I do believe that Hell has frozen over

[averygoodun42]

Soooooo... Am I the only liberal in America who thinks that sending more troops into the quagmire is better than withdrawing completely? Seriously. I know that people are upset and think that this is going to be another Vietnam, which is quite possible, but the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that WE STARTED THIS FREAKING WAR!!! Vietnam we went in after fighting had started to try and get oil rights. With Iraq WE were the ones who went in and screwed everything up, so WE should be the ones to stay and clean up the mess. True, a good deal of Iraqis probably don't want us there, but to leave them on their own at this point would be... immoral.

The other difference between Iraq and Vietnam, so far, is that right now only soldiers are being sent over. I do have a problem with the National Guards' deployment, but even so, they signed up. They knew, or should have known when signing up, that they were saying that they would die for their country. Dying is always best avoided for as long as possible, but it is a known risk of the job.

Now, just to clear up any misconceptions - I thought at the time that invading Iraq was beyond stupid, and, depending on the reason, possibly Evil, and there was a good reason Papa Bush didn't even try to depose Saddam the first time round. That reason is pretty damn clear at this point. I think that the current Bush invaded without any thought of how to win the war (for real), and for that he should be mortally ashamed of himself.

I also think that executing Saddam was damn stupid, not only for the ethical question of government sanctioned murder, but, well, has anyone heard the term "martyr" for gods sake?!?!?!

But... I can't believe I'm about to write this, but kudos to President Bush for taking the decidedly less popular, and more responsible, path now.

However, if he changes his mind, he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has absolutely no redeeming qualities or merit as a "leader" and should step down immediately.

Of course, that would make Cheney president... *shudders*

/rant

:-)

ETA: I suppose I should say that we overtly started this war. Some claim that the CIA fostered the Vietnam war, but if so, that was covertly. Covertly starting a war makes a hell of a lot more sense because then you can pass the blame off on someone else when it goes awry. Not admirable, but more intelligent, politically speaking.

Comments

[zalena.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the correct course of action would be, but I can't see how more troops would be worse. The common argument is that it's seen as more aggressive. My biggest concern is that our troops are already stretched pretty thin. But no, you aren't alone as a liberal American with these opinions.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

I don't think there is a correct course of action at this point. The troops *are* stretched thin (I expect a reinstatment of the draft is in the books, though probably not within the Bush admin's time) and this war is horribly unpopular, not only with the American public, but the Iraqi public, and just about every country in world's public. The only people who could be glad about this are those who want to exploit our weakness. But, if we ditched Iraq, we could face some very serious consequences in the international arena. Our standing is pretty low as it is, but abandoning Iraq without making a really good effort (far more than we've done so far) could possibly draw a violent reaction from some who are in a position to gain, although more likely would be the loss of trading partners.

It's really a no win situation. We're going to go broke either way.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the whole point behind the war was to intentionally destabilize the region. Why, I'm not sure. From that point of view it's been a success.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

And that's where the Evil comes in to play. And yes, it's been an astounding success, if that's the case.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Am I the only liberal in America who thinks that sending more troops into the quagmire is better than withdrawing completely?

I doubt it. I don't quite agree, but I do think withdrawing completely is a bad idea.

It's more that I think sending more soldiers over when the ones we have are already horribly ill-equipped is not going to lead to good results.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it was good, just better. But, yes, although it is a soldier's job to die for his country if need be, then it follows that it is the country's responsibility to protect their soldiers as much as possible. I hate that so much of our economy goes toward the military, but... yeah.

No win situation, and pity the poor people who get to try cleaning up iin coming years.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

I don't know about better. I think they're pretty equally bad ideas, though for different reasons.

But yes, general agreement.

[mundungus42.livejournal.com]

From what I've heard, and I must admit that I haven't formed an opinion on the subject just yet, the objection is not to sending more troops instead of withdrawing, but rather that the troops that we send over will have precisely the same problems as our troops currently in Iraq because there will be no changes in overall strategy. Rather, we'd just be presenting more targets for IEDs and suicide bombers. I completely see your point, however, and I agree that more people will be necessary to do basic security steps, such as securing Iraq's borders.

I'm reminded of the school reform debate here in California, where the refrain "throwing more money at a broken system isn't going to raise test scores" has become standard. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I'd like to see a more comprehensive strategy change in Iraq, not just a surge in troop numbers.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understand that, and I agree with that - to a degree. We are definitely going about this war in the wrong way, but there's no hope of helping even a little bit if we don't have the forces necessary.

