I hear from all of these people about the “war for oil” – however no one has addressed my counterpoint to this: If the US were ONLY interested in oil, why wouldn’t we pull our troops into the oilfields and protect them from attack and let the rest of Iraq go down the toilet at the hands of the insurgents? To a ‘classic conservative’, this should be the logical move to obtain our objective (the oil).

We approached WWII cautiously? We were forced into WWII after Pearl Harbor. To his credit, FDR wanted us to enter the war much earlier, but pacifist liberals in Congress wanted us to be isolationists. Similarly, in Europe, England and France did not want to fight Hitler, but rather followed a policy of appeasement (similar to the policies that present-day liberals want us to take with Islamic extremists). “We have achieved peace in our time” – Neville Chamberlain. During this appeasement phase, Hitler advanced his V-1 and V-2 programs, his nuclear program (without ever procuring enough fissile material, thank God), and his jet propulsion program. Technologically, Germany was decades ahead of us from a rocket standpoint, would have beaten us from a nuclear standpoint except for a couple of lucky breaks, and way ahead of the world in jet propulsion. If more factories and experienced German pilots were available when the ME-262 was introduced, the European theater would have progressed along a much different path.

Iraqi civilians killing our soldiers? Besides George Soros, is there anyone who truly believes that a good, clean-cut Iraqi family is forced to take up arms to protect their country? That makes no sense, since they would have no say in government WITHOUT our intervention. I love how the opponents of the war paint this picture of a beautiful utopia in the ‘cradle of civilization’. I read an article once about the Iraqi national soccer team who played Iran to a 1-1 tie in the mid-90’s. Please recall that Uday Hussein (whom rep. Rangel affectionately referred to as one of ‘those kids’) was in charge of the Iraqi Olympic program. Uday was so enraged by this disgrace of tying that he ordered the team to be beaten until the team members had open wounds all over their bodies, then Uday ordered the team members thrown into vats of raw sewage. His intent was that their wounds would become infected and that they would die when refused treatment. Yep, I can see why Iraqi civilians would want to return to those good ‘ol days… Let’s not even start with the political executions committed by Saddam.

I find it comical to look at the American rebellion as “a change in the ideals of the people who inhabit the land as to how they should be told to live their lives.” I can’t even begin to get into everything that is wrong with that statement – please read the Declaration of Independence and show me how the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can be twisted into being told how to live. The rebellion was fought AGAINST tyranny, not to replace tyranny with new tyranny. This is why the founding fathers abhorred democracy. “I do not wish to trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away.” Democracy was viewed as a tyranny of the majority, or ‘mob rule’, or mobocracy. Democracy is PRECISELY the source of the problems that we are seeing with Iraq today. Had we had been more emphatic in “imposing our tradition upon them”, Iraq would be a REPUBLIC (as we are) where Sunni, Shiite and Kurds would be guaranteed governmental representation. Instead, each sect feels like the other two will oppress it, making the new democratic government not to their benefit.

Now as to your misinterpretation of my comments, I cannot think of one instance in which the United States has TARGETED civilians in a war, and I never stated that. I did point out that civilian deaths occur in every war (I am a realist). The closest instance that I can think of in this sense would be the bombing of Tokyo. Napalm was newly invented, and was dropped on the wood and paper homes incinerating that city as well as many others. The targets were not the estimated 1 million civilians that perished, but the factories that were built in civilian areas and perpetuated the Japanese war machine. Similarly, during the bombing of Hamburg (where a major ball bearing factory was located), fires raged so intently that a 140 mph wind was created from the inferno’s updraft. I am not so naïve to believe that no civilians were killed, however this is a war. It’s going to happen no matter how much we may not want it to. Do you think that, in the bombing of Bosnia and Iraq, the cruise missile strikes in Iraq and Pakistan, Bill Clinton was so far superior of a Commander-In-Chief that he was able to order these unilateral strikes without causing a single civilian death? Some other nations targeted civilians in times of war, not the United States. This is nothing new – just recount wars throughout history. To the victors belong the spoils. I’m not saying that to be crass, but look at how the Vikings attacked, or Kublai Khan, or Cortez, or in a more modern sense, the Japanese ‘Rape of China’ in the late 1930’s or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970’s. There are countless other instances as well.

Likewise, I hope that anyone who read my contention about ‘if the Axis had prevailed’ understands that I meant a RELATIVE period of peace – as in, the Axis would not fight each other immediately. Would the world TRULY be at peace, where there were NO conflicts anywhere on the globe, and not a single person or race was oppressed? Of course not. That ideal has never existed in recorded history, and it probably never will exist. The Jews have been oppressed and hated by races for over 5,000 years. As much as we’d like to see the Olmert and Ahmadinijad hold hands and sing kumbaya, it’s not going to happen. My mother’s mother was Polish. I know about the oppression of the Nazis, how the Polish people bravely fought the advancing Panzer tanks on horseback, and how the Polish people were oppressed further by the Soviets post-WW2. Please do not imply that I turn a blind eye to Jewish oppression the way that liberals turned a blind eye to Iraqi oppression.

