In my view the discussion some of us think we've been having about the war in Iraq is really a sham. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, and those who underestimate others' inability to learn lessons are really missing the point.
Are we ourselves so silly that we believe that the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, a) don't understand the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, b) went into the war without a plan or exit strategy, and are c) ivory-tower theorists who have let their wishes take primacy over empirical facts? I guess I may be guilty of equally mischaracterizing the views of large number of people who join me in opposing this war--I'm sure not all of them subscribe to those notions--but I've heard these arguments voiced many times over the past couple of years.
So let me step back to my own personal opinion, without trying to slander my friends. War is inherently a-moral. And even in that light it is not well characterized as a game with goals that can be won, and it definitely can't be persecuted to attain peace, democracy, and freedom, though it really depends on how you define those goals. I'm not trying to say that the Bush administration hasn't tried to claim that we hold these values, but that's the problem. Once again they have successfully framed the debate and are causing their opposition to attack straw man principles that don't really apply.
Our goal in Iraq is not to benefit the Iraqi people, or to spread freedom and democracy through the world, as Bush has sometimes half-heartedly tried to maintain. Our goal is much better described as straightforward application of military muscle to make a number of geo-political statements How about these bullet points (no pun intended):
Are we ourselves so silly that we believe that the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, a) don't understand the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, b) went into the war without a plan or exit strategy, and are c) ivory-tower theorists who have let their wishes take primacy over empirical facts? I guess I may be guilty of equally mischaracterizing the views of large number of people who join me in opposing this war--I'm sure not all of them subscribe to those notions--but I've heard these arguments voiced many times over the past couple of years.
So let me step back to my own personal opinion, without trying to slander my friends. War is inherently a-moral. And even in that light it is not well characterized as a game with goals that can be won, and it definitely can't be persecuted to attain peace, democracy, and freedom, though it really depends on how you define those goals. I'm not trying to say that the Bush administration hasn't tried to claim that we hold these values, but that's the problem. Once again they have successfully framed the debate and are causing their opposition to attack straw man principles that don't really apply.
Our goal in Iraq is not to benefit the Iraqi people, or to spread freedom and democracy through the world, as Bush has sometimes half-heartedly tried to maintain. Our goal is much better described as straightforward application of military muscle to make a number of geo-political statements How about these bullet points (no pun intended):
- We percieved that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was at a stalemate and have chosen to massively reshuffle the deck
- We never liked Saddam Hussein and just wanted him dead
- We have sent a pretty obvious message to the "axis of evil" that no matter how bogus our justifications are, when we say we don't like you, we mean it. Don't think that the presence of massive military might on the Iranian border is not understood there or by our "allies", the Pakistanis, who had the poor judgement to reveal that they had a nuclear bomb.
- We know that pursuit of a shadowy Al Quaeda organization through the back streets of the third world is a vain enterprise, so we have created a nexus to galvanize an "insurgency" which will cause them to swarm to Iraq rather than attack us at home. Sure, we're making enemies, but they are clearer enemies.
- Knowing full well the lesson of Vietnam, we understand that we can accept a low-level of troop casualties for quite some time.
- Knowing full well the lesson of Vietnam, we understand that we can shame people into obedience through fear and the need to "support our troops". Knowing full well the lesson of Vietnam the administration understands that it will be able to blame this failure on its political opponents for lack of courage in "staying the course".
- Knowing full well the lesson of Vietnam, we understand that exit strategy just means cutting and running. What's the big deal about that? There isn't any real nation-building going on, what we're really doing is destabilizing the region, the "Fuckemup Factor", which will absorb the attention of our muslim enemies for a long time. With any luck, they'll think they won.
- And they'll still want to sell us the oil.
1 comment:
Paul Scott said in an e-mail response:
It was a good post but there are distinct differences with Vietnam as well. But overall I don't have much to disagree with Steve. I would put more emphasis on the oil thing I suppose. I have said since the very first time I heard of the war being considered that it has only to do with preserving the flow of oil from the Middle East. The war wasn't just for Iraq oil, but for access to the entire region just in case those countries become serious about monolithic Arab fundlementalist nation. If not for our own huge appetite for oil, I'm sure the facade of doing this for the 'benefit' of the Iraqi people would have never been tried. We have found it very easy to ignore dictators and genocide in the poor African nations so I find it amazing that anyone would think 'saving' the nation of Iraq was ever a serious consideration.
The whole thing is a mystery to me, but even more disheartening is trying to find a workable exit strategy without leaving a new wave of genocide and massive civil war. Without adequate forces from the Iraqi people themselves this is a very tough situation. I tend to agree with McCain about the stakes in the war as of TODAY. I also like his support of the anti-torture measure as well as his generally practical approach to using the military.
The crap that Bush has been shoveling this weak about protest being anti-American and traitorous certainly sound very much like the era of the Vietnamese war. I'm a little put off about the use of Fascist, although this administration is the first in my lifetime that made me want to go out and get a military weapon and support gun ownership. (don't worry I haven't). The level of deceit and lake of transparency in this administration is phenomenal. I know that grassroots support of Bush does not see his action as fascist but as important to our national security. Personally I'm not as worried about government censorship as I am worried about the huge corporate databases that track our every tendency. Money is power in this nation, and in that way we differ in risk from countries like Italy or pre-War Germany - pure force is still not much of an option in this country.
Post a Comment