Regarding Meryl Yourish's piece: It is true that these are different times, but not necessarily because we Americans are weaker and less stalwart. Rather, it may be because we are more skeptical. We have learned to be less trusting of the US government since the Vietnam War, and for good reason.

 

Meryl also should take into account the fact that these are not only different times, this is a different war. In WWII we were fighting a war that made sense. It was a nasty, long war with millions of casualties, but it was clear why the war had to be fought and against whom it had to be fought. That's not the case with Iraq. I am not saying that the war on terrorism isn't important, only that it wasn't much helped by our attack on Iraq. In fact, it could be argued that the situation in Iraq has made us weaker, straining our manpower and resources.

 

 

The war in Iraq has two main things in common with the war in Vietnam: It was started based on lies that the government told the public (with Vietnam it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident), and it is turning into a longterm bog, a situation that may be unwinnable. Actually, make that three things: The argument for each war included a sort of domino theory. In the 1960s, the US government said that, if Vietnam fell, so would the other Southeast Asian countries...one after the other. Uh huh. At the beginning of the Iraq war, the US government said that, if Iraq becomes democratic, so would the other Middle Eastern countries...one after the other. Uh huh.

 

I felt for the Iraqis living under Saddam Hussein; theirs was an ugly, brutal dictatorship. But I think that Iraq, like a lot of Third World countries, was and is an intractable puzzle. It is an artificial country that was hobbled together by the British after World War One so they could make a gift of a throne to one of their Hashemite allies. The groups making up the country have little in common with each other, and have no business being within the same nation. There is no civil society, no deep-seated tradition of rule by law, no respected independent judiciary, no sense of shared destiny, no shared loyalty and no shared values. Countries that are jerrybuilt in this manner (I would also include the former Yugoslavia) are either held together firmly by a dictator or they fall apart and descend into civil war.

 

The sad truth is that you cannot do very much with a nation that has no democratic tradition, or with a nation that's not really a nation. You certainly cannot create a democracy simply by holding elections, setting up a puppet government and pretending that "we're all democrats now." You're just draping democratic clothing on a non-democratic society. This is what I personally dub the "Wizard of Oz" approach. You remember the scene towards the end of the movie? The scarecrow without a brain is told by the wizard that all he needs is a diploma; the scarecrow is handed one and becomes brilliant. The tin man lacking a heart is handed a big red heart pendant on a chain, and the cowardly lion is made brave by being given a medal. But you cannot simply give a country the accoutrements of democratic government and think that that will be enough. And, yet, it doesn't seem as if our illustrious government had planned for much else.

 

Patriotism is a positive value, but automatic support for our military actions overseas should not be considered synonymous with patriotism. This war was ill advised, unnecessary, and based on poor planning (or no planning) for the invasion’s aftermath. It was a mistake, pure and simple. There may be a lot of unpatriotic idiots who say the same thing (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan), but that doesn't make it untrue. No matter how much we may admire the bravery and good faith of our soldiers in Iraq, it doesn't mean that we have to admire the misguided administration that put them there.

And now our soldiers are going to be stuck in Iraq for a very long time, since leaving at this point would create even more problems. What will they finally accomplish, after who-knows-how-many more years? I just hope it doesn't end with a lone helicopter taking off from a roof somewhere in downtown Baghdad. And, no, I don't have the "Vietnam Syndrome." I was supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan and of intervention in Bosnia. I fully understand that not every war is like the Vietnam War, but I also understand that this war in Iraq has some tragic similarities.

 

 

Joanne, you're leaping over or ignoring most of the points I made.

We are weaker and less stalwart. The entire casualty total of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together is a fraction of prior wars, and yet, we've had Senators and Representatives declare the war lost, and calls to bring our troops home. We have "die-ins" and anti-war protests (sparsely attended, now), and we have the AP doing a daily tally of war deaths, including deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents in Iraq. It's unbelievable to me that so many people in our nation are shocked, shocked that soldiers can actually die performing their jobs. My father and one uncle fought in WWII. Another uncle went to Korea. People just went when their letters came, and y'know, the Korean War wasn't a very popular one, either. Our nation's resolve has lessened over the decades. We could use an infusion of spine in the blue states, especially.

You are also mischaracterizing the support for WWII. There was a significant non-interventionist movement before the war. And a Gallup poll found some 80% of Americans were opposed to WWII even after Pearl Harbor was bombed. (Can't find the cite; I'm on a loaner computer and my bookmarks weren't transferred.) Nobody (except sociopaths) truly wants war, not ever. Part of my use of the film from 1945 is that it pointed out how easy it is for Americans who are not involved with the war to forget the needs of the soldiers, or even to think about the war until it involves them personally. The difference is that Americans in the 1940s were a different breed than we are today.

There's a difference between knee-jerk patriotism and outright non-support. The Cindy Sheehans of the world, the John Murthas, the Congressmen calling for immediate withdrawal and giving General Petraeus no more than the pretense of listening to his report--these are not supportive actions.

You are also utterly missing the point of the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard showed the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man that they had what they had been searching for all along---they just didn't realize it. You want to choose the right metaphors if you're going to convince me I'm wrong. That one isn't going to do it.

I also completely disagree with you that the war on terrorism was not helped by our attack on Iraq. The terrorists are there, fighting our troops--not here, blowing up shopping malls. We have killed or captured thousands of them, including some major Al Qaeda operatives.

Did Bush make mistakes in Iraq? Yes. Many of them. But he's finally beginning to do some things right there. Not that you could tell that from reading the papers or watching the TV news, or even listening to many Congressmen.

What we do now will determine how our enemies and allies perceive us for decades to come. We deserted the Vietnamese thanks to Richard Nixon's dishonorable "peace with honor." The Domino Theory was proved right. Vietnam fell. Cambodia fell. Laos fell. Millions of people were murdered by the Communist regimes that took over. The Killing Fields of Cambodia are still turning up new evidence of even more massacres. If you're going to sneer at a theory, you might want to sneer at one that didn't cause deaths in the seven figures.