As far as the Cold War is concerned, Khrushchev and Breshnev considered the 24-hour patrolling of the Arctic by our nuclear-armed B-52’s as a ‘dagger to their throat’. Yes, the Cold War was primarily focused on deterring the use of nuclear arms, but the deterrent was the constant threat of use: Mutually Assured Destruction. I had the honor of hearing the magnificent lady Margaret Thatcher speak many years ago. (For those of you who view Hillary as the ‘smartest woman on the planet’ read some of Thatcher’s speeches sometime – there is NO comparison). Prime Minister Thatcher may not be as intelligent as you purport yourself to be, but she was a central figure in the Cold War. She stated that our victory over the Soviets was explicitly linked to SDI – even though we never completed the missile defense shield, the Soviet Union knew that we could, and once that happened their threat would be gone or significantly reduced. In this situation, they could not compete.

It is true that, unlike typical wars, we did not directly engage the Soviets. However, can you really not see their hands in Korea and Vietnam? Or ignore our funding and arming of the Afghani resistance? Did you not make that connection of the round about way of engaging each other without bearing arms against each other? A world war is a war with global consequences. Instead of England fighting the rebellion, or the United States against England or Spain, or even Iraq against Iran, the war is not over a border and is not contained. The outcome of the war has global implications. WWI and WWII are very clearly wars where the outcome determines the direction of the world. I would contend that the Cold War had global influence as well. Imagine if the Soviet Union had not collapsed under our influence… I would put the current war on terror in this category. Unfortunately for you, even though I am clearly your intellectual inferior by your own statements, the radical Muslims would kill me with as much fervor as they would kill a self-proclaimed intellectual giant like yourself – and trying to give them a great big hug wouldn’t make a lick of difference.

If this makes me a neo-con, then I guess I need a new remark on my driver’s license.

Neo-Con… OUT!

“We, as Americans and as human beings, are morally responsible for the atrocities that we have committed by entering Iraq.” — K.GMulhern

That’s a good start, but now you’re infringing on my right to be presumed innocent. How about if you start with that whole lump of clay and divide it, and set some aside: first those who didn’t vote for Bush (even if they did join the military overseas); then those who didn’t support the war (yay, you’re safe) — also even if they did join the military overseas (it’s part of signing up, you have to obey orders); and of what remains, you have bloodthirsty civilians and actual soldiers. I’d say out of those soldiers, you can absolutely divide-out those who faced disciplinary measures for failing to obey orders, and of what remains “in” (the original lump), I think you’d be far more correct in placing this guilt on them. But please, don’t lump me in just because I’m American — try harder for my sake (and your own, citizen) by protecting at least the presumption of innocence.

Furthermore, Kate Granholmmulhern, I don’t think you’re all that liberal. Modern media have overuse the terms “liberal” and “conservative” so much that it’s become catch-all, and that’s not the intention of forming words, for them to become hyperrealized (overused to the point of becoming void of meaning). And modern media’s use of these terms more closely resembles the dividers on a tennis court than any political sensibility. Philosophically I think you are liberal: you would “tweak” your view (a bit) in order to support a group you see as most fit. But politically, you’re a classic conservative. Well, or you’re trying to be, but just haven’t had time to justify so many things logically. And in any case, when you argue with a neo-con (different than a classic conservative, by far) you are going to be told again and again (probably by allies and opponents alike) that you’re a well-defined “liberal”. That doesn’t make it true, but that’s the name-game (sticks and stones, yada yada…)

You said that a conservative would not admit that our Iraq skirmish is over Oil. However, a classic conservative would have to admit that, as it is so apparent and has been from the beginning. A neocon would deny it to the fullest. A classic liberal … would be on and on about ideals and utopian dreams and so on, and using bumpersticker sloganism (as you mentioned you’re not apt to do). As a classic conservative, however, you pointed out what’s obvious and presented a logical conclusion. Just an example of how conservative you actually are. Typically, I find it’s true, liberals need leadership and classic conservatives exude it.

I think your analogy between colonial America and modern Iraq fell apart just a little bit, but only grammatically. What you were saying is: there was the New World (unclaimed); the discovery (for Spain); the settlement (international); the colonisation (English); and then the rebellion (American); and that the rebellion signifies a change in the ideals of the people who inhabit the land as to how they should be told to live their lives. Whereas in Iraq, we have a decently sized slice of the cradle of civilization, old as the hill, and a foreign country comes along to violently impose its tradition upon them. However, the nearest analogy between what’s happening in Iraq and what happened in our war for independence (and this is why I agree with you and could see your analogy for what it was) would be to say that Iraqi civilians are killing our soldiers, which is basically what’s happening. And you meant to offer some insight as to perhaps why, and you used our shared national history to illustrate, so kudos.

