I keep hearing this over and over.... in snippets...
So I'll keep asking my question from a few weeks ago, once again:
Do most Americans believe that Iraq is a mistake because...
a) It was wrong to go in, in the first place?
or
B) Because it's turning out so bad?
:
And so I wonder, with great trepidation, if America were actually winning in Iraq today, would most Americans applaud this policy?
:
Would they say it was a good thing?
:
Would the ends justify the means?
:
I continue to wonder ....
5 comments:
As I think I said previously .. once the decision was made to invade (that sounds totally groovy, daddy-o), despite there being no real evidence of weapons, and despite the advice of many, many knowlegeable people, I believe Iraq was doomed.
It's a bit of a catch-22 .. had Bush, and his administration listened, and planned, and exhausted all possible channels, I believe the invasion never would have happened. In which case the whole 'what if they were winning' question would be moot.
In a parallel universe, where despite bad planning and made up information, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was going well, I belive that would have come to a grinding halt in short order, once a much larger military power like Iran or Syria got involved.
My $.02
-- Chris
Hi Chris,
The focus of my question is not on the past, not on Bush and his flawed decision process for Iraq back when. Or the WMD argument, etc..
My question has strictly to do with today - the here & now, and specifically the American mindset/attitude to the current situation in Iraq. The majority say it is unpopular. Ok, but WHY do most Americans think it is unpopular? That's the essence of my question.
Afterall, Bush got re-elected in 2004, so I assume that most of the electorate was in favour of going into Iraq at the time. Right? So, now we fast forward to 2006 - suddenly the popularity is gone - why?
Is it because they're losing?
Well, it's a pretty difficult question to answer without crawling inside the mind of every American .. but, likely, if things were going better in Iraq, there would still be much greater support for the war.
That being said, I don't believe you can simply look at the situation now, without looking at the situatioin that created the mess in Iraq.
Military campaigns tend to succeed if there are clear objectives, and clear terms for when they would end. World War II is a perfect example .. the war would continue until either the Allies defeated the Axis powers, or vice versa. Once both Germany and Japan had surrendered, the war was clearly, and unequivocably over.
A war on 'terror', however, can never meet this criteria. How does 'terror' surrender? How do we know when 'terror' has been defated? Terror is a tactic, and it makes no more sense to fight a war on terror, than to fight a war on flanking attacks or propaganda.
The war on terror was doomed to failure because of this. If the invasion of Iraq had succeeded, there likely would be active support for an invasion of Iran, or Syria, and perhaps even a showdown with Saudi Arabia.
But, at some point, a wall would be hit, and while there may have been support at home, there likely would be growing opposition abroad. If the US began looking like an imperial conquerer in the middle east, countries like China, India, Russia, Japan, would likely begin to feel that *their* energy resources were being threatened .. and that, as they say, is not a Good Thing.
Were that to happen, all bets are off as to where this would go .. domestic support or otherwise.
I guess that'a a bit more than $.02 .. call it a Christmas bonus .. :)
-- Chris
(PS .. the word I have to type in to prove I'm not a robot to post this, is 'gukpnlk' .. I find that very amusing)
You continue to have a good grasp on the situation in Iraq, and a better overall understanding than I do. I wish there was more of you (especially south of the 49th!! :-))
I just get sad when I hear many Americans dismiss the situation in Iraq with the words "because we're losing", as if that makes any difference. So, by that logic, had Nazi Germnay won WWII, it would be ok then... the holocaust and all the injustices would be justified then. (sigh)
I guess I don't want to face the fact that many Americans don't see (or want to see) what a huuuge mistake all this is, regardless how it comes out. But I suppose it is very consistent with history and man and war. This kind of stuff has been happening every decade, somewhere in the world.
Peace on earth, indeed.
-----------
My word to type in is: "smenita". Not even close to being funny. :-(
Yeah .. and I suspect there likely won't be a lot of collective soul-searching until many years after the US has withdrawn from Iraq. Ten years after the fall of Saigon, for instance, the revisionism of the Vietnam war was still in full swing (remember movies like 'Rambo : First Blood' or 'Flight of the Intruder'? The premise was that the US could have 'won' in Vietnam if the army hadn't been hamstrung by the civilian leadership, and just bombed Ho Chi Minh city to ashes.
When the first Gulf war happened, many of the senior coalition leaders .. Colin Powell, for instance, or Chuck Horner (top Air Force general during Desert Storm) seemed to understand that, and even GWH Bush, a veteran of WW II seemed to realize that a military campaign could not be open-ended and ill-defined and still succeed.
GW Bush, and his administration seem to have forgotten this, and now, over three years after 'Mission Accomplished', the US and its allies are still stuck in Iraq, losing, on average almost 2.5 people per day (For a truly grim lesson in statistics, check out : http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx )
And now, Bush is talking about sending *more* personnel to Iraq, all the while being told by the Joint Chiefs, and other very experienced advisors that this would only result in more troops dying.
I guess, to me, this is the ultimate rhetorical question .. would the support be higher if they US were 'winning'? Perhaps, but given the circumstances that led to this point, there is absolutely no way this was going to be anything other than an unmitigated disaster .. so, it seems a pretty hypothetical question.
-- Chris
Post a Comment