The big theme running around the anti-war blogs nowadays is a revival of the classic “chickenhawk” accusation. In a nutshell (a singularly appropriate turn of phrase in this context), the idea is that it is cowardly of those who support the war (myself proudly included) to do so unless we are ready, willing, and able to go and fight it ourselves — and prove that commitment with action.
I’ve spoken at length at my own personal circumstances that make that impossible for me, but I won’t fall into that trap here. And the argument is, indeed a trap — a dishonorable, dishonest, fraudulent tactic that has been allowed to remain unchallenged for far too long.
I’ve always believed that one should limit one’s arguments to the issues, not the individuals. I always try to refrain from gratuitous personal attacks when discussing matters of grave import. (I don’t always succeed, but I do try.) To me, the message is far more important than the messenger, and the cause far greater than its advocate.
That belief stands in stark contrast with the “chickenhawk” argument, which tries to shift the discussion from the message to the messenger. It tries to move the topic from “is this a good idea?” to “who the hell are you to say anything?” It is an attempt to silence the opposition by assailing them personally, by punishing them for daring to have a dissenting opinion.
But it is even more fundamentally dishonest than that. It is a wholesale attempt to shift not only the topic of the argument to one side’s proponents, but the entire burden of the argument on to them as well. The anti-war advocate, by converting the argument from a philosophical one to a personal one, is freed from the onus of having to marshal facts and citations for their position.
Let’s see how this normally plays out:
A: “I believe that the war in Iraq was necessary.”
B: “I believe that the war in Iraq was wrong.”
A: “I’ve looked into this extensively. Because of A, B, C, D, and E, the war became the least worst option.”
B: “If you believe that the war is such a good thing, then why aren’t you over there fighting it yourself, you fucking coward?”
At that point, A usually falls into the trap and starts explaining why he isn’t currently serving in the military. Lord knows I’ve done it myself on more than a few occasions.
B: “OK, so fine, you won’t go. Then why don’t you encourage others to sign up and go fight your war?”
Please note that at no point in the argument has B even attempted to refute any of the points that A spelled out. They are left in the dust as A suddenly finds himself not having to defend the decision to go to war, but his own personal character and choices. And B has managed to distract and silence a voice spelling out reasoned arguments without having to actually answer the facts presented.
But for just a moment let’s run with the idea that the “chickenhawk” squawkers are putting forth. They toss their accusation at me. I am immediately mortified in shame. The very next morning, I race down to the recruiting station to volunteer. Once they look at me and my medical history, and once they finish laughing in my face, they formally send me away. I start encouraging others to enlist, and start getting called a hypocrite for trying to get others to do my dirty work for me. Finally, in shame, I go home and kill myself.
Just what has been achieved? I have been silenced, but have my points been answered? The Left raves all the time about “the suppression of dissent,” but that is the very core notion behind this argument.
I’ve spelled out my reasons for believing that the war in Iraq was necessary, and some of the reasons it’s working here. No one successfully refuted them at the time, but I’d like to re-open the discussion here and see if any of the “chickenhawk” squawkers would like to take a run at them again.
But please, make it about the WAR. I wasn’t raised to believe that “it’s all about me,” and this topic is far more important than I could ever be. See if you can counter any of my points without attacking me. And anyone who takes this opportunity to bash me instead of my opinions is, in my humble opinion, tacitly admitting that they can’t refute my arguments.
IF you are not a prison guard at Gitmo…
…then you have NO RIGHT to speak about Gitmo prision conditions.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, chickencritics.
What am I, that I served during Panama & GW1, but sat out GW2, even though I supported GW2? If you still think I’m a chickenhawk, then come down to 13th & L NW sometimes and we’ll jawbone about it.
Unless you are the President…
…you can’t speak about the President.
Unless you are a Republican…
…you can’t talk about Republicans.
Unless you are a women…
…you can’t talk about any women.
Unless you are American…
…you can talk about the American government.