Now some things Luke said intrigue me. The commentary feature in Dan’s blog here doesn’t allow nested comments below a certain point, and most of what I’m responding to lies upon that threshold. So I’ll make a mixed response, here, and all what’s below is addressed directly to Luke (oh, and I agree with your view that the war on terrorism can only be won through Intelligence):

“This is a war that we do not wish to fight, but we MUST fight… and in fighting a war, civilian casualties will occur.” — Luke

I find it puzzling that your idea of war necessarily implies the loss of innocent life. I bet you and I share a similar distaste for international standards of wartime conduct, though for probably different reasons: I don’t think you should necessarily have to wait to be fired upon first before firing on an obvious opponent, for example. It completely destroys decisive and victorious tactical precision (where do we place the fraction of a human life lost to probable outcomes, on the arm? The leg? The heart?) However, I doubt your real sense of strategy. Can you name which war America was involved in, wherein it was strategic to kill innocent people? And I’ll preempt the most obvious citations from Vietnam by stating plainly that a child firing an automatic weapon at you (and the many other obvious heart-tugging examples) is not an “innocent” casualty.

“The Axis would have conquered the world, there would have been a brief period of peace…” — Luke

You know, even the Italian arm of the Axis didn’t stand up against the slaughter of Jews? I won’t ask you to allow me to ask you to think like a Jew, I can’t do it, I won’t, no. But I will ask you this, had your mother’s mother’s mother been Jewish during WW2, would you have assumed that an Axis victory would have been followed by “a brief period of peace”?

“I would define winning as killing more of the enemy than they are killing of us…” — Luke

So… in your strategic opinion, if you have 300 men who manage to kill 20,000 of the enemy (a grand display of strategy), and your opponent’s 150,000 men manage to kill only 299, who has won?

“Even Osama Bin Laden calls the Iraq war ‘the Third World War’. Personally, I think of it as the Fourth World War (the Cold War being the Third). ” — Luke

I think it’s very interesting when people are frenzied by the novelty of a war being a “World War”. I assume that World War 2000-XS will not require so much propaganda to market, considering how people respond so positively to any new twists on the moniker, obviated by their being apparently enthralled by simple incrementations by one. I wish I was a World War moniker hobbyist, like yourself, but then we may have ended up with far too similar political viewpoints and the activity would have lost its unique point.

As it is I far too value my informed (and intelligent) opinion on the Cold War: it wasn’t a War, unless you consider competitively shoring up the value of commodified information to be warlike. This extends from a larger (albeit Amero-centric) perspective beginning with the first World War, and informs my view on the use of “World War” overall. See, America was politically isolationist before both WWI and WWII, and as has been pointed out in other commentary herein, we “came out” to fight the second war quite cautiously, and guardedly. The end of WWII gives full context to the nature of “The Cold War”: the strategic use of nuclear weapons. However, therein we find the content of war itself (as an ideal) has changed dramatically, now involving potential worldwide apocalypse engineered by nowhere near the number of hands previously required, and the formation of large, smoking craters.

Global, thermonuclear war as a reality became perhaps the first implementation of war that was seen as something to be deterred. We could have argued that biological warfare was first in contempt, but unlike nuclear weapons, germs have been used in battle since the black plague. So, in actuality, the “Cold War” as it is erroneously (alas) called, was about deterring the future use of nuclear weapons (though this conclusion takes some information and intelligence to reach, as counterintuitively, the proliferation of nuclear weapons during this time period seems extraordinary). The fact of the matter was that for the first time, the construction and armament of a weapon could deter like consecutive measures –without requiring the actual threat of use (during the Cold War, it was considered clumsy to actually directly threaten your enemy with use, rather, theatrical targets were selected and various plans and measures were drawn up as to theoretical use, and intelligence was gathered on these plans and used to form newer plans). So, as this period of strategy and implementation was antithetical to anything like “war”, it cannot properly be called “The Cold War”. Nor can it be considered World War Three, as the entire international operation was purposefully about preventing World War Three from ever occuring, as it would obviously destroy all of civilization (and probably all human life on earth).

So, as of “The Cold War” (read: The Strategic Nuclear Armament, or absurdly, “The Nuclear Arms Race”), the moniker “World War Three” has already found use, and it has obviously not yet occured.

Though I find it interesting that you justify your use of speech with the words of Osama Bin Laden. I believe that has been the neocon strategy since 9-11.

World domination is still world domination - whether the goal is to have a nazi flag flying throughout the world, or having three billion women in burkhas, going to mosques and praying to allah 5 times per day. The enemy wants to conquer us. The nazis wanted to impose their government around the globe, the Islamic radicals want to impose their religion around the globe. I’m at a loss as to how you cannot make that connection, and see and see how each enemy goal is equally dangerous. The fact that these terrorists see themselves as devoted to Islam with no allegiance to a particular country makes them more difficult to fight, as it is difficult to identify the enemy. Kate and Dan, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?? If your argument is that we are angering terrorists now that we are engaging them militarily, by that logic there should have never been a 9/11 or a USS Cole bombing since we were not fighting them at that time. Bin Laden declared war on the US in the early 1990’s, we simply dismissed him as a nutjob. Now we are fighting him and other like-minded individuals.

