And, rightly so.
The sad fact is that the US invaded a sovereign country with a bunch of oil, deposed its leader, and attempted to install a friendly gov't (including 50-60 permanent military bases), so that American oil companies could be given no bid oil contracts in what was supposed to be a friendly stable Iraq. It's transparent corporate welfare at its worse. There is no other logical explanation. Seriously. We know the reasons we were given were false and that the administration didn't believe them. So, seriously, tell me why else we invaded that country.
Yet nobody just comes out and says this. Other than the left-wing blogs, it barely made the news that the oil companies were given the no-bid contracts. And they're just the latest pig feeding from the trough. It's really pretty sickening.
Everyday, I wake up feeling like a fool, because I initially believed that we needed to invade Iraq to keep Americans safe. Doesn't mean I supported the war, I just wasn't against it. Now, I find myself hoping that someone, somewhere holds the people in power in this country responsible for what one of the Army's generals has described as war crimes (I'm not going to find the link, but it's pretty easy to google).
The thing that bugs me most about the saving grace argument on the right of "well, at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The world is better without Saddam Hussein" is that even if we assume that's true, since when is it the US's job to make that call. Indeed, wouldn't much of the world (and many in this country) say "the world will be better off without George W. Bush?" And, rightly so.
The sad fact is that the US invaded a sovereign country with a bunch of oil, deposed its leader, and attempted to install a friendly gov't (including 50-60 permanent military bases), so that American oil companies could be given no bid oil contracts in what was supposed to be a friendly stable Iraq. It's transparent corporate welfare at its worse. There is no other logical explanation. Seriously. We know the reasons we were given were false and that the administration didn't believe them. So, seriously, tell me why else we invaded that country.
Yet nobody just comes out and says this. Other than the left-wing blogs, it barely made the news that the oil companies were given the no-bid contracts. And they're just the latest pig feeding from the trough. It's really pretty sickening.
Wow, not sure what happened there. Serious comments infraction by me. My sincerest apologies. I'm clearly not aware of all internet traditions.
MLandJ,
Yes, you are correct. 2000, 2004, and I am anticipating my vote in November. And no, I don't have a special hat. You'll be able to tell me apart because I won't be saying things like...
"No Blood For Oil"
"Repiglicans"
"McSame"
"Dumbya"
And no, we weren't talking about pithy slogans. I was stating that pithy slogans are lame, and don't accomplish anything. You responded by telling me that I'm "not the brightest bulb in the Exxon sign." Again, another very clever and pithy line. I'm sure you saw it on a t-shirt somewhere.
"What I don't understand is how banging a drum in the street while stoned is supposed to remedy this situation."
I don't think anybody, save for the most naive protesters, was laboring under the assumption that the protesting would effect an end to the war.
What I saw around here (Pittsburgh) was a ramshackle coalition of:
* anarchists
* town cranks
* bored college students
* fringe political upstarts
* miscellaneous malcontents
* those using the protest as a platform for another issue (animal/gay/woymn's rights, environmental concerns, proselytizing eschatology, etc)
...which seemed more interested in:
* venting frustration over the "status quo"
* antagonizing the local police force
* inconveniencing commuters (the environmentalists seemed particularly happy about this)
* anachronistic roleplaying (it's just the 60's, man!)
* making a scene
...than in:
* pressuring their elected representatives
* putting aside petty internecine differences for the sake of a common cause
* organizing a real, effective political coalition
It's really unfortunate; the antics of these nitwits end up alienating a lot of Joe and Jane taxpayers who are sympathetic to the cause.
Stacy writes:
"And no, we weren't talking about pithy slogans. I was stating that pithy slogans are lame, and don't accomplish anything. You responded by telling me that I'm "not the brightest bulb in the Exxon sign." Again, another very clever and pithy line. I'm sure you saw it on a t-shirt somewhere."
Actually, pithy slogans can be remarkably effective: "It's the economy, stupid!", "Where's the beef?", etc. "No blood for oil", however, was a dud because it was too conspiratorial for most Americans to stomach.
Also, be advised that this ML&J character is a troll, but the troll does write its own material.