And may I point out that we were cleaning up France's mess in Vietnam, and we're cleaning up Britain's mess in Iraq, two more things they have in common that you missed. As Billy Joel said: We didn't start the fire.

No, we can't make Iraq into an American-style democracy overnight, if at all. But President Bush's claim that all people want to be free? I'm with him. They don't get democracy the way we do, but they'll get it eventually. In the meantime, that's no longer our goal in Iraq. Our goal is to leave them in some kind of functioning shape where they're not blowing each other up on a daily basis, and where they're not going to let Al Qaeda run training camps for terrorists.

I never really thought the President should cite WMDs as his reason to go in. I thought taking out Saddam Hussein should have been reason enough. But we're there now, and we need to see it through. Americans need to realize that, suck it up, and let our soldiers do their jobs. Let history be the judge of whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq.

Andrew Norfolk is NOT a gentleman, he is a liar and his facts are completely wrong.  allow me to inject a little reality after this interview and his erroneous article in the Times:

1. Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq has never, ever uttered the words “shed blood for Allah”,
2. Far from controlling almost half of Britain’s mosques, Shaykh Riyadh doesn’t even control one.  Mr. Norfolk's words are baseless!
2. The Deoband school is NOT the opposite of or in opposition to Sufism, in fact Sufism is the heart of Islam and the deoband school meticulously adheres to it

3. The ‘Deobandi sect’ is an incorrect description, it is NOT a sect, far from it, it is simply an area in India and the name of a madrassa
4. Mr. Norfolk says that the Deoband (school) is characterised by its total rejection of western values. This is completely outrageous and completely false, i challenge you to find examples its TOTAL rejection of British values!
5. The Deoband School is NOT a hierarchical body with administrators and does NOT run 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques
6.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Tablighi Jamaat is a recruiting ground for al Qaeda (as Mr. Norfolk suggests) and to suggest it because Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer went once or twice in Jammat is rather like saying that High Pavement Grammar school is a breeding ground for Murders (Dr. Harold Shipman went there for a few years)

7.  Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq has actually said: "We have to involve ourselves in the legislative, political, social process and it's no good just expressing our concerns in private, we have to bring that out in the public domain."
"Islam is based on the foundations: of justice, of balance, of equality, of fair treatment, compassion, tolerance, embracing others, their beliefs, their values, being mindful and sympathetic to the fears and concerns of others."
Clearly not the words of a man enjoining isolation, hatred or murder.

8. The Salafi / Wahaabi ideology and the Deoband ideology are very separate ideologies and not even close

9.   Shaykh Riyadh Ul Haq, is not the spiritual leader of the Deobandis  - another shameful lie and distortion

 Mr Norfolk may have spent time learning about Islam and Islam in Britain, but his understanding of facts is distorted and pathetically weak and instead of being honest about it he has sensationalised, changed, misconstrued and blatantly altered the true meanings and message of Shaykh Riyadh.

Andrew two fork tongue.  I have to say let each provide there own testimony to the truth as mr norfolk continued to stutter when trying to find the fine lie between being a blatent liar and a convincing one.  Come on folks.

Lets get things straights his research is incomplete he makes note that he has translated the entire talk and put it online.  Andrew please tell the truth for a change.  You have distorted the transcripts and talks.  Misconstrued the meaning behind the comments.

 He states these talks are for non muslims only, in his article yet they are advertised as open house and regularly live on the internet.  Did Shaykh Riyadh want to isolate the 600 mosques or just himself ? Please no one ask Andrew!!!!  For those who want a categoric answer to what was being refered to ask me.  I was present at the talk.  Shaykh Riyadh addressed the conduct of those people who claim to be muslim and make  mockery of there own faith by not a adhering the basic fundementals of the faith, in moderation and with knowlegde.  It was not an address to any non muslim.  He is the same person who on many occassions has highlighted how poor conduct by muslims has lead to tension, poor community cohesion and negative sentiments being felt about islam.  Many of the distorted quotes are cut and paste jobs to produce paragraph's that have never been said in such instances.

Andrew did say he was charasmatic the truth at last.  Andrew has 50 books on islam and has taken 9 months to accidently discover this hidden sect.  "Sect" He's reading of the deobandi school of islamic theology is completly wrong.  The have a heritage in Spirituality (sufism) parellaled by none.  There classical traditions is predominently the most well informed and intellectually driven understanding of islam.  There compassion and consideration on a humanitarion level is embedded in there teachings.  As the Glorious Quran has stated that 'adopt the taqwa (fear of God) and establish Justice and give testimony even though this may be against yourself.  This is closer to being God Fearing'.  Shaykh Riyadh has even mentioned on many occassion the incident of how a Jewish man was falsely accussed by a muslim and that God revealed verse of the Holy Quran to exonerate him.

Andrew Norfolk has alot to answer for.  He states he does not have an islamophobic agenda.  Thats why he has written why he has written over 15 articles.  Does anyone need anymore convincing.

Andrew two fork tongue.  I have to say let each provide there own testimony to the truth as mr norfolk continued to stutter when trying to find the fine lie between being a blatent liar and a convincing one.  Come on folks.

Lets get things straights his research is incomplete he makes note that he has translated the entire talk and put it online.  Andrew please tell the truth for a change.  You have distorted the transcripts and talks.  Misconstrued the meaning behind the comments.