The left is circle jerking to their formal push for this stance. It’s called Operation Yellow Elephant.
“We support the war, so we should be fighting it.”
Put up or shut up, it seems. But no debating ideas.
This ought to be interesting.
/sarcasm
Or we’ll just hear the WMD thing over and over again, if anything.
So how does the left reconcile this with their views on the war in Afghanistan?
The left constantly talks about how they were for the war against Afghanistan, but are not for the war in Iraq. I’m sure they were all first in line at the recruitment centers the day we started fighting in Afghanistan, right?
Exactly why this is more bullsh*t.
I’ve always thought the chickenhawk argument is stupid, and have said so here a few times. However, if the current trend in recruitment continues, it will get more difficult to continue in Iraq at current levels, where as you note there is no exit strategy, only a victory strategy (which is, I assume, tiring the terrorists out or something). How long until victory, and how many soldiers will be needed, and where will they come from? I don’t know the answers to those questions, though I wouldn’t say the solution is for everyone who supports the war to enlist, nor that if you support the war and don’t enlist you’re a hypocrit (I supported Afghanistan and didn’t enlist, etc).
Anyone have any guesses as to how long we’ll need to be in Iraq, how many troops will be needed, and where these new recruits are to come from?
Essentially the Left is arguing against civilian, democratic control of the military with the “chickenhawk” argument.
Not surprised, given their support for the Red Army and its atrocities in the 20th century.
In and effort to boost falling recruitment numbers, tomorrow night during his speech at Ft. Bragg NC President Bush will personally ask that those young patriotic Americans who support him and this effort to fight terrorism and bring democracy around the world go to the recruitment offices and enlist for the new shorter 15 month tours of duty.
In anticipation of the large turn out, recruiting offices will be double manned to handle the crowds.
” where these new recruits are to come from?”
The New Iraqi Army.
What the anti-war types are doing here is the same thing they do with other policy positions: they attempt to shame the opposition, to tear away at the opposition’s moral foundation to make their arguments. A long time ago, the left learned that if they are successful enough in attacking the messenger, then they don’t have to worry about taking on the merits of the argument.
So try to argue an anti-affirmative action position without getting called racist. Try to argue a pro-tax cut position without getting called selfish. Try to argue against Elliot Spitzer without getting called an apologist for big business. And that is just what the white guys get called. Heaven forbid a black or a woman takes on a conservative position; they’ll be called Uncle Toms or worse by liberals.
The left also learned that the right falls for this over and over again. We do this by allowing the left to frame the debate (such as Jay outlined above). Sometimes, fearful of being called names, we fail to even step up to the plate, the rationale being that tis better to abandon an argument than it is to deal with being called a racist, a sexist, selfish, and now, a chickenhawk.
But since there are some conservatives who are willing to risk being called racist or whatever, the liberals have decided to up the ante. No longer is a generic insult sufficient. From now on, we’re Hitlers, we’re Stalins, we’re Pol Pots.
Leftist, Day 1: “Join the military and you are a babykiller, a nazi. The war is evil, so anyone who fights is doing evil! You fascists can recruit at high schools or collages!”
Leftist Day 2: “See how recruitment is down! It’s all Bush’s fault!! He lost the war!”
Wash, rinse, repeat.
correction to the dialog:
“You fascists can’T recruit at high schools or collages!”
How about “don’t feed the trolls”. A simple yet highly effective course of action.
By that argument, anyone who enjoys the protections fothe US Army is a chickenhawk if they don’t enlist. Atrios and his ilk enjoyed the protection of the US Army from the USSR, and continue to enjoy freedom from China or other enemies. At no cost to themselves! How dare they! Hypocrites!
They don’t join up for the police and fire departments but are still willing to put them at risk when their joint falls down between the sofa as they doze off.
Are they suggesting that only veterans are able to vote for or against military actions? If so, should we only allow veterans to run for election?
Should only doctors be able to vote for/discuss medical issues? Businessmen voting on business issues? Should only those who work and pay taxes get to vote on where their tax money goes?
