This Day in History
August 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson formally declared the Civil War over, months after the fighting had ended.
May 2003, President George W. Bush declares "major combat operations in Iraq have ended", years before an end is in sight. This article explains how Iraq is in a bitter state of civil war, and fewer and fewer people now believe that there is much of a chance for peace.
A. Bush's reasons for invading this country were contentious at best.
B. It has been painfully clear for a long time now that he has NO IDEA when or how the occupation could possibly end.
C. We are fighting a losing battle.
Like the failed and miserable "war on drugs" this war will NEVER succeed because it does not address core issues. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq to bring stability to the Middle East - a naturally unstable place because of its inhabitants' varied religions and ethnicity, and their thousands-of-years old refusal to accept a contrary viewpoint about anything. Stability in the Middle East, to say the least, is a lofty goal. That is why we really needed to A. be sure as hell of what we were getting into, and B. get as much help and world-wide support as humanly possible. We did neither of those things.
The war on drugs is idiotic because you can't declare war on a noun. Countries declare war on other countries - that's the definition of war. Now we've declared war on another noun, terrorism, and there's no country on Earth - not Iraq, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia - that flies that flag. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, any war on an abstract notion, is doomed to failure because war just isn't made for fighting concepts. It's made for fighting armies.
William S. Burroughs (a man who knows a thing or two about drugs) said 50 years ago that the way to get rid of drugs is to treat the addict in the street. After all this time we still haven't taken his advice. It's all about the root causes. Stop the demand and the supply will naturally stop with it. It's just common sense. Why didn't we take this route with Iraq? We knew about their inability to get along with each other, but we didn't prepare at all for it. The reason so many Middle Eastern countries end up being ruled by iron fisted dictators is that's been the only proven way to maintain stability. It's sad but true. I'm not saying Saddam was good for the country, but at least he kept control - look at the murder statistics in the article. We blindly opened Pandora's box without a thought as to how we would get it closed again. Our president used fear and the lives of those lost on 9/11 to charge like a child into a battlefield where history has shown there's little hope of emerging victorious.
posted by Smorgasbord @ 11:32 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Picking those nits ... the Civil War (U.S.) was formally declared over on August 20, 1866. (scroll down)
It has been painfully clear for a long time now that he has NO IDEA when or how the occupation could possibly end.
He's actually made it perfectly, if not painfully, clear that as far as U.S. troops are concerned, this conflict will be over for good as soon as the new Iraqi troops can defend the country themselves.
We are fighting a losing battle.
What? Because the MSM only likes to play images of car bombs and beheadings? There are other things going on in Iraq.
And one other. What "major combat operations" have been undertaken since May, 2003? What is going on now is a very long process of mopping up terrorists and shoring up new army.
The date snafu is what I get for not doing my own research. My company sends out a daily newsletter type of thing that has a "this day in history" section. Obviously whoever put that tidbit together was a couple of days off. Sorry about that.
this conflict will be over for good as soon as the new Iraqi troops can defend the country themselves.
That seems specific to you? When will that be? Tomorrow? Twelve years from now? Defend the country from who? Terrorists? Sunnis? Iran? What level of defending themselves are we talking about? I guess if we just "stay the course" then this "process of mopping up" will be over when it's over. Thanks for the clarification. I would have a hard time explaining to the families of the thousands of men and women who have fallen over there, however, that major combat operations have ended. 1,083 murders in Baghdad in July, and the country's doing great! Woo hoo!
I know people are working hard over there to get the country running. I'm not taking anything away from their good work. But are you really defending the way the US has run this war? You don't think we could have done this A LOT better? This is the same half-assed way we "handled" Korea and Vietnam. That's why I say it's a losing battle.
Smorg,
Few things.
1. Major combat did end. There are no fronts, no conflicts going on over there, just terrorist actions. Saddam and regime was ousted. I can't see where he was wrong in saying this.
2. Bush's reason was to remove Saddam Hussein as a threat. That was done. Not sure I understand what you mean by contentious, unless you mean that they were contended against by France, Germany and Russia who were on the take with Saddam.
3. It is painfully clear that no one knew or could know. You don't go into something like this knowing or considering how long it will take. If it is necessary (and that is open to debate) then it doesn't matter how long it takes to get the job done. If we would have thought about these things going into either world war we would have never gone and would be speaking German now. Impatient Americans--we live in a generation who thinks that everything can be fixed immediately with a simple pill. That isn't the nature of the world we live in.
4. We aren't really fighting over there at present, Smorg. We are supporting the Iraqi government for them to get on their feet and start their new nation.