So, MLandJ, you don't think that is incredibly simplistic? And lame? I've voted Democrat in all three elections where I've been of age, douchebag. I just think the phrase 'no blood for oil' is lame and isn't convincing anyone of anything. But I get it, you hate "Repiglicans," and "Dumbya." How very clever. Nerd.
I can't speak for ML&J, but I hate the Dems also. They are on the whole just as guilty of supporting the machinery of empire, or hegomony if you prefer. True, Bush and Cheney are a particularly monstrous manifestation of that sickness, but (a) they are a product of it, and (b) the Dems went along for the ride.
And it would be nice, especially in light of detailed explanations of why "no blood for oil" is an accurate representation of reality from both myself and ML&J, if you would, oh, I don't know, make an actual argument as to why you think it's "lame" and unconvincing, instead of making a vacuous analogy with "they hate us for our freedoms." Hint: one of the statements has a strong connection to reality, the other does not.
And finally, people like you are why I usually resort to sarcasm and invective. I don't think that you are actively evil, and it's not that I expect you to all of the sudden see the light based upon a couple of blog comments, but your complete inability to even comprehend and engage with the non-interventionist position is evidence of a bovine stupidity that is sadly typical of the American people.
Three bad things are guaranteed to happen in every war.
1) Civilians will be killed, and anywhere their is fighting will be thrown into chaos
2) Atrocities and war crimes will be committed by every side
3) You create a significant number of members in your society that have been to war - people that have seen man's inhumanity to man and feared for their life for months on end
The U.S. media has done a very good job not reporting on numbers 1 and 2, so we tend to forget that they are happening, or are at least saved from the magnitude of the civilian deaths in Iraq. Both the military and the media have worked to quash reports of atrocities and war crimes, but they cannot be avoided.
I don't think enough people understand the ramifications of number three. Wars require soldiers and those soldiers are put in an environment where their lives are in danger and they are forced to dehumanize their opponents at the very least and quite possibly kill other human beings. Especially in guerilla wars like Vietnam and Iraq there is no front line, so for virtually their entire 15 month tour soldiers are under the stress of knowing the chances if them being killed are ranging from small to significant, depending on their duties that day. They do not get to let their guard down.
This is one reason the percentage of military personnel with PTSD is so high. The war in Iraq has produced hundreds of thousands of people with significant psychological scarring that are now scattered throughout the U.S.
It is not impossible for a war to be worth the costs of fighting the war, but it is rare. The problem the U.S. seems to have is that we do not understand the full impact of war on the local civilian population, in part because the last war fought on U.S. land ended in 1865. We have also stigmatized and minimized the psychological damage caused by fighting in a war.
LarryM,
At what point have I failed to see the non-interventionist postion? We get it. You are a non-interventionist. You hate both parties(agreed) and you think Americans are stupid. I agree with almost all of that. I just think that's is possible to be a "non-interventionist" and be just as blind as a 27% that still support George W. Bush. I just think the slogan "No Blood for Oil" is FUCKING STUPID. It means nothing. It is empty because MOST of the people who would utter it have no fucking clue what they are talking about and only force the other side to be more resolute in their own thinking. Get it?
Your holier than thou schtick probably wears a little thin on others as well.
Kineslaw writes:
"It is not impossible for a war to be worth the costs of fighting the war, but it is rare. The problem the U.S. seems to have is that we do not understand the full impact of war on the local civilian population, in part because the last war fought on U.S. land ended in 1865. We have also stigmatized and minimized the psychological damage caused by fighting in a war."
Sorry, but count me among those who considers the generation that won WWII as the "greatest generation". I know that term gets thrown around a lot in election years, but IMHO it's a well-deserved sign of respect. That generation ended up accomplishing more than any in America before or since, despite the horrific traumas they experienced.
Objecting to the Iraq war "on principle" doesn't necessarily mean objecting to all wars. There's room in between objecting to the Iraq war because you oppose war no matter what and objecting to it because you think it's been incompetently executed.
The correct answer to the blockquoted question in the post is that there isn't any one answer. The "anti-war camp" isn't monolithic like that.
Stacy replies: "And no, I don't have a special hat. You'll be able to tell me apart because I won't be saying things like...
