Just wanted to make it clear where I stand.
I didn’t watch the president’s speech last night. I was pretty sure I knew what he was going to say and I had a leaking toilet to repair. Still after hearing and reading all sorts of repsonses to that speech I felt a need to put down here where I stand. I supported our going into Iraq and our remaining there until Iraqis can take responsibility for their own security.
Let me remind you that we are not in Iraq because of suspected weapons of mass destruction caches, we are there because Iraq was in violation of over a dozen UN security council resolutions. Yes, this administration drummed up support for the invasion by talking about Iraq having those weapons but the reason for going in was because Iraq was in violation of over a dozen UN security council resolutions. Yes, this administration has made numerous mistakes in executing this war but the reason we are there is because Iraq was in violation of over a dozen UN security council resolutions.
We went in there and tore up the country and dismantled their government so we are responsible for staying there until we clean up the mess. I am in full support of our troops and their current mission and I am in full support of the duly elected Iraqi government while they put together their constitution and prepare for their full term elections.
What I am not in support of is the continued excessive government spending on non-war related items, the lackadaisical control of our borders, our loss of privacy and other rights in the name of homeland security, the intursion into family right-to-die matters by our congress and this administration and the increasing influence of Christian Reconstructionist in our government.
To me Iraq is still righteous, though being administered in less than a highly competent manner. There are far more serious matters that we need to be spending time holding the administration accountable to than the war in Iraq. We also need to be holding the loyal oppositions responsible for not giving us a viable alternative to the Republicans.
Politics | Larry D. Burton | 29 June 2005 |
9 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Dan Lyke, 6/30/2005 @ 11:34 am
I agree with you that we need to be committed in Iraq until there’s a stable consensus government there. A pull-out isn’t feasible now, and probably won’t be for another five or six years. But the focus of the occupation needs to be on concensus building and ways to increase local autonomy. Part of that needs to be a strong statement at the highest levels that we’re willing to go out of our way to follow the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War in our foreign policy activities, and that we’re interested in instituting a fair and just legal system.
When the President asked “Is the sacrifice worth it?” in his recent speech (as I noted on my blog), I’ve got to admit that I’d be willing to accept more U.S. casualties if I felt that we were portraying to the world a shining example of instituting the rule of law in a nation formerly ruled by the whims of a few men. We’re not, and I believe that that’s not the fault of our troops on the ground, or even of our mid-level military command, but of the tenor set at the highest levels, where giggling over “extraordinary rendition” is the norm.
The “in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions” argument comes across to me as a total red herring. If that were the case we’d have B52s over Israel, and Morocco and Turkey wouldn’t be far behind. When I try to build a model that makes sense based on the U.N. Security Council resolutions I keep coming up short.
So I’m not sure that the invasion of Iraq is still righteous. In fact, I think it began as something that wasn’t. It could yet become so, but we have to start holding our leadership accountable to righteous ideals, like truth, before that can happen.
By Larry D. Burton, 7/1/2005 @ 4:47 pm
While I’m sure I will get beat up by someone for saying this but arguing about whether the invasion was righteous or not, at this point in the future looking back, really is counterproductive. The invasion happened and that fact will not change. I just wanted people to understand where I stood. Dicussing the merits of remaining in Iraq until order is restored or cutting our losses and heading home are a little more productive but in the long run we are going to stay at least until we are asked to leave.
The main reasons for my post was not to discuss Iraq, but to address the other areas where I do not support this administration. Those areas, especially now that Justice O’Conner has announced her retirement, are the areas where productive discourse can be had.
There’s more to the Bush administration to discuss than Iraq.
By m, 7/2/2005 @ 8:21 am
It is not just a question of cutting our losses, but cutting Iraq’s losses. We have broken something that we can not fix any more than we could have fixed Vietnam.
The only thing we have accomplished in the last year in Iraq is more death and more devastation. There MIGHT have been a small working window of time immediately after the end of the invasion. But that opportunity has been lost to incompetence, a lack of planning, and an administration that takes the wrong road at every turn. An administration whose statements, promises and forecasts can not be believed
Iraqi deaths are up. US deaths are up. Basic utilities like water and electricity are less stable. Unemployment is running at 40%. An installed Iraqi government based on puppets, conmen and thieves like Chilabi. None of these show any promise for the future but more pain.
One possiblity would have been step out of the picture, and bring in the UN. But our control of the UN makes it look like a puppet. Iraq is already poisoned against the UN.
There are no other viable alternatives. We can prolong the suffering by trying to fix this. I am talking about Iraqi suffering. They are doing the majority of the dying. Going without food, water, electricity and dying.