I'm not a terribly good strategist, so I really cannot see a way to make things better in Iraq without flushing this country down the toilet. Especially if we keep importing our values, i.e. poor education, corporate greed, vigilanteism and the like. :-\ But maybe there's some brilliant mind (or committee, although that seems an oxymoron to me) who can see a constructive path.

[keladry_lupin]

Papa Bush stayed out of the nation-building business. Very wise of him. I'm rather isolationist in some ways; I think we should make protecting our own interests and our own people the priority ... though President W says that's why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

Bleah.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Yes, very wise of him. In some ways I'm very isolationist as well. On this topic, that goes to include keeping the National Guard at home, where they can defend us. Baby Bush is lying whenever he says that. He just knows that if a lie is big enough...

Bleah, indeed.

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

Pardon me, but I'm really pretty sure that the Vietnam war originated in a desire not to allow the French colonial authorities to be replaced by communists. No? I know the French had left a few years before, but the post-colonial split was (yet another) obvious choice for a Cold War proxy battleground. (They do have oil, but very little, something like 1/20th of Iraq's proven reserves.)

I mostly wanted to comment, though, because I heartily agree with the "they signed up" argument and you're one of the few other people I've seen express it. The army tries not to expose its soldiers to unnecessary risks, but it never promised not to expose them to dangerous foreign service - I thought that was what one expected when joining the army?

(I'll have to beg to differ on some other things, particularly the relative wisdoms of invading Iraq in 2003 versus 1991 - I don't think they're the same at all - but that's another matter)

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Vietnam was just a mess from the getgo, but I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge about that war and its origins are pretty slim. The American excuse for entering that was that they owed the French a debt for their help against the British in the Revolution (big HA!) and so went in to help the French out. I'm sure you're right that it was more about the Cold War than anything.

But, we're supposed to do the killing, not the other way around! /snark

I do think that the triple tours have been harsh, especially with the lousy, lousy pay, though. Americans seem to forget that one of the reasons the Roman Empire was so successful for so long was that it made being a soldier a very desirable propsition (not that I really want us to emulate the Roman Empire, mind). But yes, they signed up for it despite the lousy pay and supposedly knowing the risks. On the other hand, everyone I've personally known who've been in this Military have ardently accused the Military (from recruiters on up) of lying through their teeth on just about everything. So, it's still not super clear cut, though mostly: "They signed up!"

Erm, did I compare the wisdoms of the different invasions? How they were enacted, yes. But as for the reasons, no. They're very different wars.

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

I'm reasonably sure that army sizes are self-leveling: Treat recruits badly, get fewer of them, try to make the army more appealing, get more recruits, let things slide, repeat indefinitely.

I don't, however, quite understand what there is to lie about. Join the army, get very-well-publicised low pay for very-well-publicised foreign danger. Who even needs to ask their recruiter? The deal is the same as it's been for the past three hundred years at least. If I were prepared to take orders and kill people I don't want to, I might even consider it.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were claiming that Papa Bush thought invading and deposing was a bad idea in 1991 and Bush Jr. should have come to the same conclusion in 2003. My disagreeement was that I think deposing Saddam in 1991 would have been a much better idea than it became later. Ne'er mind.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Yep.

Well, my brother got told that rising in the ranks would b a snap even though he wasn't a citizen. He's intelligent and worked hard, and found out after 6 months that he was ineligable. I don't know what the story was with my other friend, but probably that had as much to do with bad timing as lies.

Also, the States have, more or less, been at peace for so long (minor troop deployments aside) that I think it was a shock to those who signed up for college money to find out that they really are expected to kill people, and risk their lives in return. Not saying that's smart, but I think that's the case for a lot of them.

Ah, I see. Yes, I was saying that. I can see your point; it would have been easier to have deposed Saddam then, but politically it still wouldn't have been a good move. Besides the nationbuilding that would have been involved, I suspect Bush Sr. still had a use for Saddam being in power. He was probably one of the people involved in putting him in power in the first place, after all.

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

I thought Saddam's being in power in the first place was Britain's fault, not the US'? I'd better look that up.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it was Britain's fault (can't remember), but the US was kind enough to arm him. :-)