"No Blood For Oil"
"Repiglicans"
"McSame"
"Dumbya"
And no, we weren't talking about pithy slogans. I was stating that pithy slogans are lame, and don't accomplish anything. You responded by telling me that I'm "not the brightest bulb in the Exxon sign." Again, another very clever and pithy line. I'm sure you saw it on a t-shirt somewhere. "
No, I made it up. And whoever said a slogan could accomplish anything, you silly little child?
No, you're not saying things like "Repiglicans" - you're saying things like "nerd" and "the protesters came off as pretentious idiots." And you seem to claim the ability to READ MINDS! Spectacular!
Here's how you come off, Stacy - as a judgmental fool who will be wrong about just about everything in her life, and who will see each and every wrong judgment as another affirmation of her specialness. In other words, you remind me of Bloody Billy Kristol.
So when do we get to the part where you just shut up about it? I don't think it will ever happen with Billy.
Staash writes: "...than in:
* pressuring their elected representatives
* putting aside petty internecine differences for the sake of a common cause
* organizing a real, effective political coalition
It's really unfortunate; the antics of these nitwits end up alienating a lot of Joe and Jane taxpayers who are sympathetic to the cause. "
Of course the Kossacks and MoveOn.org did all three of those *'d items with incredible skill and efficiency, and just look at what happened to the Repiglicans in 2006 as a result. Airheads and wingnuts can pretend that it was all about "filthy hippies" dancing in the streets, but it wasn't.
That work continues and the Repiglicans are looking at another savage beating in November, including in some more states where they've had dynasties going.
There's nothing wrong with calling someone a nerd if they are acting like one. Using clever nicknames for all the groups and people you dislike makes you a nerd. Especially when those nicknames are simply play-on-words.
Also, I never said I supported the war, but I didn't protest against it. I already admitted to being a bit more naive in my younger days and not believing my government was completely lying to me. I have no idea how I've possibly come off as judgmental. But to compare me to Bill Krisol? Seriously? You can do better than that.
Stacy writes: "I just think that's is possible to be a "non-interventionist" and be just as blind as a 27% that still support George W. Bush. I just think the slogan "No Blood for Oil" is FUCKING STUPID. It means nothing. It is empty because MOST of the people who would utter it have no fucking clue what they are talking about and only force the other side to be more resolute in their own thinking. Get it?"
I get it, Stacy. Your highly cogent and fascinating point - worth yapping about over and over, because your daddy always told you you were really, really smart - is that people who had much better judgment than you about the Iraq War had a BAD SLOGAN.
I can only imagine the depth and intellectual complexity of the activities you were taking part in while those "pretentious idiots" were busy being right and you were doing your Britney Spears act. "I was very skeptical of the reasons we were going, but ultimately was young and naive enough that I still had some faith in our government."
So did you and your little pals make margaritas while you watched "Shock & Awe" and you all cheered?
Your holier than thou schtick probably wears a little thin on others as well.
Indeed it does. Given my disgust with this nation's foriegn policy, and the so called "progressive" response to same, I'm past caring about that.
Let me ask you this. Obviously, a statement that fully captured the complexity of the many reasons to object to the Iraq war wouldn't fit on a protest sign. Is it the concept of protest signs that you object to? Assuming that the answer is no, what is it, specifically, about that particular slogan that you object to? Do you disagree that the the Iraq war specifically, and our middle eastern presence generally, is almost entirely about oil? If so, my insulting statements above were fully justified.
No, I'm not asking you to believe specifically that part of what was going on was specifically about "stealing their oil," though it's pretty clear at this point to anyone without his or her head in the sand that AT LEAST the government figured that that was a nice bonus of the war (in the sense of trying to jam through an oil law in Iraq disproportionately favorable to western oil companies), if not a motive force.
No, I'm merely asking you to acknowledge three very mundane facts: (1) that the biggest motive for the attack was acquiring a base for the projection of power in the middle east; (2) that the reason that we feel the need to project power into the middle east is ... the oil; (3) that ancillary motives for the attack on Iraq were an indirect product of our presence in the middle east, said presence being, again, about ... the oil.