 He states these talks are for non muslims only, in his article yet they are advertised as open house and regularly live on the internet.  Did Shaykh Riyadh want to isolate the 600 mosques or just himself ? Please no one ask Andrew!!!!  For those who want a categoric answer to what was being refered to ask me.  I was present at the talk.  Shaykh Riyadh addressed the conduct of those people who claim to be muslim and make  mockery of there own faith by not a adhering the basic fundementals of the faith, in moderation and with knowlegde.  It was not an address to any non muslim.  He is the same person who on many occassions has highlighted how poor conduct by muslims has lead to tension, poor community cohesion and negative sentiments being felt about islam.  Many of the distorted quotes are cut and paste jobs to produce paragraph's that have never been said in such instances.

Andrew did say he was charasmatic the truth at last.  Andrew has 50 books on islam and has taken 9 months to accidently discover this hidden sect.  "Sect" He's reading of the deobandi school of islamic theology is completly wrong.  The have a heritage in Spirituality (sufism) parellaled by none.  There classical traditions is predominently the most well informed and intellectually driven understanding of islam.  There compassion and consideration on a humanitarion level is embedded in there teachings.  As the Glorious Quran has stated that 'adopt the taqwa (fear of God) and establish Justice and give testimony even though this may be against yourself.  This is closer to being God Fearing'.  Shaykh Riyadh has even mentioned on many occassion the incident of how a Jewish man was falsely accussed by a muslim and that God revealed verse of the Holy Quran to exonerate him.

Andrew Norfolk has alot to answer for.  He states he does not have an islamophobic agenda.  Thats why he has written why he has written over 15 articles.  Does anyone need anymore convincing.

Here is my answer to Meryl Yourish’s points. I’ll try to answer her arguments point by point. I’m really sorry that my response is so long, and I apologize for the space I’m taking up with this. I’ve split my response into three parts, because I think that if I put too much material in one comment, everything gets squeezed and the spacing between paragraphs disappears. What I’ve done below is paste a particular point she makes, and then give my response to it. Here goes…

 

 

“The entire casualty total of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together is a fraction of prior wars…”

 

 

That’s true. The Vietnam War lasted 10 years, with about 50,000 deaths of US soldiers. In World War One, the count was a few thousands fewer; in World War Two, almost 300,000 US soldiers died, and the Civil War it was 140,000. (You can see that I’ve been using Google here). But I don’t see how it is relevant to compare Iraq to these massive or very long-term wars, and then say we’re wimps because our casualties are only in the four figures in Iraq. Are you saying that we should swallow the deaths we’ve had in Iraq simply because, what the hell, we’ve seen worse?

 

 

That’s a poor measure, Meryl. Not every war is worth the deaths or the costs they incur. One death is too many if it’s in a war that was avoidable and badly conceived in the first place.

 

 

You make the point in this context that we’re weaker. There may be some truth to that, maybe. But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we Americans are less cohesive today, less united as a nation. There was a more communal spirit in World War II. But here again, I will say that a lot of our attitudes can be attributed to our being better educated and more skeptical. Curiously, that skepticism comes from the right as well as the left. Some of our public is more skeptical about our government because of Vietnam and Watergate, but some of our public is more skeptical because conservatives since Reagan preached distrust of government—as a principle.

 

 

And, with it all, we’re not as skeptical as all that. Remember the fact that, still reeling from 9/11, the American people did strongly support the Iraq invasion at first. You say the support flagged when soldiers began dying, and the public and our politicians lost their nerve. Maybe, but I think that support for the Iraq war started flagging when no WMDs turned up, and when Americans became aware that we were floundering in the aftermath of the invasion. It flagged when we were taken by surprise by the civil wars in Iraq and the growing influence of Iran there. Support was bound to flag when, after the invasion, the question was “now what?” and Bush had no answer. Soldiers’ dying for a good cause is one thing. Soldiers’ dying for an enterprise with no clear direction is something else. Another thing: The stories about Halliburton and other corporations close to the Bush administration making money from insider contracts in Iraq didn’t exactly endear the Iraqi project to a lot of Americans.

 

 

And by the way, the deaths of Iraqi civilians at coalition hands (not those of the Shiite or Sunni terrorists) is estimated as upwards of 200,000 (estimate from MIT). Doesn’t that count, too? These were civilians, mind you, the very people we were trying to save. And don’t forget the 750,000 Iraqi refugees in Jordan and the 1.4 million in Syria (my source here is Newsweek), who fled the war. They count, too. And I wonder about the destabilizing effect of these refugees on the region.

 

 

*          *          *

 

“My father and one uncle fought in WWII. Another uncle went to Korea. People just went when their letters came, and y'know, the Korean War wasn't a very popular one, either. Our nation's resolve has lessened over the decades.”

 

 

Well, y’know, the fact that your father and uncle fought in WWII is great. But, again, and again, I have to point out that WWII was a very different war. It is true that the Korean War was unpopular. In fact, an older friend of mine said that a lot of Americans were deeply upset about the Korean War, especially as they were just getting over World War II. But this war occurred at a the height of anti-communist hysteria, and at a time when people still believed implicitly in strident ant-Communism and in what the government had to say. If World War II was, in Studs Terkel’s phrase, “The Good War,” then the Korean War was seen as “The Necessary War.” Was it that Americans then were stronger? It depends on what you mean by “strong” here. Or was it that they were more naïve and trusting? Joe McCarthy was just getting under way; he hadn’t been discredited yet.

 

 

Yes, our parents and grandparents went to war when the induction letters came. And today’s soldiers go when the letters come. Is it a sign of weakness, however, if some people are questioning how we got into this war and how it’s being run? Congress supported the invasion at first, including the Democrats. They should’ve asked harder questions then. That’s when they were being cowardly!

 

 

“You are also mischaracterizing the support for WWII. There was a significant non-interventionist movement before the war. And a Gallup poll found some 80% of Americans were opposed to WWII even after Pearl Harbor was bombed.”