Perhaps if we learn to accept that our nation can not fix everything in the world by wishing it so, then something of worth will come out of Iraq. If, as a nation, we can truly look at and accept what we have done, then perhaps there will be no more Iraqs. That is the most that can come out of this horror that we have made.
If you think that this can be fixed by a source external to Iraq, then please help me by enumerating the successful long term occupations against popular insurgencies in the last century.
By Larry D. Burton, 7/2/2005 @ 10:59 am
M., I can’t. But I also don’t believe this is a popular insurgency.
By m, 7/2/2005 @ 12:34 pm
The insurgencies, because their are many factions, may not have been popular, but they are certainly gaining in popularity. They are stronger, and more capable today than they were a year ago.
Our administration continues to lie about the strength of the Iraqi police/military. Claims of 200,000 trained and committed men are ridiculous. US officers in the field repeatedly state that they are inadequate, and that their loyalties are more than questionable.
Iraq didn’t exist as a nation until around 1920. It was cobbled together and only tenously held as one by force. It has chasm like religious and historical divisions between the Kurds, the Shi’ites, the Sunnis and others.
It is folly for us to believe that we can occupy Iraq until it is self supporting. The only way Iraq will unify, is by fighting against us.
By topspin, 7/3/2005 @ 9:53 am
I have to agree with m. Iraq IS a relatively new country and has ALWAYS been a tough mix of Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurds. I would wager the ONLY nationalistic issue which a majority of Iraqis would agree on is the question of Turkey trying to annex/control the north, and I’m not 100% sure of that!
Eventually, the various factions of Iraqis WILL see us as a common enemy and galvanize against the U.S. and the “insurgency” will be worse. Once we HAVE left, there will STILL be a massive civil war in Iraq.
The question becomes: What is best for U.S.?
Do we indulge in another Vietnam style “grind” against an enemy which shakes our hand during the day and slits our throat at night? Was that productive for America?
Do we cut our troop losses, pick a dictator for Iraq and covertly support/arm him, and try to live with the results? Is that productive for America?
Righteousness? Give me a break. Does that ACTUALLY matter? HAS that mattered since…. I dunno…. since Hitler bought it in a bunker in Berlin?
What we’re looking for is a decent compromise of abject treachery and common goodness. We’re looking for something which will leave the least people dead, the most people happy, and be stable for a few years.
Righteousness…. lies moldering in the grave.
By m, 7/3/2005 @ 11:00 am
War crimes trials for the “victor” would resurrect a significant amount of righteousness.
This war was a series of violations of the US supported Nuremberg dicta, the UN charter, the 1996 War Crimes Act and even the very law passed just as the legal cover for this war.
We can put an end to these foreign misadventures by instituting trials of Bush, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al for crimes against humanity and crimes against the United States.
To make Iraq the last of our aggresive wars is to salvage the only good that can possibly come from it.
By Larry D. Burton, 7/4/2005 @ 11:52 am
I can understand your arguments but cutting and running is not an option I could ever support. I’ve talked to too many S. Vietnamese who had to take extrordinary means to leave that country after our abrupt pull out to want us to do that to another country.
With a Republican controlled congress any ideas of putting Bush, et. al. on trial is mere fantasy. In spite of all the rhetoric about war crimes and all, even if there were a trial I think the evidence required for any type of conviction is non-existant.
Still, regardless of what any of us want, we aren’t leaving Iraq anytime soon. With that being the case, and with a Supreme Court Justice about to be nominated, I think there are a number of other issues we need to be concentrating on. Issues all of us commenting here so far can agree on.
By topspin, 7/6/2005 @ 3:20 pm
While I’ll agree the Supreme Court nominee could have a major impact on America’s future, I abhor the thought of glossing over Iraq simply because “we aren’t leaving anytime soon.”
It’s true, we’re not at the stage where I’d wanna scream something akin to “Hey, Hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?” in front of the Whitehouse, but this war is a quagmire, a money-pit, a canker-sore on our international lip, and….. MOST DISGUSTING…. it is like Vietnam in ‘65…. being portrayed as “something we need to do” or “the tough, but right choice.”
It needs to be labelled what it is: One of the biggest and gravest mistakes our country has ever made.
Having said that, yes….. I know we’ll be in Iraq for several more years and I can accept that as the sad, but realistic truth. Can I accept it quietly? Possibly, but I’m trying to suppress the urge to hit the sidewalk outside with “Mr. Bush, I want to know. How many die before we go?”