Their argument is immaterial, and designed solely to sidestep the issue in order to attack the messenger instead.
It’s absolutely a dodge, and not something the libs would really care to see taken to its logical conclusion. If you agree that only those who’ve experienced war can argue in favor of it, then doesn’t that imply that only veterans can become President? After all, any President may have to take us to war someday, and hence may need to argue in its favor.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother blogging–someone else always says it better.
Well put Jay Tea.
I’ll say it for you, Jay, and I did fight this one, and the one in Kosovo, and the one in Bosnia, and the first one in Iraq, oh, and a little of that long, dull one against the Soviets, too.
This war is worth it. And I’ll be around to fight the next one, too.
’nuff said.
I haven’t yet heard anyone on the right say that those against the war don’t have the right to speak out until they join the terrorists and lop off a few heads. That’s one of the main differences between the left and the right, the left is based on a dishonest ideology. I think we should ask them a few questions along the same lines, like ,”How can you support higher taxes for the rich since you lack the ambition or ability to get rich yourself and pay almost no taxes to begin with?” and “How can you support abortion on demand when you haven’t been aborted yourself?” Either question makes as much sense as their “chickenhawk” question.
“I haven’t yet heard anyone on the right say that those against the war don’t have the right to speak out until they join the terrorists and lop off a few heads.”
I’ll say it. If they’re so opposed to the war, why aren’t they signing up to be human shields for the enemy? If they’re so opposed to American interests, why aren’t they strapping bombs to their chests?
The answers should be obvious.
One of the favorite ploys of manipulators is to turn the argument, ANY argument, into somehow being about YOU, such that you’ll go from debating a point to defending yourself against what can be a non-stop flood of attacks, which are often inreasingly personal and outrageous in nature.
Call a spade a spade; if someone pulls this tactic, call them a manipulator outright… and add that if their only possible response to you is to attack you, they’ve obviously conceded the debate, as they clearly can’t refute your actual arguments. 🙂
By extension, the argument logically implies that the only people who should be able to have input about whether or not the country should go to war are people who are/have been in the military.
More people in the military and veterans support the war than don’t. So I guess the question of whether or not we should have gone to war is answered.
Actually, though, what they are mean is that you’re only “allowed” to be for the war if you’ve been in the military. (If you’re in the military, then you’re a baby-killer and your opinion doesn’t count anyway.) It’s perfectly OK to be against the war if you haven’t been in the military. This is like how men can’t be pro-life, but it’s perfectly OK and wonderful for them to be pro-choice.
Apparently you’re only “allowed” to have conservative opinions so long as you meet certain requirements invented on the fly by people on the opposing side.
Ask them if they want to become a suicide bomber.
OC Church
We all watched as those brave “human shields” of the left ran for cover as soon as they knew they would forfeit their lives once the US started bombing in Iraq. The only time they wanted to be human shields was at locations they knew the US would NOT bomb.
Here’s a quote from some moonbat named Gillard says on his blog (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/06/honest-conversation.html) :
If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.
Ok, you lefties put your money where your mouths are, no, not there, there’s no telling where that mouth has been, I mean you should back up what you say. If you aren’t willing to support yourself and do things like pay for your own way stop asking others to do it for you. Apply yourself, get a job and rake in some serious cash, work like a dog and insist that it’s the money you earned that goes to support those unwilling to support themselves. And don’t even think about tax shelters. Give it a try. See how it feels to practice what you preach.
The majority of the world knew that Iraq was going to be FUBAR before the war even started. The Pandora’s box was about to be opened. Protests around the world, public opinion polls couldn’t sway Bush.
Was it not easy to see that American soldiers would be sitting ducks in a region that was openly hostile to them? Was it not easy to see how provocative these actions were, the first non arab invader of an arab country in nearly 100 years, thereby throwing thousands of young men into the arms of AlQaeda, their greatest recruiting tool?