 

 

 

I find that poll hard to believe. That many Americans were isolationists beforehand I can well believe. I’m talking about the general public, not just the America Firsters.  But I think that it’s unlikely that 80% of Americans were against fighting the war—however much they may have regretted having to do it—after the attack on Pearl Harbor. What would they have Roosevelt do instead? This 80% figure sounds very suspect to me. You may have to find that Gallup poll and recheck the wording of the question.  The America Firsters lost all credibility after Pearl Harbor. Anyway, there was no sign of opposition to the war once US involvement was fully underway. Quite the contrary.

 

 

*          *          *

 

“There's a difference between knee-jerk patriotism and outright non-support.”

 

 

 

Yes, that was just what I was pointing out. If we are a “different breed,” as you put it, because we don’t engage in knee-jerk support for government actions, then we’re a better breed for it. I’m not speaking about Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. I’m speaking about those who are patriotic and who feel it is their right (their duty?) to question Bush’s judgment.

 

 

“You are also utterly missing the point of the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard showed the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man that they had what they had been searching for all along---they just didn't realize it. You want to choose the right metaphors if you're going to convince me I'm wrong. That one isn't going to do it.”

 

 

 

You may be right on this point. Your interpretation had frankly never occurred to me. I had always thought that the wizard was implied to be a kind of a con man (“I’m a Kansas man myself”), that the only person who had the power all the time was Dorothy herself, when she clicked those red shoes together three times. Now that I’ve heard your comment, I’m no longer so sure. OK, point taken. But don’t make too much of this metaphor. If it isn’t apt, fine. I’ll try to find another one, or maybe I won’t bother, as it’s not that important anyway. The point I was making doesn’t rise or fall on whether I correctly understood the Tin Man or not. Do you really think that, because of my possible misunderstanding that movie scene, my argument about the implausibility of a imposing a quick-fix “democracy” on Iraq is invalidated?

 

 

If the metaphor doesn’t work, fine. I’ll drop it. But let’s focus on the argument I was making. I was saying that imposing democracy in Iraq—a country that has had no history of rule by law—was madness unless we’re willing to be there for a long, long, time. The situation is made even worse by the fact that Iraq is located in an unstable region.

 

 

*          *          *

 

“I also completely disagree with you that the war on terrorism was not helped by our attack on Iraq. The terrorists are there, fighting our troops--not here, blowing up shopping malls. We have killed or captured thousands of them, including some major Al Qaeda operatives.”

 

 

 

Ouch! I think you got that backwards. It was the war that gave Al Qaeda an entrée into Iraq. We’re fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? Hell, we caused them to be there in the first place!  Before the invasion, there had been some contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda, but they didn’t amount to much. Al Qaeda’s influence, as well as that of Iran, was increased as a result of our presence there. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

 

*          *          *

My responses. Part 2

 

 

“Did Bush make mistakes in Iraq? Yes. Many of them. But he's finally beginning to do some things right there.”

 

Such as? And please try to answer that without using the word “surge.”

 

And I don’t give the administration much credit for “learning” after the invasion what it could have learned, and should have learned, before the war had ever begun. Let’s see, we’re spending about $1.8 billion a week (according to MSNBC), thousands of American soldiers are dead or wounded, and upwards of 200,000 Iraqis are dead at the hands of coalition forces. I’m so glad that Bush is “beginning” to do things right there.

 

 

*          *          *

“What we do now will determine how our enemies and allies perceive us for decades to come.”

This much is true, but that’s precisely why we should never have let ourselves get into this bog, into this un-winnable situation, to begin with. Iraq may well turn out to be our own massive West Bank for years to come. Or we may just leave after accomplishing little, with awful consequences for our credibility and, incidentally, for many Iraqis.

At first I thought that invading Afghanistan was a good idea. It was quick and we knew what we had to do, and we had the means to do it and finish it. We overthrew the Taliban. We didn’t get bin Laden, but at least we could say to the world that we can punish any government that shields him. But even there, what did we accomplish once we had kicked the Taliban out? The Taliban is coming back, and Hamid Karzai’s power is barely felt beyond the Kabul city limits.

Yes, what we do now will influence what our enemies think of us. That’s why getting ourselves into this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation was an act of stunning stupidity.

 

*          *          *

We deserted the Vietnamese thanks to Richard Nixon's dishonorable "peace with honor."

 

We were there for ten years. It’s true that lack of support at home played a role in our retreat, but would we have “won” after 12 years? Or 15 years or 20 years, maybe? Instead of just ten?

*          *          *

The Domino Theory was proved right. Vietnam fell. Cambodia fell. Laos fell. Millions of people were murdered by the Communist regimes that took over. The Killing Fields of Cambodia are still turning up new evidence of even more massacres. If you're going to sneer at a theory, you might want to sneer at one that didn't cause deaths in the seven figures.

 

I thought of the Cambodia when I wrote the comment, but I didn’t get into it. Was Cambodia a “domino,” i.e., a country that fell because we didn’t succeed in saving Vietnam? Nope. It wasn’t our leaving Vietnam that caused Cambodia to be lost, it was our bombing of Cambodia that did it, because it wreaked massive destruction in the countryside, undermined the governments of  Prince Sihanouk and Lon Nol, and drummed up a groundswell of support for the Khmer Rouge, which had until then disliked by most Cambodians. And, please don’t think I’m plying Chomsky’s line here. I detest the guy. He thinks that the role played by the Vietnam War in bringing them to power excuses their horrors.

 

With Laos, I understand that the situation was much the same, in this case involving the Communist guerilla group Pathet Lao. The group didn’t have much strength to begin, only a bit in the north of the country. But their appeal rose dramatically when the US started bombing Laos in the mid 1960s and later sponsored a failed invasion by the South Vietnamese army. There is also Burma, of course. But that country had been Communist since 1962, so it was apparently not a part of the domino calculus.

 

Was there a domino effect in Cambodia and Laos because we left Vietnam after (only) ten years? I don’t know that it was our leaving that created any domino effect. Anyway, if the domino theory really did work in Southeast Asia, that would be news to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia.

