Loki Speak

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - Hunter S. Thompson

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Me, MySelf and I

Let me throw out a few thoughts on who I am politically.
I am neither a liberal or a conservative.
I have Hawkish tendencies.
I base my political thinking and decisions on the facts that are presented to me, not on a strict set of rules layed out by a political party. I have been called a communist, fascist, anarchist and so many other political labels I have lost count. The funny thing about that is that I was called all of these over the course of one poli-sci course in college.

I was Hawkish on the war in Iraq, but I did say the following:
1. You better find the WMD's within the first few days of the war.
2. You better stick to the American Military Doctrine of use of force that has been in place since the end of the Vietnam war: Overwhelming and massive force no matter what the situation.
3. You better have a postwar plan in place and it better be chock full of Marshall Plan Like goodness.

So what did we end up with:
1. To this day no WMD's have been found. In fact intellegience was manipulated by the administration. It's easy to blame the CIA for this, but the intelligence that was presented by the administration differed from the intelligence that the CIA presented to the White House. The CIA was alot less certain of where and how many weapons were in Iraq. The White House took the CIA report and edited it just enough as to make it sound alot more certain. So I was lied to and manipulated by or C-in-C.

2. Despite the Administrations comments, overwhelming force was never employed in Iraq, and by overwhelming force I do not mean that shock and awe crap. There were never enough troops to secure the borders, cities and land in between. To keep things quiet in Iraq I believe you needed to provide a very strong sense of security in a very short amount of time. This was never accomplished. To this day it seems that Foreign Fighters are pouring across the borders and nowhere seems secure. If you had provided strong stable security immediately you may have been able to keep the amount of resistance to a minimum. As things are now Iraqi's are angry. We invaded, blew up stuff and left a mess. Basic infrastructure is in shambles, there is no security, there are no jobs. They blame us for this. I find it hard to disagree with them. We tore up the country and have done very little to make it better.

3. As far as I can tell the White House strategy for postwar Iraq was, once we are in everyone will be happy. Seems a bit simplistic for the rebuilding of a country. What about Security? Basic human needs? Economy? I am not sure if they have addressed any of these. Saying "It's hard work, and we're gonna win" ain't gonna fix shit.

I think pulling out would be a huge mistake. We made the mess and we have to clean it up. I just don't think that the current administration has an idea or even the ability to finish this. We cannot abandon these people and let them turn into another post-soviet Afghanistan. What we can do is elect another leader and let him take a shot at cleaning up Dumbya's mess.

So this would have been the right war in some alternative history where Saddam was armed to the teeth with WMD's and if we had a president that seemed to have some sense of good, sound military strategy.


At October 12, 2004 at 4:51 PM, Blogger Chip said...

I wanna applaud, agree, and pile on.

The whole "so what" attitude of the uber-hawks on the lack of WMDs is infuriating. The Secretary of State stood in front of the world, pointed at a picture and said "Here is a chemical weapons plant." Not maybe, or could be, or looks a lot like one if you squint. "Here it is." Now, what happens if someone really spots WMD in Syria. Bush and his surrogates can hold up all the evidence they want and nobody will pay any attention. They sold our credibility for no gain in security.

One more, then I'll be quiet. The excuse for the insurgency is silly and demeaning to all of us:
"Things went better than we thought. We beat them so bad they wouldn't stand and fight. They melted away and became insurgents. Who knew that would happen?"
The absolute best strategic outcome in a military engagement is that you will engage an enemy on the field and destroy him on that field. Is he saying that all they planned for was the best possible outcome? If so, that's just negligent.

At October 13, 2004 at 1:55 PM, Blogger brainwise said...

I want to applaud and agree as well.

And I am with Churly regarding the "oh, yeah, there were no weapons" -- particularly when it is followed by: "but America is safer and Iraq is much better off with Saddam behind bars, right?"

Now, no one is denying that Saddam Hussein "was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." (Kerry's comments reported in Newsday, see RESOURCES below). But was it a reason to go to war? As I recall, disarming was the reason for going to war (American Free Press), not regime change. And, please, didn't Bush's mother ever tell him to finish on project(ahem, Afhanistan anyone?) before starting another large project?

By the way, the time for regime change in Iraq -- if one could reasonably endorse changing a country's regime by foreign power -- would have been during the First Persian Gulf War. And this would have been in support of the internal Shiite and Kurd revolts that the first President Bush encouraged ... and then abandoned. (Bartleby and Wikipedia)






Post a Comment

<< Home