Was it not easy to see that American supply lines would be so long as to make them easy to interrupt and very expensive?
Was it not easy to see that Saddam as a secular Muslim and OBL as a fundamentalist weren’t even on talking terms, never mind bosom buddies? Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Go after terrorists, not alleged supplier. Plenty more suppliers out there. Go after the guys who perpetrated the crime. Was that not easy to see?
Was it not easy to see that virtually no army in history has ever invaded a country and popped backed out again? Was it not easy to see that your grandchildren could be talking about an Iraqi exit plan?
Was it not easy to see that all this sabre rattling would help radical fundamentalists get elected in neighboring countries?
Was it not easy to see that America attacking Iraq would only give developing countries the idea that they needed nuclear weapons to prevent them from being invaded?
It was easy to see and that is why the vast majority of the world’s population, not just the ‘left’ in this country are so pissed.
I don’t agree with all this chickenhawk talk, it solves nothing. But it seems to be coming from railing against a policy that was so f@#king stupid.
Anyone have any guesses as to how long we’ll need to be in Iraq, how many troops will be needed, and where these new recruits are to come from?
Yes, all kinds of people have guesses. Senator Kennedy thinks it’s a quagmire and we will never get out of Iraq. Many others believe Rumsfeld when he states that we’ll taper off our involvement after the first elections following the adoption of a constitution, if the circumstances permit it.
In any case, it’s ridiculous to pin your support on this war (or any other war) on these types of questions. It’s like asking a fire chief when the blaze is going to be out and how many firefighters it’s going to take to put it out. At best the chief’s answer is going to be a guess. Are you then going to tell him to not fight the fire if he can’t answer you with certainties?
This is yet another diversionary tactic and demonstrates an intellectual vacuity. Either is a war is justified or it is not on moral grounds. Logistics has no play in this argument.
I usually end this sort of confrontation by suggesting that we take things one step further. That only combat active duty and combat veterans be permitted to decide such matters as who the commander in chief will be. ONly those who have seen and experienced combat firsthand should decide matters involving national defense.
What do you recommend that other ‘chickenhawks’ answer, if they do not have your health record?
There are plenty of able-bodied people who support the war, but do not want to go to war, because it is personally inconvenient: it requires sacrifice and disruption of individual life goals and family life.
You seem to be saying “necessary” = “least worst option”. That’s an odd definition of necessary. Am I must be reading you wrong.
How can B give any reasons when A just says: “Because of A, B, C, D, and E”. Technically, the reasons of A have not been spelled out in your dialogue either. Seeing as you constructed the dialogue, it is surprising that your constructed character B did not give any reasons for why the war was wrong (do you doubt he could supply them, as in his or her views about this?). What is your rationale(s) for the war? (I don’t usually read this site.) If it is democracy promotion, is that “necessary”?
Curious, I thought I spelled it out — the answer I recommend is “it’s not about me, but the issues, you asshole.” That not only provides a satisfying smackback on the personal attack, but also redirects the debate back to the issue and away from individuals.
As for my reasons, go to the links in the next-to-last paragraph of my posting.
J.
The whole chickenhawk argument is weak…I agree with you Jay Tea.
The U.S. military has a total manpower of about 68 million people (that number comes from the CIA world fact book). The total US population is about 295 million, which means that according to the chickenhawk proponents about 227 million Americans have no say in military matters, and have no right to support the war. that makes no sense to me.
As for the war Jay Tea…Well I wouldnt ever say that getting rid of Hussein was a bad idea. The guy was a murderer, and was a problematic presence in a very important political and economic region.
I still do not like the way that GW and others went about things, by basically scaring the shit out of the American people and hyping up the war beyond what was necessary. I understand the need to get public opinion behind such a massive effort, but personally I wasnt very impressed with what we were being fed at that time to encourage support.
But then, it wouldnt look too pretty, or seem to heroic to put it bluntly…mainly that the Middle East is an extremely valuable region, and that democracy and stability there could greatly benefit the United States in the future. Pragmatics.