 

 

*          *          *

“And may I point out that we were cleaning up France's mess in Vietnam, and we're cleaning up Britain's mess in Iraq, two more things they have in common that you missed. As Billy Joel said: We didn't start the fire”.

 

We cleaned up France’s mess in Vietnam? No. I think we simply added to the mess there. Billy Joel may have sung “We didn’t start the fire,” but please don’t bring him into it. He wouldn’t have endorsed what you’re saying. In Vietnam, we didn’t start the fire, we just poured an immense amount of oil onto it and made it burn more furiously.

 

In the case of Iraq, your “we didn’t start the fire” reference is a bit of a stretch. We’re cleaning up Britain’s mess in Iraq? Never mind the mess we helped to generate: supporting Hussein against Iran in the 1980s; ignoring massacres of the Kurds in the 1970s and again in the late 1980s, when Hussein was using poison gas against them; sending wrong signals to Hussein when vague statements by our diplomat April Glaspie led him to think he had the green light to invade Kuwait; then abandoning the Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north in 1991, when we encouraged them to rebel but tragically failed to come to their support; leaving Saddam Hussein in power but then instituting sanctions, which hurt Iraqi people far more than they hurt him.

 

Sure, we went into Iraq in 2003 to clear up the mess that Britain made in establishing Iraq as a kingdom in 1921. Nothing happened since then, mind you, we’re just cleaning up the mess the British made.  Truth be told, Bush’s policy is an attempt at a departure from our traditional “Realism” in our relations with Iraq. And, truth be told, other countries were messing things up there, too. The Soviet Union, China, and France were selling Saddam lots of arms. But Bush has only succeeded in turning a big mess into a bigger mess.

 

 

*          *          *

 

“No, we can't make Iraq into an American-style democracy overnight, if at all. But President Bush's claim that all people want to be free? I'm with him. They don't get democracy the way we do, but they'll get it eventually.”

 

 

They’ll “get it” eventually? I’m not sure what that means. What does democracy mean when the Iraqis’ ideals of a model society may not be the same as ours? When they do want a government that’s not cruel and that’s more accountable, but don’t want to adopt in toto our intellectual, philosophical, and political traditions? Traditions that we ourselves took hundreds of years to evolve, and that we’re still evolving?

 

Now let’s follow your argument to its logical conclusion. All people want to be free? OK, so does that mean we should do elsewhere what we’ve done in Iraq? Like in Sub-Saharan Africa, where they want to be free, and Central Asia, and parts of Latin America, and Russia…? Sure. They all want to be free. We can handle it all.

 

They’ll “get it” eventually? Maybe, but not while our soldiers are still there, assuming they won’t be in Iraq for 50 years. And not after our soldiers leave, either, when Iraq will return to being shaped by its own history and by political forces in the region. How do we create an “eventually”?

 

 

*          *          *

 

“ In the meantime, that's no longer our goal in Iraq.”

 

 

No kidding. There’s nothing like improvising when the administration realizes that its initial goals were unrealistic, when it first comes to that realization AFTER the invasion.

 

*          *          *

 

Geez, I can never get the spacing between paragraphs to be normal. Either they're too far apart in my comments, or there's no space at all. I'm sorry if that looks weird. Anyway....here's the last bit:

My response. Part 3

 

 

 “Our goal is to leave them in some kind of functioning shape where they're not blowing each other up on a daily basis, and where they're not going to let Al Qaeda run training camps for terrorists.”

 

 

“Some kind of functioning state.” Yeah, that’s a plan.

 

What do you mean by “some kind of functioning state”? The kind we’ve set up in Afghanistan? OK, we both agree that democracy won’t happen so fast in Iraq. So, what kind of government could we establish that would allow us to pass off our sojourn in Iraq as a “victory”? Perhaps you’re saying that we could install something that’s less democratic than the Western norm but still relatively humane, something that would be a first step in an evolution towards Western-style democracy. That sounds fine in theory. But, again, exactly what kind of government would that start out as being? How would it be defined, established and enforced?

 

Here’s what would probably happen: First of all, any government that we help establish in Iraq won’t have much legitimacy precisely because of its association with us. Secondly, once we’re gone, our Iraqi government stands every chance of devolving into a dictatorship in all but name, if only to maintain itself in power against local pressures. It would probably be a dictatorship that’s “friendly” to the U.S.. And, for many in the U.S. government, that may be enough. But don’t count on that friendliness lasting for a long time. Eventually, there could again emerge a dictatorship that’s not so friendly. And what could we do then? Invade again?

 

And if the government were to become something better than a dictatorship, if it turned out to be a real attempt at a democratic system, such a government would be very unstable in the absence of our continued presence there to prop it up. Ironically, any propping up would itself backfire, because it would only further the impression that we were supporting a puppet regime. And how would we compose such a democratic or quasi-democratic government, given the warring groups in Iraq? Have we figured out what the proportions would be…balancing Sunni, Shi’a, Kurds and Turkmen? How long do you think that would last? Remember Lebanon.

 

To the point where they’re not hosting Al Qaeda camps?  Another plan. Hmmmm.

 

If such camps are there, they’re the result of our incursion, first of all. Second, could we really curtail them? Even now, with the surge, we’re straining ourselves in terms of manpower and money. Yet with all that effort, U.S. officials were recently banned from traveling outside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, because their safety couldn’t be guaranteed.

 

And even if our soldiers are curtailing Al Qaeda’s presence to some extent, what do you think would happen the minute we left? Once we’ve left Iraq in the hands of the wonderfully stable and competent government we presumably will have installed there? My guess is that Al Qaeda would be back in five minutes, and we’d have as much trouble fighting Al Qaeda there as we do in our “ally” Pakistan or in Afghanistan. Even a well-meaning ruler wouldn’t be able to do our bidding all the time, not if he wanted to last more than a day in power.