Kate, I do not buy your contention that Iraqi civilians are so upset with the US that they are taking up arms against our soldiers. The department of defense website defendamerica.gov - a government entity, and I know how much you good liberals loooove government =), does not reflect that assumption. There is progress being made in Iraq (progress being defined as a reduction in violence). Even your own good liberal leaders in DC had to admit that “the surge appears to be working”. And as for us killing more of the enemy (what I believe this war is about) I have no doubt that the US forces have exceeded by far the number of enemy dead in comparison to US troops. In Fallujah alone, 95 wonderful american soldiers, who were better men than I could ever hope to be, gave their lives devastating 95 families over here in the States. I grieve and pray for every one of them, and wish that we could live in a world of peace and harmony. However, 1,350 insurgents were killed in that same battle, as well as over 1,500 captured. That’s just one battle. I would call that a victory for the Allied forces, wouldn’t you? Dan brings up a great point about how we won battles in WWII even though we suffered more casualties than the enemy. I know it’s going to seem like I’m picking and choosing here, but that is one major difference in WWII and Iraq. If you will re-read my posts, I do not think that I said that the wars ARE the same, but they are analogous in that: world domination is our enemy’s goal, and that the IMPORTANCE of our victory is the same. In WWII, sacrificing 7,000 troops to gain a beachhead WAS considered victory, as we were pushing the Germans or Japanese off of land that they had previously occupied - and the goal of that war (from our standpoint) was to drive the enemy off of land that they had claimed. We are all in complete agreement that our enemy in this war does not occupy a particular country, rather they travel throughout many nations, but they are still our enemy. Our choices are to engage them militarily in an attempt to kill them, or sit back and allow them to plot and kill us. I don’t mean to be so blunt about this, but they have proven this time and again.

As far as not finding bin Laden is concerned, we never actually found Hitler’s body (or at least there is no proof of the Russian contention that they found his cremated remains) but there is no doubt of an Allied victory in WWII. Hell, teams of searchers working for about a month cannot find Steve Fossett OR his plane in the southwest of OUR OWN COUNTRY - and this is supposed to be out in the open in a non-war zone. Imagine if he were trying to hide in an elaborate cave system…

No counterpoint was made to my contention that the first Gulf War had resulted in a cease-fire rather than a peace treaty, and that multiple violations of that agreement by Saddam were ample justification to return to military action. I believe that the UN was more concerned with their own financial interests rather than doing the right thing, and they were exhibiting the same pre-9/11 mentality that Dan is stating… in the words of Rodney King “Can’t we all get along”. In a perfect utopia this is the ideal, however there is no way that we can be friends with people who want us dead. I cannot stress that point strongly enough. They do not want us dead because we are in Iraq, or Afghanistan or have bases in Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Korea or any of 100+ nations that we have troops stationed - they want us to die BECAUSE WE EXIST.

Kate, I hope that you didn’t think through your depiction of the American Revolution, because if this is truly your perception of the Revolution, you need to re-learn about it. The US was NOT unclaimed territory, rather the present day USA was divided among England, France, and Spain. These nations fought each other for their claims here (The French and Indian War) using indians and colonists to achieve their objectives. We fought for separation from England governmentally, not for territory. In fact, if you read the Declaration of Independence (adopted 15 months AFTER the revolutionary war began) you will not find one reference to religious freedom amongst the list of King George’s “…repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States…”. Taking such a narrow view of the American Revolution is sort of like saying that the Civil War was fought over slavery - there is much more to it than that oversimplification. An Iraqi revolution could not take place in the same manner as our revolution as Saddam made it clear that he would kill anyone with an inkling of thoughts to overthrow him. Have you seen the video of Saddam coming to power from 1979? He is in a sort of assembly hall with all high-ranking Iraqi officials, and he has a list read of individuals whom he suspected of trying to undermine him. As each name is read, soldiers escort that individual out of the room and execute him, as Saddam laughs and smokes a cigar. He made it clear that no one was to question him (ironically, he kept getting re-elected with 99% of the vote - I often wonder about that 1% who did not vote for him…). As you can see here, since your vision for the world is peace, and my vision for the world is peace, one can easily conclude that, among the free exchange of ideas the ultimate goal is the betterment of the people as a whole. However, in a dictatorship where dissention is stifled, the goal is the preservation of the dictatorship whether or not it benefits the people, and the people cannot say boo about it. This is why I believe that we chose to engage Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Once peace is eventually established and Iraq can defend itself as a sovereign nation with free political discourse, the country’s actions will be for the betterment of the people as well, rather than for the preservation of an individual’s power. When this occurs, it will be an example for other oppressed nations to look to and long to be like. Al-Qaeda can only survive in an environment where others are told how to think, because if people start thinking on their own thoughts like: “If allah wants all of these people dead, and he is supremely powerful, why wouldn’t he plague non-muslims with natural disasters and eradicate them from earth so that it is populated with only muslims?” Or, “Rather than punishing non-believers, why don’t I enjoy this life that allah has given me, express to non-believers my religious views, and let allah punish them as he sees fit when they come before him at judgment”. If people have the freedom to think and believe on their own, they would not choose the path that Al-Qaeda is on.