Hussein was a punk, a thug, and a brutal dictator. It’s not like he’s the only one of those around these days. But he did cross the line with the United States, and we all knew he would get it someday.
I do get tired of people who claim that the Iraq War is some kind of humanitarian mission. In my opinion that wasnt the main goal by any stretch of the imagination. It wasnt some altruistic endeavor. We certainly had alot to gain from going in there. I’m not trying to lay judgement…I’m just saying that I find it dishonest to promulgate the whole thing as something that its not. The war in Iraq is not about freeing Iraqi people.
I expect that Jay will respond to Gordon’s questions appropriately.
But as far as the chicken hawk thing goes, I like to respond by offering a similar question in return. For example, I might ask:
“Do you support universal access to healthcare for all?”
If so, then I follow up with:
“Have you volunteered to be a no-cost medical doctor, or nurse, or nurse’s assistant? Or maybe a crisis counselor, or dental assistant, or vision tester, etc. Surely, there is somewhere in the health care environment where you can contribute. Maybe you’re better with computers. Have you offered your time to help set up a data base at the free clinic? Maybe you don’t have the time or special skills to contribute. Are you at least providing monetary support?”
A: “Because of A, B, C, D, and E, the war became the least worst option.”
Does one’s evaluation of what is the “least worst option” change when one bears the brunt of the costs of a particular option? (or has him or herself experienced the costs of a similiar past decision?)
I think this is the challenge behind the chickenhawk taunt (Or, it could be made the challenge if you want to depersonalize things, as you seem to).
How many military actions did Bill Clinton initiate while in office?
Then you can throw in FDR and Woodrow Wilson for good measure.
I missed your link, Jay Tea, sorry. That was my oversight.
But it seemed obvious to me that you suggested two lines of defense against the chickenhawk challenge. The “you asshole” response was the first line of defense of defense. You also said: “But for just a moment let’s run with the idea that the ‘chickenhawk’ squawkers are putting forth. They toss their accusation at me.”
You PERSONALLY have a good response: the military wouldn’t even take you because you’re not able-bodied. Do you think chickenhawks without your health record have a second line of defense?
Curious, I’m torn between thinking you’re a troll, a truly clueless twit, or just feeding me straight lines, but I’ll repeat myself again:
I don’t recommend ANY sort of defense against that attack. I recommend they REJECT the attack. Simply refuse to allow the argument to be sidetracked into a personal attack. It takes two to tango, and if one side is arguing the issues while the other is ranting and raving on personal attacks, it’s pretty obvious who’s winning — and who’s the asshole.
J.
I understand you reject the attack and think the first (and only) response should be not to engage the chickenhawk challenge, and turn it back to the issues.
You therefore wouldn’t advocate that anyone get to the point where they have to use a fallback line like you would.
Knowing this, I was asking: Do you think ‘chickenhawks’ in general have a fallback defense?
I asked this because I was curious if you could “run with the idea” because of your personal circumstances. You may not be interested in answering this question. More in a sec.
Ryan
Congratulations on the only moderate and non-knee-jerk comment here. It is possible to be a Republican and not support everything this administration does including the choices to go to wars, or how they are conducted, for example. Similarly, as a moderate democrat it is also possible to disagree with the choice to go to war but to fully understand the critical need to win it once we’re there. See how easy it is to stop playing the zere-sum game of I only win if your side loses?
The echo chamber here is not one iota better than at Atrios’ site: Extremists preaching to their own damn choirs.
Jay…this is just…
THIS is the reason I come to Wizbang multiple times a day. If I could give you an award for this well-stated and well-reasoned argument I would.
Damn, Wiz.
You just made me feel guilty for all the times I had to explain to some “chickensh*t” why I can’t serve. Lesson learned today. Thanks.
Doesn’t seem to work with my site, but I tracked you.