And if those facts, which shouldn't be very controversial at all, are acknowledged, then why is "no blood for oil" such a lame slogan?
And yes, I realize that you and many others believed that the war was about WMD. Obviously in retrospect, it wasn't. Many of us knew that at the time.
LarryM writes: "I can't speak for ML&J, but I hate the Dems also. They are on the whole just as guilty of supporting the machinery of empire, or hegomony if you prefer. True, Bush and Cheney are a particularly monstrous manifestation of that sickness, but (a) they are a product of it, and (b) the Dems went along for the ride."
Too many of them did, yes. But a majority of the Dems in Congress did vote against the war.
On the other hand, there was just no significant anti-war voice in the GOP for years, until a few folks like Chuck Hagel started speaking up.
So while I'm not blind to the problems with the Democrats, the Republicans these days are almost wholly devoid of decent human beings. Which is why I call them Repiglicans. Fans of "Animal Farm" should be able to appreciate it.
Even Stacy has probably seen the movie.
1. You've lost your fucking mind.
2. I don't have a 'Daddy.'
3. I NEVER SAID I SUPPORTED THE WAR.
4. I didn't bring up the slogan and I never said that all people protesting the war were clueless. I simply pointed out that many of them were.
5. I don't drink Tequila unless I'm shooting it.
6. A lot of them were pretentious idiots.
7. I simply pointed out that it was a shitty slogan, you are the one that made a big deal of it.
Spacy says: "There's nothing wrong with calling someone a nerd if they are acting like one. Using clever nicknames for all the groups and people you dislike makes you a nerd."
So what do you have against nerds? Also, have you ever said anything funny in your life? I can't imagine it.
"I have no idea how I've possibly come off as judgmental."
Damn, you're stupid. Scroll back and tell me some more about "pretentious idiots."
How did you manage to make it to your mid-to-late twenties and remain so blissfully lacking in self-awareness?
Stacy says: "I don't have a 'Daddy.'"
Well if your mother is anything like you I can certainly see why.
LarryM,
Yes, yes, yes. I agree with all of those things. The slogan itself wraps up the point fairly nicely, I suppose. I just think relying on slogans like "No Blood for Oil" do nothing to advance any conversations or to convince anyone of anything. It is a bad slogan if your goal is to actually change hearts and minds about the war. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. Maybe it does the job of grabbing people's attention. I just thik it rings a bit hallow(hollow?) because a lot of people that use it would only be able to explain it in very vague terms.
I was a fence-sitter during the run-up not because the arguments did not appeal to me, but I didn't trust the Bush Admin to execute things competently.
All someone had to do was watch the total lack of interest in the administration in ensuring post-war stability in Afghanistan. It was a case of bump off the old, promote some malleable elites (and warlords), and draw down US forces. No force projection into the provinces. No focus on law and order. An assumption that the UN can come in and take care of all that later.
So while the siren song of ending the sanctions regime, arab democratization, and punitive action against a brutal dictator pulled at my heart, my brain knew that better men were needed to pull off such a momenteous event then those in the White House.
Sadly proved right.
Time out. Calling someone a pretentious idiot does not make you judgmental. These are people that I knew, and they were pretentious idiots. I didn't say everyone protesting the war was a pretentious idiot.
Have I ever said anything funny in my life? Wait, you actually think those nicknames are funny? Wow, your friends must be nerds as well if this type of shit passes for funny. "Get it! Dumbya?! Its like George Bush's middle initial but it also plays on how dumb he is!! Jesus, where do I come up with shit?!"
Spacy? Seriously?
I suppose I have a Father, but I don't have a Daddy. Maybe I just don't call him Daddy 'cause I'm NOT A FUCKING FEMALE. Stacy is my last name. I've done nothing to suggest I am a woman.
Kill yourself.
Please don't kill yourself. I wasn't being serious. I love you even though you are dishonest and petty. I gotta run. I hope you have a really nice evening. I actually have to take off. I gotta go meet my Daddy for shots of tequila. Hopefully we'll bump into some pretentious idiots. I'll let you know.
XOXO,
Stacy
Too many of them did, yes. But a majority of the Dems in Congress did vote against the war.