5. I do agree with you about the impossibility of consensus and democracy over there. Clinton devoted to entire presidencial term to bringing about peace in the middle east, as did Bush the elder and even this Bush. I say put a dome over that part of the world to trap the fallout and let 'em nuke it out.
6. As far as getting help and support, we had it. 49 nations is quite a bit of support.
7. If Iron fisted dictators is your answer for middle eastern stability, then you justify a strong military presence by the US in that region. What is the difference? Both are the same, Smorg.
To say that major combat has ended is getting into a semantic argument over what the definition of "major" is. I think what's going on over there at present is pretty major, and I'm sure the families of the dead and wounded do too.
What was contentious was Bush's assertion that Saddam was a threat.
We've known forever that this was a nearly impossible undertaking. The elder Bush wrote about it in his memoirs. Rumsfeld and others acknowledge it every time they push back estimates. It's an unruly shit storm and we DID know it would be going in. Bush and his cronies painted a much rosier picture than they should have because they knew Saddam wasn't enough of a threat to justify taking on a nearly impossible mission.
We aren't fighting over there? What are doing? Baking cakes? Why are people dying if we aren't fighting? Or better yet, why aren't we fighting if people are dying??
As far as your comment about help and support goes, to say that we had quite a bit of support is a stretch. At its very best, what was the percentage of British & American troops compared to all the rest of the "coalition"? 70 to 30? What is it now?
Iron fisted dictators are not my answer, but I acknowledge their results. The difference between Saddam and US troops being there is that US troops are getting killed and it's costing the US billions upon billions of dollars that WE DON'T HAVE.
I'm getting kind of excited, but I really can't believe you guys support this jackass. He's not a conservative, he's an extremist, he's tearing apart the environment, he's a bigot, and this war is a cluster fuck! OBVIOUSLY he has his own agenda that is separate from most Americans. If we're lucky, his agenda will intersect with what is right for the country now and again, but clearly it hasn't with civil rights, the environment, the economy, or the war on terror. If any stability comes to the Middle East any time soon it will be in spite of him, not because of him. Not only does half the country not support him, but three quarters of the world doesn't either.
Another thing, you say that France, Germany and Russia were on the take with Saddam, which I don't deny, but what do you think about Bush being on the take with the Saudis? What are the chances of us ousting that regime? You know, the theocracy for the country where the 9/11 hijackers actually came from. The guy is a despicable hypocrite.
Smorg,
Don't you believe like most of the left this is all about oil? If it is, then the eventual payoff will be there won't it?
I don't thik I'm playing on semantics. The mission that was set forth, to topple Saddam's regime and take out the Baathist resistance was accomplished. This can't be denied. There are no major offensives or defensives taking place now, Smorg. Bush said we were to go in to topple Saddam and his regime and that was done. Finished. In a completely accurate sense: Mission accomplished. I think that to argue the point is just to dig in ideologically about Bush and his announcement. I don't think its founded in sound reason.
Yes, there are still terrorist actions in Iraq. But there are the same in Israel and have been since 1956, but there is no major combat, no fronts, just years and decades of cleanup.
Smorg, I know how you feel. I just had a friend of a friend killed over there in Iraq. It is a huge loss for their family, but I don't look at the family as an authority or bestow sainthood upon them and dub their views sacrosanct just because they lost a loved one overseas. That young man wanted to join the service, and that was his adult wish. I wouldn't a bit more deny him that wish or invalidate it, than I would deny my 18 year old daughter the right to skydive or rock climb. Now, I couldn't imagine losing a loved one, but I could imagine feeling devestated by what I hear the left telling those who have lost loved ones--the message is loud and clear and its saying "your kid died for nothing". Does the left realize that this is what they are telling these parents? More importantly do they care?
________________________________
Smorg, the iron fisted dictator does bring results, but can one condon such evil just to bring about order? Hitler kept the Germans in line, but at what cost to the human spirit? Mussolini, Castro...Yes, fear, oppression, torture, killing--all of those things keep the people in line, but at what costs?
You have me wrong, Smorg. I don't support Bush particularly except on the things I agree with him on. I don't detract from Bush on the things that I don't fully understand or have complete knowledge of either. I was the same way with Clinton, Bush the elder, Carter, and Reagan. I do think people should think rationally and keep a clear perspective, and anyone who "hates" someone they never met, clearly allows emotion to rule their assessment. I remember many "conservatives" who reveled in deriding Clinton. They actually wanted to see him dead, defeated, stomped into the ground, destroyed. Yes, he was guilty of major screw-ups on multiple occasions, but I think any rational thinking human being would give him a fair shake. There were few things in Clinton's domestic or foreign policy that I felt I could support, but I DID support those few things. I do the same for Bush or any other leader out there making decisions.