Jon:
If this were truly an echo chamber like DailyKos or DU, your comments–which were not over the line in any way, IMHO–would have been deleted and you would have been banned. (I speak from personal experience)
Ryan:
While the question of whether the war was–and is–a humanitarian mission can be debated endlessly, I firmly believe that Bush saw it that way, at least in part. Just as I firmly believe that Bush–like Clinton before him–truly believed that there were WMD in Iraq (perhaps because they were both getting their intelligence fron George Tenant). And beyond any shadow of a doubt there WERE Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Iraq BEFORE the war. Check the following link:
http://spirit.tau.ac.il/government/robinson1.pdf
The prose is a bit ripe for my tastes–think Alan Dean Foster or Clive Cussler–but it does show that Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi’s group Ansar Al-Islam was operating in a three hundred square kilometer enclave in N.E. Iraq. They were training terrorists there and staging attacks against the Kurds. And Al-Zarqawi himself went to Iraq for treatment of wounds he suffered in Afghanistan and was still there when the coalition troops invaded. Despite a request from Jordanian King Abdullah that Al-Zarqawi be extradited to Jordan, which Saddam refused.
Jay Tea, back to your primary response:
Yes, it would be silly to say that if you don’t enlist, you are AUTOMATICALLY not entitled to have your ideas evaluated. I don’t think the chickenhawk claim NEED depend on that (even if in practice it does).
I don’t see how it MUST be a personal attack to ask: if you really think this is the ‘least worst option’, why don’t you bear some of the costs? Or to say your not doing so casts some doubt in some cases. If your expecting someone else to bear the burden for a policy you advocate, a policy that can affect real individuals, then why do you insist it is ridiculous to ‘shift the burden of proof’ to you? It would unreasonable to say your opinion CANNOT count, but it is not unreasonable to shift the burden.
You have a good fallback answer personally: you can’t. Ought implies can. But people generally do not have that answer.
Anyway, thanks for applying the principle of generosity and not assuming I must be a “truly clueless twit”. If you think my motives are relevant, I was against the war. I think war proponents should have a good and appropriate response to the chickenhawk challenge. Your answer is to refuse the challenge, and if your reasoning is sound, than you have a good answer.
So though I was against the Iraq war, I’m not offering the chickenhawk challenge to you, and I haven’t done that to anyone yet. You offered reasons why it should be rejected basically as an illegitimate personal attack. I wonder whether your reasoning for WHY it is illegitimate is sound.
I think your argument boils down roughly to ‘the chickenhawk challenge is an illegitimate personal attack’ and the response should be ‘you asshole’. I have disputed your premise (that it must be illegitimate, not the claim that IF it is illegitimate, your recommended response is appropriate).
Also, looking at your links, you’re what I would call an ‘old school’ defender of the Iraq war.
You don’t defend it based on democracy promotion, at least as far as I can see. Even if you don’t think what I say about the chickenhawk challenge applies to you (because you really have laid out why the Iraq war was necessary), doesn’t what I say apply to those whose main justification has become democracy promotion? If so, isn’t there a category (and a large category) or war supporters who it is possibly legitimate to offer the chickenhawk challenge to?
Same thing with one poster’s comment about how the war was for pragmatic purposes: if someone supported the war for those reasons, would it a personal attack to ask them why they were not willing to risk your life for pragmatic purposes? Can you see how it wouldn’t necessarily be a personal insult to say that to someone who claimed on the basis of pragmatism that the war was ‘the least worst option’ (for whom?)
I would further challenge you that most of your justifications for war are not necessary reasons for war. They may amount for a case for war, but not all things considered. If we didn’t have enough troops to secure the peace, we should not have gone in. Maybe in this case, you can say: hey buddy, we have enough troops, no big deal. But you seem to adopt the general line, that any attack on the chickenhawks must be illegitimate and personal in all circumstances. That seems to me untenable.