Voting against the war wasn't enough. Did ANY of them speak out when they received briefings about torture and other war crimes (and it's pretty clear in retrospect that they were briefed on those things)? (Oh, the briefings were "secret." Boo fucking hoo. Of COURSE their obligations to humanity trumped domestic "security" laws designed to protect the machinery of empire.) Did they draft articles of impeachment? I could go on. Every single member of congress - even the staunchest war opponent - is complicit in war crimes. Every last one of them.
Stacy,
LM&J, whever his virtues, and obviously he and I agree regarding a lot of this (but not his annoying but typical tribalism regarding the two party system) is not a person worth arguing with. Yeah, yeah, I know I just did it too.
Some would say the same for me, but I'd like to think that, most (not all) of the time, when not confronted with idiocy or mendaciousness, I can be relatively civil.
ML&J, that is, and "whatever his virtues." WTB an edit function.
LarryM writes: "Voting against the war wasn't enough. Did ANY of them speak out when they received briefings about torture and other war crimes (and it's pretty clear in retrospect that they were briefed on those things)? (Oh, the briefings were "secret." Boo fucking hoo. Of COURSE their obligations to humanity trumped domestic "security" laws designed to protect the machinery of empire.) Did they draft articles of impeachment? I could go on. Every single member of congress - even the staunchest war opponent - is complicit in war crimes. Every last one of them."
Well, not quite - there are some who have entered Congress after the war started who are explicit about opposition to it. And you're wrong if you think all members were briefed re: torture and so forth. And yes, the impeachment process has been started (ask Dennis Kucinich) - it just hasn't gone anywhere.
You may have seen the footage of members of the Black Caucus protesting quite strongly in session before the war vote. It should still be easy to find.
My position is only that where the war is concerned the Dems have been preferable to the Repiglicans. It's not a claim that they've covered themselves in glory. Those of us in the reality-based community know that we're stuck with these parties for the foreseeable future. Saying one has been better than the other when it's certainly true isn't unreasonable.
"LM&J, whever his virtues, and obviously he and I agree regarding a lot of this (but not his annoying but typical tribalism regarding the two party system) is not a person worth arguing with. Yeah, yeah, I know I just did it too.
Some would say the same for me, but I'd like to think that, most (not all) of the time, when not confronted with idiocy or mendaciousness, I can be relatively civil."
Keep on telling yourself that, Larry. You've said that over and over again and you still keep on addressing me. I guess you lack self-control.
I'm sorry you're upset over the fact that I'm better at this sort of thing than you are, but you should probably get over it. It's not going to change. Take notes and maybe you'll improve, grasshopper.
The reason I think that's such a line in the sand is that if you look at how the issue played among registered Democrats support for the war was at an incredibly thin level. It was so low a percentage that I remember thinking at the launch of the war that that by now I must have nearly seen every last one one of them in America on my teevee. They were either liberal pundits, Democratic politicians or party apparatchiks who have been playing the same refrain since a bunch of 1992 wanna-be presidents got nuked not backing Desert Storm.
It was them and another tiny layer of not actual apparatchiks but people who looked up to them and aspired to be them and wouldn't espouse any opinion that Newsweek hadn't told them was CW. (and Coates who was a high-minded sort and nothing like the creatures I've described above)
I've sort of thawed and I'm willing to accept that maybe the country as a whole learned something out of this and the next war that gets ginned up isn't going to be treated like a joke, if not for any other reason than Iraq War II has sacrificed way more Democratic careers than Desert Storm ever thought about. The shadow of Dick Gephardt is going to loom long the next time this mess gets started and they all start thinking about their bullshit jobs. If John McCain goes down it will make Republican's less trigger-happy for the same reason.
I hope the punditry next time around feels the same way but the bad thing is there is no cautionary tale for journalism. I guess there is Judith Miller who had to settle for wingnut welfare at the Manhattan Institute.
Stacy,
Please don't feed the troll.
The class of people who currently oppose the Iraq war is so large by now that they could hardly all have the same motivation. Whether the war is stupid in some contingent or essential sense is secondary, and refusing to make common cause with people who oppose it for different reasons seems counterproductive.