_________________________________
Like I have said before, Smorg, I go on "right" sites and 'blogs and point out inconsistencies there also (not setting myself up here as the all-knowing). There is PLENTY to attack the Bush administration on, things based in fact, with measurable results, but the left continues to box at shadows. This takes away from their credibility and the strength of the argument. Pure rationale ALWAYS wins out over the emotional or empathic, because given time people can see through it. People DO see through it.
The left is no longer taken seriously because they refuse to frame their arguments in logic, but opting instead for the emotional one that often has little or no basis. Credibility is found in fact, and not hearsay, so repeating everyone's "feelings" about a situation does little to bolster one's argument. Just because someone has been driven by friends and media to hate someone, doesn't validate their points. The primary motive is questionable because it is framed in the ephemeral rather than the tangible.
You will never hear me call Bush a derogatory name. Bush or President Bush is all I will use. Just like Clinton--I have never refered to him as anything other than President Clinton or Clinton. I have no idea what it is like to be president, but realize it is a 24 hour a day job. It is hilarious to listen to people talk about President Bush "vacationing" so much, because they really don't know what he does when he changes location. Clinton, Bush, any president works themselves to death and if anyone doubts that look at before and after office pictures. Clinton aged 20 years for the 8 he was in office. Bush takes good care of himself physically, but you can see the toll the presidency is taking on him. Smorg, we speak of things we do not understand, and pass judgement where none is needed.
------------------------------
Smorg, the accusations you level against Bush have real hard evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we have presented a "rant" rather than an informed opinion that is supportable.
For example:
-"Bush is a bigot." Anyone can call someone a bigot, but Bush has the most racially diverse cabinet in history. A gut feeling or a dislike for him is not enough to make the label stick.
-You say he is destroying the environment, and yet we have seen NO deregulation in environmental policy, with an emphasis on continued regulation. (Mercury emissions is not an argument) Also, by saying this one would display a fundamental ignorance for government and how it works. Bush is in NO way responsible for environmental regulation as it is the jurisdiction of Congress. All he can do is sign bills that are presented to him. (Smorg, I'm not being mean, just wanting to give you some tools whereby to win the argument and win big! I like you, man!) One can't just refer to the nonsensical ramblings of blogs and enviro-wacko groups to get their information, to provide informed judgement you have to study all angles, and unfortunately I have noticed that most 'bloggers just repeat what they hear and what they want to hear.
-The war is a matter of perspective. For someone who grew up during the first gulf war, yes, this one looks bad because we came away from that war thinking that wars could be won without the loss of human life. But to those who lived through WW II, Korea, Vietnam, all of those, Iraq is a pimple on a cows backside. The action taken in Iraq when it toppled Hussein was unprecedented. The only comparable victory that comes close is when the Israeli's defeated the Arabs using 55 gallon drums filled with rocks.
--------------------------------
Ok, let me deal with the last few:
civil rights, the environment, the economy, or the war on terror.
I have NO idea about what you speak of concerning civil rights (unless you mean the Patriot Act and it was crafted by Congress and the Senate) If you mean abortion, abortion never was a part of the Bill of Rights. You need to help me out here.
The environment is the same as when he took office, no better, no less. Geez, you can't honestly believe a short administration capable of crapping an environment in 4-5 years with little or no change in policy short of setting of 500 nuklear bombs. C'mon, think about it, Smorg--I know you have brains!
The war on terror has yielded tangible results. Here we are year after 9/11 and their have been no attacks on American soil. Those are results, those can't be argued with, Smorg. Just count how many months since 9/11 and that shows you the effectiveness on the war on terror.
------------------------------
In regards to support- If I were president I wouldn't give a darn what the latest polling data suggests. I would do what I thought was right and live with the wrath of my constituents. We live in a democratic republic, a form of government that most people don't understand. We elect officials we think most closely represent our views, but we do not hobble them to do our exact bidding. Conversely, we have a nation of pandering politicians who do everything by the polls, all talk, no walk, all polish, no principle. Lindsey Graham is being praised right now by many Democrats because he has "exercised his principle" and he has lost most of his support in South Carolina for siding with Democrats. Do Democrats only admire independence when it works their way? If so, that is hypocritical.