Whoever said “Either is a war is justified or it is not on moral grounds. Logistics has no play in this argument” is an idiot if he/she believes that to be true in all circumstances. And the firefighter example is stupid as a generalization. Yes, we can still attack a fire if we don’t know whether it will take 30 or 50 firefighters to stop it. But if we know it will take 100 firefighters to stop it, and we send 10, is that a good decision?* Perhaps there is something to be said for noble sacrifice on a hopeless quest. But if you believe that, I hope you would not consider it a personal insult if I said you should show it, were you able too.
* I’m not taking a stand on which number of firefighters best matches Iraq.
Fatman
Thanks for your thoughts. I guess i am not famililiar enogh with DU or the others that I didn’t realize I could be banned from comments there. I guess I appreciate not facing that danger here with my crazy talk.
My point was that my admittedly very small sample of the comments here had the exact same flavor of “[insert opposing party’s name here] are stupid, they have no valid points and as a result engage solely in ad hominem argument like calling someone a chichenhawk or chickensh*t.” That stuff tires me out or enrages me alternatively.
I couldn’t resist the urge to critique some of your reasons for supporting the invasion here. I agree that calling you a chickenhawk is unfair, but it’s not like the opponents of the war are without just cause for opposing it. Out of curiosity, what is your position on Bush’s refusal to stop the Saudi’s funding of Wahabi indoctrination and programs on American soil? To me it is morally equivalent to refusing to shut down KGB recruiting stations operating openly on American campuses during the cold war (well if that actually happened)
fatman:
I firmly believe that Bush saw it that way, at least in part. Just as I firmly believe that Bush–like Clinton before him–truly believed that there were WMD in Iraq (perhaps because they were both getting their intelligence fron George Tenant).
Well, I think that Bush wasnt all that gung ho about going right into Iraq…from what I read he had to be talked into it (especially in the Commission Report). Indeed, he may have looked at the situation in more humanitarian terms…that I cant claim to know. From what I have seen and read, it was guys like Wolfowitz and Cheney who were more hell bent on invading Iraq at that time. They had also been after Clinton to do the same thing for years before that. The PNAC types were concerned about the political/strategic/economic aspects of the Middle East, and securing that area ASAP. Thats the impression that I get. Again, it seems to me that Bush was persuaded to go along with that program, even though it may not have really jibed with his particular beliefs or desires.
I dont see Bush as the evil warmonger that many lefties like to characterize him as. I just dont see it in the guy. I honestly think that 9/11 freaked him out, and that he finally went into the Iraq war thinking it was the right way to go.
Overall though, I dont really see this as being some humanitarian exercise at all. There is a reason why we’re not going into Sudan, and why Rwanda was allowed to happen. The political/economic gain or incentive just isnt/wasnt there. I have a hard time putting war into the Humanitarian category. Even the so called “Good War” WW II wasnt free of self interest, of course. Long ago, Rome sacked other places to benefit itself and its populace. Thats what war is for, and has always been for, ultimately, IMO. Material, political, or economic gain.
WMDs…I agree that Bush and Clinton more than likely believed that Iraq had those weapons. But they also knew that they only had the technology to deploy them in the immediate region. During the days leading up to the war, at times it sounded as if Iraq was capable of launching nukes at the US or something. The scenario was exaggerated, and ridiculous.
Thanks for the link. I’m gonna read through that and get back to you on it.
MikeT:
Checked out your link and it is fascinating reading. If what you say about the Wahabi indoctrination and programs is accurate, it’s reprehensible and indefensible. But not suprising. The fact is, we’re not going to do anything to offend the world’s largest supplier of crude oil. The only thing that DOES surprise me is that people (not necessarily you) act so surprised when Saudi treachery is brought to light, as if they haven’t been doing the same thing to us for thirty-five years or more.
MikeT –
While the other side may have valid reasons for opposing it, there are plenty of good reasons for it. We should agree to disagree, and drop the issue, but since we are already in Iraq, we ‘got our way’, so somehow we ‘won’ and therefore it seems the issue is now a debate to the death.