As for why we haven’t intervened in other world atrocities, I cannot answer that. I feel certain that we would militarily intervene in Darfur if not for the fact that the stakes in Iraq and Afghanistan are higher for the world as a whole, and that the constant drumbeat of liberals around the world would intensify the cry of “American Imperialism” if we were to send troops there. Also, the anti-war left in this country would not stomach the loss of life intervention in Darfur would entail. I believe that Clinton ignored doing the right thing in Rwanda because it would necessitate ground troops dying, and he did not want that negativity to surround him. I’m not trying to belittle the previous president, or prop up this one, but it seems to me that Clinton acted in a manner that was most beneficial to himself and his poll numbers (examples: instead of engaging the enemy on the ground in Bosnia, Iraq or Pakistan which would have resulted in the loss of American troops, he chose high-altitude bombing or cruise missile strikes) - Bush acts in a manner that he believes is right for the nation without regard to his legacy, his poll numbers or even his own political party. Which one is leading with his best self? Please do not pose the ridiculous “oil” argument. Let us assume this presupposition that oil is the purpose of the Iraq war. Wouldn’t our troops retreat to surrounding the oil supply and allow the rest of the nation to be overrun by insurgents? After all, we would have our objective.

As for the financial aspect, I’m skeptical about the ‘cost of war’ website for the following reasons - 1) who is this ‘National Priorities Project’ and what is the source for their numbers? 2) How are they allocating their estimation of the war costs among individual states? 3) If we take the amount of defense spending from 2000 (a good base line since that is the last year of Clinton and the US is not at war) and subtract that amount from 2003-2006 defense spending (2007 numbers not on the congressional budget office website yet) we yield 692.7 billion dollars of additional defense spending. That amount not only is for the Iraq war, but also military pay increases, Afghanistan and all increased military and homeland spending associated with a post-9/11 USA… are we to assume that all other increases in defense spending only account for 1/3 of the defense budget increase and the rest is devoted to Iraq?? That does not pass the smell test. Also, if we accept that this war is as important as WWII (as I most certainly do) the expense of the Iraq war as related to GDP and Tax Revenue is miniscule in comparison to that of WWII. Let us not ignore our moral duty out of the necessity to retain dollars, if so, we are putting a price on doing the right thing.

The sooner that people understand that this is not “my hero George W. Bush’s war” and that it is OUR war as they [our collective enemy – Islamic radicals] want to eradicate all non-muslims from the face of the earth. As far as acting in Iraq is concerned, I found an excellent example of our rationale in a speech delivered on the floor of the Senate years ago:

“While our actions should be thoughtfully
and carefully determined and
structured, while we should always
seek to use peaceful and diplomatic
means to resolve serious problems before
resorting to force, and while we
should always seek to take significant
international actions on a multilateral
rather than a unilateral basis whenever
that is possible, if in the final analysis
we face what we truly believe to be a
grave threat to the well-being of our
Nation or the entire world and it cannot
be removed peacefully, we must
have the courage to do what we believe
is right and wise.
I believe this is such a situation, Mr.
President. It is a time for resolve. Tomorrow
we must make that clear to
the Security Council and to the world.”

That is the conclusion of a speech titled ‘We Must Be Firm With Saddam Hussein” delivered by John Kerry on November 9, 1997. Don’t believe me? I copied it verbatim from the Congressional Record - you can find it by going to the Congressional Record website, and searching for 1997+Saddam+Kerry. He makes a strong argument for unilateral action if the UN fails to act, doesn’t he?? And this website is a record of what is spoken on the floor of congress. It is not influenced by outside opinion as organizations calling themselves the “National Priorities Project” or “moveon.org” or “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or any other groups with political leanings are.

I love the discussion, but I need to get back to work - there’s new taxes that I have to pay for =)

All the best,
Luke

If the ideas that I am “ignoring” or “dismissing” are yours, you are very wrong indeed; after fully reading every word of each of your posts, in some cases more than once, I stand rooted much more firmly to my very proudly liberal position.

