Good stuff, Fu.
Elvis Fu Wrote:
9/11 & Iraq aren't related. Even then.
Excellent point, and I agree. I still think Matt's critique of the Administration (and ad example) can still apply, though. Declaring war on terrorism and telling Americans to still lead normal, at-peace lives at the same time did nothing for the Afghanistan conflict.
Quote:
I don't believe [the problem in Vietnam] was media coverage, but I don't think it was helplessness either. I think it was three-fold.
• Most Americans can't find Vietnam on a map. (Just like Iraq.)
• Vietnamese people don't look like "Americans". (Europeans do. Japanese don't, but they decided to bomb us, so we had no choice. Iraqis don't.)
• The Draft.
There are still people out there who believe we could have won in Vietnam, and that we pulled up short and gave up. They are probably right, but what do you win? You get donkeys behind Curtain #1, #2 and #3.
...
The American people may be too emotional, but it is their sons & daughters that are being sent to die in the desert, not the sons & daughters of the elected officials. The elected officials & standing military work for us. And if we are sinking billions upon billions of our money to get our kids killed in this war, I think we are quite justified in giving up on this particular brand of New Coke.
This shifts the discussion from "winnable" to "worth winning." While they are often enmeshed when people talk about Iraq, they can be totally different conversations. Matt's post focuses on the former, and I read Saint's post as speaking to the former (but could easily speak to both). One of the main reasons I opposed the war because I didn't see the long-term benefit of it even with success. Apart from the fact that we're now already in it, I still don't. I never bought into the terrorism or WMD links.
Fiscal considerations are a valid point and something Matt only referenced indirectly ('where are the war bonds?'). Maybe the administration knew this was a hard enough sell that they figured a tax hike or any attempt at non-tax revenue generation would be a deal-breaker... or maybe they really thought it would be easier than this.
Yes, ideologically, a democratic government is meant to serve the people. It is the elected officials' responsibility to sell any military action as worth dying/paying for, and they've done a shitty job of it ever since 'Mission Accomplished.'
Quote:
Also, I take issue with the assumption that cutting & running will breed more disdain in the region. One of our biggest problems in the Middle East is that we prop up who we like and try to strike down who we don't. Hosni Mubarak has been President of Egypt for 25 years. Egypt has also been in an official State of Emergency for 25 years since Sadat was assassinated, and Mubarak replaced him. We also prop up the Saudis, who break out in a rash if you even whisper the word "democracy".
On the other hand, this year we had two Middle East democracies engage in conflict: Lebanon & Israel. The idea that democracies ensure against violent conflicts is bogus. And that's without even getting into the fucked up lines the Europeans drew that mixed up all sorts of opposition ethnic groups within new nations.
To me, staying in Iraq is not about promoting democracy. It is about accepting responsibility for our choices and honoring our commitments. I don't think propping up and striking down would be as much of a problem if said allies and enemies didn't keep changing at our convenience. Perhaps we're just not selective enough in choosing allies, and your Egypt example speaks to that. We supported Saddam against Iran, and the thing that troubles me most about Bush & Co. labeling him as evil was that I heard no acknowledgment that the prior alliance was a mistake or even short-sighted.
We support Afghanistan against Soviet invasion, then we fuck off. We encourage a Kurdish uprising against Saddam during the first Iraq war, then we leave them to get slaughtered once Saddam is out of Kuwait. In my eyes, leaving the region at this level of unstability is more of the same. We might get points for consistency, but I don't like it as long-term foreign policy. Then again, in this case, maybe individual lives are more important than national integrity.