As for curtailing Saudi funding in the US, I would love to see it stopped, however, I don’t believe there is any legal basis to stop it :
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
As soon as Bush opposes it, the ACLU will be on the case charging oppression of religion, the left will waffle on about Bush removing Islam because it is conflicting with his new US theocracy, and the muslims in the world will probably riot and kill a few people.
I agree that it is akin to having KGB offices in the US, their Terrorist ideology is wrapped in a religion which is protected in the US. One good example of them using our fairness against us.
Sorry for the sidetrack…
ryan:
I won’t argue with you that political/strategic/economic reasons played a large part in the decision to go to war. The point I was trying (poorly) to make was that, pre-9/11, the combination of Saddam Hussein, WMD and terrorists–Al Qaeda linked or otherwise– was for some insane reason considered “tolerable”. POST 9/11 it wasn’t.
“The majority of the world knew that Iraq was going to be FUBAR before the war even started. The Pandora’s box was about to be opened. Protests around the world, public opinion polls couldn’t sway Bush.”
Why is this pinned on Bush? As of 1998, regime change in Iraq became official US public policy. Also check Hussein’s original agreement with the UN that caused a cessation of hostilities- he was in clear violation, as evidenced by the 17 subsequent resolutions. Given the UN bribe scam currently being discovered, I’d not bring up France/Germany/Russia’s opposition at this point.
“Was it not easy to see that American soldiers would be sitting ducks in a region that was openly hostile to them? Was it not easy to see how provocative these actions were, the first non arab invader of an arab country in nearly 100 years, thereby throwing thousands of young men into the arms of AlQaeda, their greatest recruiting tool?”
Uh, two paragraphs down you say there’s no connection between Hussein and Al Q- which is it?
Also, where do you get this “thousands of young men” idea from? Do you have rosters or something?
“Was it not easy to see that American supply lines would be so long as to make them easy to interrupt and very expensive?”
Yes, these ruptured supply lines stretched the conflict out to two weeks as opposed to ten days.
“Was it not easy to see that Saddam as a secular Muslim and OBL as a fundamentalist weren’t even on talking terms, never mind bosom buddies? Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Go after terrorists, not alleged supplier. Plenty more suppliers out there. Go after the guys who perpetrated the crime. Was that not easy to see?”
You make the assumption that the perpetrators were not being pursued at the same time Bush was executing Clinton’s public policy (i.e. regime change)- why do you make this assumption? Also, your premise directly contradicts the one made two paragraphs previously.
“Was it not easy to see that virtually no army in history has ever invaded a country and popped backed out again? Was it not easy to see that your grandchildren could be talking about an Iraqi exit plan?”
Dunno what you mean by “popped back out again”, though Israel comes to mind after they cleaned Egypt’s clock. Won’t address your conjecture about grandchildren, though I believe it might be applied more aptly to the troops in Kosovo and Bosnia at this point. (Thanks, Bill! Suppose it’s true you didn’t say WHICH Christmas the troops would be home by, so it technically ain’t a lie)
“Was it not easy to see that all this sabre rattling would help radical fundamentalists get elected in neighboring countries?”
Oh, you mean like in Lebanon? Oops, wait a minute….
“Was it not easy to see that America attacking Iraq would only give developing countries the idea that they needed nuclear weapons to prevent them from being invaded?”
Iran was already pursuing nukes before Bush put official US policy in action/enforced UN terms of surrender. Or are you referring to Kadaffy- he abandoned his nuclear aims, didn’t he?
“It was easy to see and that is why the vast majority of the world’s population, not just the ‘left’ in this country are so pissed.”
So far, your “easy to see”‘s aren’t doing so well. I’ll give you the majority- though given propaganda throughout the world, I’d bet it’s not near so vast as you’d like to think.
“I don’t agree with all this chickenhawk talk, it solves nothing. But it seems to be coming from railing against a policy that was so f@#king stupid.”
Well we agree on the chickenhawk talk. As for the policy, you’ll have to take that up with the previous administration and the congress that enacted it….. Bush just executed it.