---------------------------------
What support do you have for Bush being illegally involved with Saudi Arabia? (Please don't reference any pinko sites or blogs--their veracity is questionable)
If you're interested, Smorg, I'll come back and provide LOADS of factual and verifiable mistakes that Bush can be held accountable for. If the left can get their act together and think of more than one thing at a time, they may have a chance to push the "neo-cons" back. But until they learn to communicate in a rational fashion, they will continue to sound like a bunch of Howard Deans...
-----------------------------------
"All the passions are nothing else than different degrees of heat and cold of the blood" Francois Duc de la Rochefoucauld
"The ruling passion, be it what it will, The ruling passion conquers reason still" Alexander Pope
----------------------------------
Smorg, this is just being upfront--nothing AT ALL personal--I like discussing things with you because you have a good mind.
Take care, man!
-Jack
Whew! That's an enormous comment, Jack. I had to take the weekend off just to read it.
I do believe, like most of the left, that Bush's motives were more about business relationships and a personal vendetta than anything else. The industry that much of the Bush administration is in is oil. It's not a "conspiracy theory" or even anything far fetched. Just look at the no bid contract Halliburton was awarded.
Actually, before I go any further, let me tell you a back story. (This is going to take a while, isn't it?) My father knew W. personally. He went to Harvard Business School with him. They didn't keep in touch after the 70's, but they interacted regularly at the time. You could say they were less than friends, but more than acquaintances. My father is fond of Bush and, although we try not to talk about politics together, I'm sure he voted for him.
My father has told me stories about how Bush was well liked, he chewed tobacco, drank a lot, was always joking around with people, and had an uncanny knack for remembering people's names. He said that, while he wasn't terrifically bright, he wasn't a dumb-ass either. He was just sort of "laid back" about things. This is the style in which he has led everything he has been at the helm of - he doesn't like details, he tries to surround himself with "smart" people and delegate all the work to them, he likes to make simple, high-level decisions. I have worked with a few chief executives who operated the same way. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes they're bad.
My point is, he decided long ago that his priorities revolve around being "in charge" with the caveat that he does as little as possible in the role, being a religious fundamentalist with little regard for critical thought, and granting favors to the ultra-rich oil tycoons and entrenched politicians that he's known his entire life and who funded his insanely large campaign war chest.
I call him a bigot for one reason (although I bet if we were to be a fly on the wall for a therapy session more reasons would be revealed): he thinks one group of people should not have what another group has based on his own personal ideology. He supports relegating a group of people to second class citizenship because he doesn't approve of how they spend their time, period. He also supports the ever widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots which is also creating second class citizenship, but that's a different story.
I still think we're talking semantics with "major combat operations" being over. I see your point about his phrase "mission accomplished" and the fact that there haven't been any recent offensives, but I and many others would still call what is going on over there "major combat operations".
As far as what our soldiers have/are dying for over there, I would never say that they died for nothing. I believe in the our volunteer military. I proudly salute those who join out of their own free will. I thought many times about joining myself, but the only thing that stopped me was the fact that I knew I may be sent into combat for an idiotic reason. The people who enlist know that too, but they do it anyway. Bravo for them. I couldn't bring myself to do that, and as a parent I will make damn sure my kids know that it's a very real possibility. If they still chose to enlist, however, I would support them. My point here is that the government has made terrible blunders with Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq. We shouldn't have been involved in any of those conflicts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they were all unconstitutional.
Your comment about "dictators keeping people in line at what cost" confuses me. Weren't you saying on NeoLibs earlier that people who don't rise up deserve what they have? Besides, I am not condoning dictatorships at all, I'm just saying that I don't know if the Iraqi people will ultimately be any better off.
I see what you are saying too with the stuff about my emotions clouding my judgment, although I disagree that they are. As I tried to explain above, I have never met him, but I think I have a fair idea of what kind of a person he is. Evil? No. Extremely biased, self centered, and a bigot? Yes.
I appreciate your comments, but it seems as though the tone, perhaps unintentionally, is self righteous and bordering on condescending. I may deserve it because I was the first one to move into more emotional speech, but, as I've attempted to outline above, I believe my comments are valid based on real evidence.
In any case, thanks for your comments and I look forward to further discourse in all matters political and/or philosophical.
I should also address your assertion that he's not doing anything detrimental to the environment. Did you read my post titled "Smog and Mirrors"? The article attached to that post is pretty good - and from an unbiased source.
He's into big business, that's really not debatable. Any type of government regulation is bad for big business, especially when it first hits the books and companies need to spend money adjusting. Therefore he's against environmental regulation. It's actually pretty cut and dried.
Hey Smorg!
Sorry if I sounded condescending...I think I'm just getting old. HA!