 

*          *          *

 

“I never really thought the President should cite WMDs as his reason to go in. I thought taking out Saddam Hussein should have been reason enough.”

 

 

Take out? Take out?!!! Are we the Mafia? Oh yeah, let’s just start a war to “take out” a leader we don’t like. And there are an awful lot of leaders we don’t like. Should we take them all “out”? Just like the grand old days of the Cold War. Let’s start a messy, wasteful, ill-planned war that’s draining our army so we can take someone out. Yikes!

 

OK, you never thought the administration should’ve used the WMD as their reason for the invasion. I agree with that! Because the WMD story was a lie! But let’s face it, the administration did use the WMD as the main justification for the invasion. Why did they do so? Because most Americans would not support our going to war just to kill Saddam Hussein, especially when he wasn’t starting or planning any war against us. So the administration apparently had to come up with something that warranted an invasion. What other reason could Bush have used? The war on terror? Iraq had played a marginal role in world terrorism. That there was a dictatorship? Yes, and a horrible one, but there were lots of such regimes around the world, some more threatening to US interests than Iraq’s.

 

 

*          *          *

 

Americans need to realize that, suck it up, and let our soldiers do their jobs. Let history be the judge of whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq.

 

No Meryl, in a democracy, it’s not our job to “suck it up,” especially given that we weren’t under attack by the country we invaded. Frankly, it would be easier for us Americans to let our soldiers do their job if we knew exactly what that job was supposed to be.

 

So what is the job our soldiers are supposed to be doing? So far it seems to be mostly damage control: that is, control of damage half caused by our own presence.

 

Are you prepared for a 10-year occupation? Are you saying that we can’t raise objections, that we can’t ask questions, because that would be weak? Anyway, most Americans realize that we can’t retreat now without incurring another disaster. But that doesn’t mean that the invasion was wise to begin with.

 

I’m willing to let history be the judge. Sure, just the way history will judge our actions in Afghanistan. And I don’t think we should necessarily wait for “history.” We need to do some judging right now, to ask questions and take a hard look at what’s going on right now. Right now? Let me amend that. Right now is already too late. At this point, we’re stuck. We cannot pick up and leave regardless of the regrets we may feel about the invasion. The time to have done the real judging is past. It should’ve happened before the invasion started in 2003.

 

Aside from not knowing how we’re supposed to finish up in Iraq, I don’t know what’s going on there right now. First I hear they’re doing terrifically, patting children on the head, helping old ladies cross the street, distributing food, providing utilities and social services, and chalking up military wins here and there against this or that enemy. Then I hear that, as in any occupation, we’re losing support among the populace because our fight against guerillas and terrorists necessarily generates civilian casualties at our hands. I hear that we’re having a tough time managing the Shi’a, not to mention the Sunnis angry at their loss of hegemony, and the Kurds who want to go their own way. Probably both the positive and the negative accounts are largely true. But, if so, where does that leave us.

 

Everyone wants to be free, but not everyone defines freedom the way we do. And not everyone wants freedom brought in by bombs, tanks, and over a hundred thousand US troops.

 

 

Joanne, just curious; are you an isolationist?  I mean, you claim liberalism, if I recall correctly, but you're sounding all Pat-Buchanan-like here.

No, Doug, I'm not. Odd you should say that, since most liberals would agree with what I say above. Liberals have generally been doubtful about most of our military interventions abroad, ever since the heyday of the Cold War.

I thought that the invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived and ill-planned. That has nothing to do with being an isolationist. Though I did say that we shouldn't knock off any leader we don't like (something most people, liberal or conservative, would agree with), I was aiming my objections specifically at the war in Iraq.

I'm sure you know that doubts about the Iraq invasion have been voiced all over the political spectrum.

I would be hesitant at any time about going into another country that hasn't attacked us and isn't attacking its neighbors (I was supportive on Bosnia, for instance). But just going into a country free and clear, with no real reason, and no real idea of what we were getting into...you don't have to be an isolationist to doubt the wisdom of that. In fact, most liberals disagree with our policy in Iraq and would diagree with any similar military adventure elsewhere.

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist, so he disagrees with this war for profoundly different philosophical reasons from my own.

Well, you did mention Iraq, but also Vietnam.  You noted that Yugoslavia was cobbled together like Iraq was, so it surprised me when you said that Bosnia was OK.  You said we were more in spirit around WW2 but are now more educated, implying that had we been then we wouldn't have supported it.  You don't seem to be inclined to have agreed with the Korean War.  Your support for the war in Afghanistan has flagged.

You liked Bosnia, though that wasn't really a war, per se.  We didn't so much fight anyone as keeps sides apart. No American casualties.  Perhaps that's  your measure of a fight worth fighting, when we don't make a sacrifice.  Just appears to me that, in your worldview, "One death is too many", period.  Your view may not be philosophically like Pat's, but it still sounds like isolation to me.

Bosnia wasn't attacking us.  Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing a cease-fire and had a history of attacking its neighbors (including the reason for which we were enforcing a cease-fire).   Iraq was rewarding people who attacked our ally in the Mid-east, Israel.  And unlike Meryl, I think the WMD question, given Iraq's history with us, our allies and it's neighbors, was a valid concern.  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore would agree.  Using your standards, I'd say there was a better case made for Iraq than Bosnia.

(By the way, if it's genocide you were worried about in Bosnia, when do we ship out for Darfur?)

I'm just saying that if we followed your rules of engagement, the outcome would be something Buchanan could get behind.  And the results of that isolationism, regardless of philosophical genesis, would be the same.

Oh my God! Doug! You're jumping to conclusions here, incorrect conslusions!

My reference to Yugoslavia was meant to show that, without a dictator to hold it together, that assembled bundle of nations with historic antipathies fell apart. We did not go in there to maintain that united country and impose a regime, but rather to protect the independence of Bosnia and prevent Bosnians from being further slaughtered. And, as you said yourself, our intervention was not as heavy.