First, I would like to echo my dad’s point about the absolute disanalogy between WWII and the war we are currently in. As you brought up new reasons to compare them, I would like to bring into light new reasons to contrast those very reasons you compared.
(1) The fact that Muslim extremists and the Axis powers had the same ultimate goal (which wasn’t even the same, as you pointed out, one was political and the other is religious, which in itself is an enormous difference) in no way makes them equal enough to compare them fairly. The difference is how they go about achieving those goals. Terrorists operate using very well-planned “sneak-attacks.” The Nazis and their allies marched through countries and battled until they conquered. This brings me to my second point,
(2) BECAUSE we are fighting a COMPLETELY different enemy, we need to consider all of our options before jumping into the “last resort” of war. Very few people will disagree with your analysis of the extremist Muslim faith, but terrorists will not be “drawn onto the battlefield.” The people that will be drawn onto the battlefield will be the citizens of Iraq that no longer want us occupying their country. Are they our enemy? Because if they are, then surely you are correct in your assertion that we have killed more of the enemy than they have killed of our soldiers. But to say that we have killed more than 3,800 TERRORISTS?

You said that we were justified for entering Iraq. I think an incredibly large portion of the country would join me in asking, What was that justification?? The UN did not join us because we had none.

And as to the UN, you listed a series of atrocities (if I may use the word) that have happened or are happening throughout the world where the UN did “NOTHING.” Well, why didn’t we charge in without them in those situations? Surely the slaughtering is worthy of our attention? Or only if the slaughtering occurs on US soil are the victims worthy of our attention? We did not enter Iraq to help the Iraqis in any way.
But, you may argue, we have helped them! We are stabilizing their government so that it may run functionally, (”the ends justifying the means” is just so absurdly present here and I hope for your sake that you do not agree with those politics) with the US as it’s model.

Well, there, I find another problem with your analogy. JUST because the Iraqi government is developing, absolutely does not mean that it is following any kind of model created by the US. There are SO many dissimilarities, but here is what I find to be the most important:
The US was unclaimed territory that England wanted to keep its stakes in. The United States was fighting for (religious) independence, and unless you wish to argue that we, the United States, are now trying to claim territory on Middle Eastern Oil –which, as a conservative, I surely doubt you are willing to do– it cannot be disputed that Iraq was not unsettled territory whose settlers want democracy. It was an established nation (albeit not very well established, in “our” eyes) that had very few ties, other than geographical, with the organization we are “at war with.”

The only way to win the war on terrorism is through intelligence. We should remove troops from Iraq (of course, as safely and securely as possible, without taking 2 steps back) and put the funding that would have gone into next year’s battling into the tracking down of Al Qaeda members.

And personally, I would never chose my political stance based on a quote from anyone. I’d rather understand the issues and make “my own decision.”

Kate

I am confident that I read the Churchill comment many years ago in a biography - I will try to locate it, but it may be difficult as it was a book in my High School library. The quote stuck with me - similar to how a woman accused him of being drunk and his response was “Yes, madam, and you are ugly. But tomorrow, I will be sober.” Churchill was very quick with wit, and I could easily envision him saying the Liberal/Conservative quote, especially since he was on both sides at different points in his life. I will attempt to find my source… but I see the quote on the Churchill Centre as you stated. Originally, I did not read it with the ages of 25 and 35, rather the way I had remembered it was ‘child’ and ‘adult’. My attribution of that quote was not to ’seal the deal’ simply that it appears that your daughter is intelligent enough that she will not remain a liberal forever, provided she considers multiple viewpoints before making up her own mind about issues. I was not trying to influence or advise Kate, but I think she is ignoring or dismissing a lot of opposing ideas at this point in her life. It is similar to the reason that I listen to you - I find it entertaining to listen to your viewpoints even though we are completely opposed ideologically. I think to myself ‘could he be right?’ then I hold a brief mental debate, and generally side against you.

In WWII, I don’t think that anyone will counter that the goal of the axis was world domination - Politically. Let’s face it - Had the Germans further developed the ME-262 as well as advanced their own nuclear program (as attested to by Oppenheimer and Einstein) the axis would have conquered the world, there would have been a brief period of peace, then the axis powers would have declared war on each other, most likely with the Nazis winning as they had the most advanced technology, ushering in Hitler’s dream of a ‘Thousand Year Reich’. Well, the goal of radical Islam (not to be confused with the 90% of Muslims who are peace oriented) is WORLD DOMINATION - religiously. Dan, they believe that you and I, as Catholics, not believing in the “prophet Muhammad” should be slaughtered - and that Allah will reward them in the afterlife for doing so. I see this war as being AS important if not MORE important than WWII. You make an excellent point about the enemy NOT belonging to a particular country. In Iraq, we are fighting INSURGENTS from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. We are not fighting a uniformed army (side note, the third Geneva convention concerning POW’s applies to soldiers “having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” fighting for a country). In a war, I would define winning as killing more of the enemy than the enemy is killing of us, and our troops are doing just that. I am not trying to be callous with that statement - I realize that every soldier has a family that is devastated by this war, but what is our option? Do we sit back, wait for the next terrorist attack, and then counter it? Or do we try to draw out the enemy onto a battlefield where the best of the best Americans have volunteered to fight them? I woke up this morning thinking of ways to make my life and the lives of my family members better, and I’m sure that you did the same - there exist an estimated 10 to 50 million people (Muslim extremists) who woke up this morning trying to think of ways to kill you and I and our families simply because we do not worship as they do. That is the fact of the matter. The Japanese effectively instilled into their population that the Emperor was god, and that the Chinese were ‘yellow devils’ and the allies were ‘white devils’. This mindset led to the invasion of Manchuria where Japanese soldiers would play a game by tossing babies in the air and catching them on bayonets, and Japanese soldiers eating our prisoners as the war in the pacific was winding down. The Nazis instilled into their population that the Jews were less than human. This mindset let to the death camps. Radical Muslims believe that non-Muslims are infidels and that they are carrying out Allah’s will by killing us. This mindset led to 9/11 and 3/11 and the bombing of the USS Cole and the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, not to mention the Israeli-Palestinian situation. War is the last resort against these people, as there is no negotiation or diplomacy that we can entertain short of offering them our lives.