During my brief foray as a professor, it fell to me to train two of our debate teams--over and over again I used to coach them to "debate passionately without passion". In other words, you could convey emotion, but if you ever felt it, your opponent would surely take advantage of it and stomp you.
I really like you guys at NL's because there's a lot of heart, but there are also some brains here. I haven't necessarily seen a great deal of intellect in the posts, but I HAVE seen intellect in the discussions that take place. This is tremendous, because it has attracted people like me (who considers himself a "realist" more than anything--AND, as one gets older they naturally get a little more conservative/cautious) and even Sean, a young man who loves to get in it with everyone. Bottom line, is that I have learned from NL's, Sean does, and I hope everyone involved with the experience does.
Sorry too about what sounds like condescencion (sp?). I think that when one writes, vs. speaks, that a lot can be miscommunicated. I am expert at miscommunication! So, it I do get to sounding a little uppity don't hesitate to knock me down.
I don't know if you caught it or not, but WOLNSC had leveled a charge against me in one of his comments about me being a NEO Con plant, someone who lived in lily-white suburbia. The hilarious thing is, that I live in a rural area on 90 acres--my house is a 4000 sq stone house with a 3000 volume library built before the civil war, and I'm very much black. WSC was very excited when he made his comments, therefore he drew some pretty far-reaching assumptions that were way off base. I try not to do that, but I guess at times we are all guilty of that one time or the other. So, Smorg, I don't make any assumptions about you, other than I think you have a good head on your shoulders and are sensitive about others.
Let me clear up a couple of things.
I don't advocate dictators at all, but I do think that it is the responsibilily of those who live under them to depose them. I don't think the United States has any business going into a country just to topple their dictator. Hope that makes sense.
I went to Kittyhawk, NC and shook the President's hand. That's all I know of him personally. I also shook President Clinton's hand. (Also Princess Diana before her tragic accident). I have held high level jobs before, and while I worked very hard, even sacrificing health and family, I drew criticism from those under me who had no clue what it was that I actually had to accomplish to keep things running. I see this with Bush and Clinton. We, as armchair q-backs, can sit back and point fingers, second guess, accuse, and criticize, but we have no clue what it is like to be in their shoes. For this, I cut any president some slack, but realize I can critique the administration's policy. What I find unreasonable is how that people can "hate" someone. I have spoken with many on the left and find that they "hate" Bush. I knew people that "hated" Clinton. I fail to find any reasonable rationale behind that emotion. I was carrying on a conversation with one blogger and he said he hated Bush so much he wished he was dead. What fascinated me, was that this same person was against capital punishment. At that time there had been a pedophile that had been convicted of raping and killing several children. I asked him if he should be put to death and he said "no"; yet he stood by his remark that he wished that Bush was dead. Smorg, there is no way that a rational human being could reconcile that. So I guess when I run into such blatant emotion I am wary of it, calling into question the reasoning power of that individual.
As I wrote on Shea's blog:
"Fear leads to hatred, and hatred leads to the dark side" -Yoda.
"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I remember at one time that the "left" used to be about love and tolerance, but it has since become embittered, militaristic, and eaten with malice.
I'll be back for more comment later, Smorg.
Kindest regards,
-Jack
Jack, my friend, we're on the same page with the respect for each other thing. I know you meant not to be specifically condescending and, like I said, it was only "bordering" on it.
The hate that you have brought up I admit I have for Bush professionally but not personally. Not at all. (And please remember I haven’t said at any point in this post that I hate him.) I wouldn't mind having dinner with the guy. I certainly don't want him dead. I also believe that he thinks he's doing what's best for the country (of course he believes that what's best for us and his big business buddies is exactly the same).
So you see, I don't hate him the way I'd hate someone who willingly hurt my friends or family. I know he's trying. I just think he stinks at his job.
Is being president easy? Obviously not. I certainly wouldn't want to do it, but judging his performance versus what I would do isn't the issue. When I yell at Tom Brady I don't think for a second I could do his job any better. I'm judging Bush next to his peers - next to other presidents and high ranking politicians.
So I acknowledge that it’s not easy (as he’s fond of saying) and that perhaps I couldn’t do any better, but you’re basically saying that because I couldn’t do it any better and I don’t know any presidents personally I am not qualified to judge, which I disagree with. Every American, if they make a sincere attempt at educating themselves on the system, is qualified to judge their elected officials. That’s why we have elections and polls and everything else. Those mofos are under a microscope with good reason. Would I want to be there? Shit no, and that’s why I didn’t sign up for it.
As always, I appreciate the comments.
Smorg,
I think you are one of the unique "left" bloggers out there!
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home