I personally got really badly rolled by a large number of official lies and I'm pretty upset about that. I suspect the war was dishonestly motivated and pointless in principle, and badly executed in practice (it's possible that Afghanistan may have been just badly executed in practice, though I'm really not sure about that any more either). I think a lot of Americans currently feel that way.
"I've sort of thawed and I'm willing to accept that maybe the country as a whole learned something out of this and the next war that gets ginned up isn't going to be treated like a joke"
People learn, but, on the other hand, over time we make new people. When I was growing up I heard a lot about "Vietnam syndrome" and didn't necessarily understand that it was just a derogatory phrase for "learning better". Part of what's happened is that we have a large bloc of fairly conservative Gen-X voters who don't remember Vietnam personally. We may be reluctant to carry out stupid military adventures for a couple of decades, but eventually somebody is going to demand that America get over Iraq War Syndrome and it's all going to start over again, unless we're so ruined by then that it can't happen.
With all due respect for those posters who seem to get all their history from CNN and comic books--
--We went to war with Iraq in 1991 with full legal bells and whistles, and extremely just cause. By that time Iraq had killed over a million people in several countries, tens of thousands of them with nerve gas, in the process of launching two consecutive wars of aggression that violently disrupted the world economy.
--In the interim between 1991 and 2003, we spent about $70 billion a year deploying tens of thousands of troops to enforce the embargo that killed perhaps a million additional Iraqis, the most innocent and vulnerable ones, while tightening the regime's grip on power and enriching its collaborators.
--Iraq comprehensively violated the ceasefire from 1991 in addition to the other 16 Chapter VII Resolutions with which we hoped to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion without actually bothering to win. There is no "international law" anywhere that precludes the resumption of offensive operations in the face of ceasefire violations.
--The "Iraq War" ended with the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. What followed was an entirely predictable power struggle the management of which was botched in unbelievable fashion by the Administration, but in which nearly all the killing of Iraqis was done by other Iraqis. We are currently in Iraq at the express request of its government, the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world, and under the terms of a unanimous UN mandate.
The Bush Administration made a hash of what should have been a fairly straightforward stabilization operation after mid-2003, but that doesn't mean its political opponents can now re-write history. The next time we come up against an oil-rich, aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy, let's remember The Lessons of Iraq. Right.
Right, Powell. The 'legitimacy' or Iraq's 'government' (i.e. the one that is currently propped up by U.S. tanks) is roughly comparable to the legitimacy of Jaruzelski's government in Poland, or Thieu's regime in South Vietnam. A foreign proxy regime is illegitimate by definition.
Not that I think the US should necessarily leave....as illegitimate as the occupation is it's probably better than the likely alternative (which would be civil war and sectarian pogroms). But if you want the US to stay in order to prevent a genocide, then you should make that argument forthrightly, and not resort to silly babblings about legitimacy and representative elections.
Leaving aside the "no war" crowd, which usually deserves ridicule, there were a lot of informed, hard-headed people who had misgivings about going to war in Iraq because they believed, correctly as it turns out, that Bush & Co. didn't understand what they were getting us into.
They didn't understand the ethnic-religious fragmentation and tribalism of the region, and that its nation states (Iran, Turkey and Egypt excepted) are artificial constructs by former colonial powers and, as such, are inherently unstable. They didn't understand the centuries-old resentment of Western occupiers and aversion to Western culture. They didn't understand that when autocracy falls in the Middle East, it's usually replaced by theocracy, not secular democracy - hardly surprising, since Islamic institutions are the only nongovernmental entities with mass followings in most of these societies.
They didn't even realize that jihadism, which we had bankrolled in Afghanistan against the Soviets, would subsequently turn against us; or grasp the basics of counterinsurgency until we were four years into this misadventure.
Focused solely on deposing Saddam Hussein, they were oblivious to the consequences that anyone with a passing knowledge of the Middle East could have predicted - and did.
We should judge the Middle East policy of the next administration on whether it listens to the advice of people who understand the region. Novel idea, huh?
@Stacy: I'll miss (unless TC proves otherwise) your insight into the NBA. Your insight into the minds of war protestors? Not so much.