I never implied that, had we been more educated during WWII, we wouldn't have supported the war against Hitler. Remember, I said that WWII was a different kind of war, one whose justification was obvious.

No, I did not say I wouldn't have supported the Korean War. Remember, I called it the Necessary War. It was unfortunate, and people were angry about it, and that's all. Maybe I should've been clearer here. I dubbed it "necessary" not only because it was deemed so then. The North Koreans did cross the border; there was nothing else we could've done. I apologize for my lack of clarity there.

My support for the war on Afghanistan has flagged, I guess. I'm not really sure. I'm discouraged that we have had no skillful follow-up, that warlords rule most of the country, and that the Taliban is making inroads in coming back. We apparently are great at invasions, but not so skilled at nation-building.

Doug, I didn't support our action in Bosnia only because there were few or no American casualties. I don't use that as a measure for acceptable wars. You're really putting words into my mouth here. And no, again, I'm no isolationist.

That Iraq had a history of attacking our neighbors? What? Iran and Kuwait? We took care of Kuwait. As for the war in Iran, well, there was nothing we could do. As for those politicians whom you name who supported the war in Iraq when it began, do they think it's so great now? They voted for it in the wake of 9/11, and many people have been critical of those Democrats for it. They feel that the Democrats gave in to post 9/11 war fever. They should have asked some tough questions then.

I did a quick Google check and saw that Iraq was indeed trying to shoot down American planes, and shot at least one unmanned plane down. Whether that was an excuse to invade the country and overthrow a regime is something I doubt. And, as I recall, this wasn't given as a reason for the war, or at least not as a major one.

The WMD's were not a genuine concern among people in the know. I think the Bush administration lied to us, or it possibly lied to itself, jumping to conclusions that it wanted to believe. As I recall, the CIA did not support the administration's conclusions on this issue, but had to buckle when it came under pressure from the administration to get with the program.

Also, I didn't say "one death too many," period. I said "one death too many" in a war that was needless and badly managed. Again...please don't put words in my mouth.

And, no, the practical results of my views are not the same as Buchanan's. To be sure, I would at first hesitate to act, in order to see what we could actually achieve, to see whether we wouldn't be opening a can of worms. I would see if other options were available, and (as we did do in Iraq) I would see first what international or UN support we could garner. But if going in were necessary and do-able, if going in were the only way to avoid awful political or humanitarian consequences, I could see supporting action. Buchanan would never do so unless the USA were directly attacked or  under the immediate threat of an attack.

As for Darfur, I could support action there, but effective, well-thought-out action.

I'm sorry, Doug, but you make my views seem a lot cruder and less nuanced than they really are. I'm not even remotely the same as Buchanan, either philosophically or on a practical plane. You were attacking some straw men here.

Help!

Aren't there any other liberal listeners out there to support me?

I am trying to hold my own here. I need backup!

:-)

Just a few points:

Remember the fact that, still reeling from 9/11, the American people did strongly support the Iraq invasion at first. You say the support flagged when soldiers began dying, and the public and our politicians lost their nerve. Maybe, but I think that support for the Iraq war started flagging when no WMDs turned up, and when Americans became aware that we were floundering in the aftermath of the invasion.

Actually, support flagged even before we went into Iraq. You have a short memory. There were anti-war protests all over America (and Europe), headlines every day, editorials by most media outlets saying we shouldn't go in.

Yes, our parents and grandparents went to war when the induction letters came. And today’s soldiers go when the letters come.

Today's soldiers are all volunteers. The letters don't come, as they are not draftees.

But I think that it’s unlikely that 80% of Americans were against fighting the war—however much they may have regretted having to do it—after the attack on Pearl Harbor. What would they have Roosevelt do instead? This 80% figure sounds very suspect to me.

I found the cite. I was right about the 80%, but it was only up to Pearl Harbor.

Diminished though they were in strength and appeal, the isolationists did not fade away in 1940 and '41. During 1941 congressional opposition grew against the Roosevelt administration's moves to raise the pitch of quasi-belligerency. Not only a one-vote squeaker on the extension of the draft act in the House in August but also the October and November neutrality revision votes there showed that resistance to intervention was still strong. So did the public opinion polls, which revealed something like schizophrenia toward the war. On the question of whether Britain's defeat would pose a security threat to the United States, around 80 percent answered yes. Then, on the follow-up question of whether, in that event, the United States should enter the war, roughly the same percentage answered no.

However, there was still a very strong anti-WWII segment of the public:

Indeed, as late as the summer of 1942, U.S. opinion polls showed that nearly one-third favored a compromise peace with Germany: "I can see why we are fighting the Japanese," commented one Gallup respondent, "but I can't see why we are fighting the Germans."

 The rest is rather too long to respond to. You're building strawmen and putting words into my mouth. I'm not going to spend three posts answering three posts and then three more posts answering that. Except for adding this:

“Did Bush make mistakes in Iraq? Yes. Many of them. But he's finally beginning to do some things right there.”

Such as? And please try to answer that without using the word “surge.”

No, because it's working. If you screw up and screw up and screw up and then finally get something right, explain to me why you can't admit that something is finally right. We went in without enough troops. Other mistakes were made. We're rectifying some of the mistakes that were made. Strengthening our forces was the right idea.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a sociopath who had the oil wealth of a nation as a foundation for his every sick, twisted dream of conquest. It's a good thing he's gone. It's a bad thing we couldn't wave a magic wand and make him disappear while granting his former subjects the enlightenment to govern themselves after decades of oppression, torture, and murder. But I notice that you've even changed your mind about Afghanistan, because you believe the media hype that we've lost there, too. What, we're supposed to turn tail and run every time things aren't going swimmingly? Read up on your history. We didn't want to get involved in Europe, either. The article I cite above also points out that 70% of Americans in 1937 thought we never should have gotten involved in WW1. And Germany never attacked us. But we went to Europe, and we fought Germany in WWII.