Why Iraq? Why not continue in Afghanistan? Or attack Syria, Iran or any other nation where we know radical Muslims are? There is a simple answer - we were justified in invading Iraq, and not the other countries. Think about this: When did the first Gulf war end? People errantly believe that the war ended on 2/28/1991 - but that is the date of the CEASE FIRE. A cease-fire is not a peace treaty to end a war (similar to how we have a cease fire with North Korea since the “end” of the Korean War). Iraq agreed to certain terms and conditions in order to maintain the cease-fire, and violated those terms on at least 17 occasions since the cease-fire was agreed to. The US had every right to begin hostilities again after the FIRST violation of the cease-fire. Even Osama Bin Laden calls the Iraq war “the third world war”. Personally, I think of it as the fourth world war (the Cold War being the Third). It is true that many countries did not join our coalition this time and I wonder at their motivation for choosing not to do so. But let’s look at the track record of the UN. The UN did NOTHING as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 2 million Cambodians. The UN did NOTHING as Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran in the 80’s, and against the Kurds in the 90’s. The UN did NOTHING as 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered (many with machetes) in the Tutsi genocide. The UN is doing NOTHING as 600,000 Sudanese are being slaughtered in Darfur. The UN could not even handle a simple program where Iraq would sell oil and buy food and medicine with the proceeds WITHOUT 11 billion dollars in kickbacks funneled back to Saddam himself. The UN is filled with individuals who are far from “leading with their best selves”.

I’m not even going to counter the financial argument, as if something is the right thing to do, considering the financial ramifications of doing the right thing is inconsequential. Out of curiosity, how are you calculating Michigan’s contribution to the 190 billion dollar expense as 12 billion, or what is your source for that number? Forgive me, I’m an accounting nerd.

I know that you are no fan of President Bush (and there is much that I disagree with him about), but consider this: When he took office in 2001, if you were to look at the countries of the Middle East (West to East from the Mediterranean Sea) you have Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Politically, they WERE Free Country, Islamic Dictatorship, Islamic Dictatorship, Islamic Dictatorship, and Islamic Dictatorship. When he leaves in 2009 they will be Free Country, Islamic Dictatorship, Fledgling Democracy, Islamic Dictatorship, Fledgling Democracy. Which situation is better for the world? Let’s not forget, our own Revolutionary war (which only about 50% of colonists supported) went on for 8 years. We did not have a constitution until 12 years after the war began. 37 years after the war began, England tried to reclaim the United States in the war of 1812. 85 years after the beginning of the Revolutionary war, we fought the Civil war because of different interpretations of that Constitution. Country formation and strong self-government are not easy processes by any means, but if you use the US as a standard, Iraq is ahead of where we were. I only hope and pray that the government takes hold with minimal loss of life.

The ready analogies to World War II - a war we entered as I assume you know the history you are offering Kate - with incredible restraint, care, etc., is a wonderful debate technique that pulls at the heartstrings but offers an opening for a thousand distinguishing facts. In 50 years I hardly think people will say Iraq was just like WWII. Was Hitler a bad guy? They will say YES. And Saddam a bad guy? Why YES. I’ll give you that. But the distinguishing features are innumerable. Hitler, as I recall, had overrun and occupied most of Europe. Japan and Italy were allied with them and doing some mighty damage as well. Surely Iraq was in no sense equivalent to the powerful and destructive force of the Axis powers Luke?

But two other distinguishing features - since the WWII analogy is at the heart of your argument — seem absolutely essential and largely passed over by so many who are so sure we should be where we are. First, you make this statement in your post: “In my opinion war is the last resort when all other options have been exhausted.” And you square your position with the way we initiated this war? How can that “exhaust all options” square with the actual facts and context of our entry into Iraq? We totally short-circuited the UN. Yes we had our alleged justifications - especially the WMDs that we were totally sure were there — what a massive miscalculation that was. We got way out in front of nearly every one of our allies in the effort. Some - like Italy and Spain - we displomatically muscled in, only to lose them when our alleged justification evaporated and their people started to die. Our hubristic certainty got so badly in the way.