You are of the opinion that people were just gung-ho and ready to fight in two wars in Europe during the twentieth century. They weren't. But when they saw what needed to be done, they did it. And mostly stopped whining about it, and stopped trying to subvert the war effort (mostly).

That's not what's happening here. But there's one very telling result of the Iraq war: Six years, and not another 9/11. That's a win in my book.

First, just a note on an earlier comment of mine...

"Anyway, if the domino theory really did work in Southeast Asia, that would be news to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia."

Add the Philippines to that list as another "domino" that wasn't. I knew I left out something. By the way, I was just told that Bush has been flogging this line about how we "got out of Vietnam too early" as a justification for Iraq. In my view, we got out too late, but never mind.

 OK, Meryl, here goes:

1. "Actually, support flagged even before we went into Iraq. You have a short memory. There were anti-war protests all over America (and Europe), headlines every day, editorials by most media outlets saying we shouldn't go in."

No, Meryl, my memory isn't short, thank you very much. There were a good number of people who never supported the war. But the vast majority of the general public was very supportive, as Bush was still riding high on his great ratings in the wake of 9/11. The Bush administration was tirelessly pounding on two themes: the WMD and the "link" between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And the public bought both hook, line, and sinker. Both were lies but both were widely believed in 2003, though not as much today.

2. "Today's soldiers are all volunteers. The letters don't come, as they are not draftees."

OK, point taken. I'd forgotten about that.

3. " I was right about the 80%, but it was only up to Pearl Harbor. "

So you found support that many Americans were isolationists--but only up to Pearl Harbor. Well, Meryl, I said that, too. I mentioned that isolationism was very strong in this country up to Pearl Harbor. It's right there in my earlier comment, above. Admittedly, I didn't know the figure was as high as 80%.

Ok, so nearly a third of Americans in a poll didn't see the point of fighting Germany, even six months into the war. But the American public and press obviously didn't question it too strenuously. Outside of the German American Bund, I don't think anyone voiced any objections or doubts about fighting Hitler. Was it because these Americans were "braver" and did what needed to be done, even though they didn't think it needed to be done? I don't know. Also, if they felt that a Hitler victory against Britain would've threatened US security, maybe they didn't need so much convincing as the war went on.

[Of course, that 1/3 of Americans may have missed the detail that Hitler declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor, so, we didn't have any other choice but to reciprocate. Maybe the other 2/3 in the poll remembered that.]

4. "No, because [the surge] is working."

Really? How? In what way? I've heard nothing definitive one way or the other. Or rather, I've heard things one way and the other. I hear contradictory versions, depending on who's doing the talking and how he is choosing to define "victory." So I remain unconvinced that we're totally failing or that we're totally succeeding. Please don't tell me that the surge is working, period. It's not a foregone conclusion. I already know that you believe it's working, but your stating it isn't the same as making a case for it.

 5. "We went in without enough troops. Other mistakes were made. We're rectifying some of the mistakes that were made. Strengthening our forces was the right idea."

You think that was the major mistake, that we went in without enough troops? You did say that other mistakes were made. The biggest mistake was that Bush & Co. had no clue what to do in the wake of the invasion. That was a biiiggggggggg mistake. Do they know any better now what they'll do next? Beats me.

6. I'm glad that Hussein's gone, too. But we also support some murderous types, only they happen to be OUR murderous types. Now let's see: You said that I've bought the media hype on Afghanistan. How have we won a sustainable victory in Afghanistan? Again, with Karzai holding onto Kabul only, warlords taking over again in the countryside, and Taliban making a comeback, I'm stumped as to how our "victory" is secure there. But, of course, that's all media hype. Karzai is in firm control of a democratic government bringing peace and prosperity to all the land. Sure, sure.

7. "You are of the opinion that people were just gung-ho and ready to fight in two wars in Europe during the twentieth century..."

Now who's putting words in whose mouth...

"...They weren't. But when they saw what needed to be done, they did it. And mostly stopped whining about it, and stopped trying to subvert the war effort (mostly)."

I didn't say that people were enthusiastic about WW1 and WW2, only that they may have gone to war more willingly because (again, again and again) WW2 was a different war from Iraq, a far more justified war. It was easier not to whine when there was little else the US could do.

We weren't attacked in WW One? So I guess you don't count the sinking of the Lusitania as an attack. The Americans did back then.

And I don't consider protest and asking questions to be the same thing as subversion. Wow! And double wow! So much for freedom of speech.

8. "Six years, and not another 9/11. That's a win in my book."

Not in mine. We can credit that to the greater cooperation among intelligence agencies around the world. If anything, the Iraq War has hampered us, by firing up more opposition to us and expending our resources. The Iraq War has not made us more secure, in my opinion. It's only turned more of the Middle East against us, not to mention Europe and the rest of the world.

When questioned at a Congressional hearing as to whether we were more secure as a result of our war in Iraq, General Petraeus answered that he didn't know, that he wasn't sure. I believe that he backtracked a little from that answer later on. But that was his initial (and, presumably, honest) response.

OK that's it.

You don't want to write three posts to answer my three posts. I did apologize for the length of my initial response. I apologize again. But I don't see where I'm putting words in your mouth and hitting straw men. Quite the contrary.

Meryl, I thank you for taking the time to respond to me, but you're right in saying that this can't go on and on. I'm sure that neither of us has the time for this. And neither of us will convince the other. So, let's just agree to disagree.

Whew!   :-)

Norfolk is a pig-dog.  Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq shows us that Salafi / Wahaabi path is the only way to paradise. Embrace Islam or you will perish by the hand of Allah.

Ahkmed,

You are blatantly not a Muslim!  who ever you are, you are a very sad and desperate man!  These are not the words of a Muslim.