Second, I am so befuddled when people act like Al Quaeda in Iraq is like Japan in World War II. They are NOT contained by a boundary. They do not wear uniforms. They are not created, funded, supported by any particular government (though it seems they are supported and financed by some). Indeed, according to what I have read of the Iraq Study Commission, Saddam was not supporting them; in fact they were in some cases opposing him. The popular myth from the right is that Al Quaeda rebels are now flocking to die in Iraq. And that there are a finite number of them, and we are “winning.” Meanwhile, have we noticed that Osama hasn’t grabbed a gun and come to martyr himself there? Have you noticed that this is indeed their strategy? There are cells that have attacked in Madrid, London, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc. I suspect they are enjoying watching us bogged down in Iraq. What a sad and sick thought that is.

Worse, it’s hard not to think that our unwelcome presence in the Middle East is not creating more radicals and not less. Meanwhile, we deplete our treasury - with a new price tag of $190 billion for 2008. My state’s share is now above $12 billion - 7 times the deficit that nearly shut our state down.

Do we need a war on terror? Absolutely. And a big part of that war is that we win the war of minds. How? Stop (at least implicitly) lumping all Muslims together. Continue to try to bring order in Iraq. Push political control to the Iraqis as quickly as practical so they, not we can be responsible for the success or lack thereof, which is generating pain, hopelessness, and a desire for vengeance (that’s human nature, not just radical Islamic nature). I trust that you know that polls of the Iraqi people have consistently and increasingly said that they want us out.

Finally, as to your quotation of Churchill apparently meant to seal the deal: I’d invite you to consider this from Wikipedia about the quote on conservatives:
“Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states ‘there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this.’”

Hmmm.

danmulhern

At some point in the next 50 years, this war will be looked at as an incredibly pivotal point in world history, and will be looked upon much more positively than it is now (as will George W. Bush). “We have directly caused millions of deaths”?? I am assuming that you are referring to this Iraq war, right? Any factual basis for this other than the opinions of anti-war extremists? We’ve committed “atrocities” by entering Iraq? Please do not say that you are referring to Abu Ghraib… what atrocites are you referring to?

In my opinion war is the last resort when all other options have been exhausted. It is never the desirable option. It pangs me that over 350 americans died per day - PER DAY - in World War II, just as I am saddened by the losses of Americans, coalition forces and civilians in this war. I do not wish others to die, however I know that our troops are making every effort limit civilian casualties. What of our enemy? Do they avoid civilians or target them? I am of a ‘live and let live’ mind, but our enemy is not. We are confronted with individuals who aim to kill anyone who does not embrace “there is no God but allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”. They believe that allah will reward them in heaven for killing us. And by “us” I am referring to you and I, and everyone that we know - because they view all of us as the great infidel. This is a war that we do not wish to fight, but that we MUST fight… and in fighting a war, civilian casualties will occur. I suggest that you read of the Bataan Death March, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and watch the Nick Berg execution (if you can find it anywhere online). Get an idea of what our enemy’s mindset is, then compare it to our own. We have no desire to dominate or conquer the world politically, religiously or physically, yet we are the target of radicals who want to make the world muslim. Our moral authority to continue this war is our continuation as a nation… appeasement is never the correct route (even Neville Chamberlain admitted he was wrong in that aspect).

I see further down that you suggest “electing Hillary”, so I naturally assume that you were a supporter of Bill Clinton. Are you filled with moral confliction because of the missle strikes that Bill ordered on Iraq? What about the bombing of Bosnia? Or is your moral outrage limited to presidents to whom you are politically opposed?

Winston Churchill once said “If, as a child, you are not liberal, you have no heart. If, as an adult, you are not conservative, you have no brain.”

Thanks for replying to my post - I was worried about what I said and appearing to jump about all over the place ‘America bashing’ yet you have seen the intent in my message and responded with insight and maturity. Considering your comment about an adolescent US certainly makes one take a deep breath - an adolescent with access to that sort of power? Eeep!

Here’s hoping we can all continue to grow up and continue to learn to lead with our best self.

Oh, and on your ‘moments’, no doubt they are usually caused because, of course, at the time your Dad is being totally unreasonable!

Completely on point about the ends justifying the means. There are so many nations where terrible atrocities occur on a daily basis, and why aren’t we, the “big brother” jumping in to help? Because….

I think you are absolutely right on about the general “American” attitude, and it also makes me sad. I think it’s interesting that, historically, America is often referred to as a “teenager” in comparison to other, more developed, nations, and we seem to be acting like one! (Being one myself, I like to think I may have a little more maturity when it comes to this, but as my dad can tell you, I surely have my moments.) We are quick to anger, often incredibly unreasonable, we make rash decisions, we lie to our constituents (parents/authority?), we absolutely think the world revolves around us, and we have no sense of the bigger picture!

How frustrating, because sometimes I feel like we just have to wait for America to grow up! (or maybe elect Hillary…)

PEACE
Kate