Thanks for the article.12 years!12 years I've taken a
daily beating by Neo-Con Bush supporters over this.And here it is --
History proves us right, and them wrong!But -- their PRIDE (the
Devil's tool of destruction) will never let them admit it.
Iraq and Afghanastan represent the sewer of the world and humanity for the most
part and the US should have NEVER gone there a second time. That was a mistake
and so was Afghanastan. Thinking we could somehow bring democracy to these 7th
century war lords was a pipe dream from the start. What does the US do now?First - withdraw ALL troupes. Continue with the satalite drone program
blowing up terror camps when ever we can.Second - Retool our
military. Reverse the current direction Obama has taken the defense department
and instead REBUILD and RETOOL in a BIG way. We live in a very dangerous world
and we can't aford to be weak. As Reagan wisely said - peace comes through
strength and he was right. If you stay strong you avoid war. Weakness breeds
conflict. We need several more naval battle groups to patrol the oceans and we
need a bigger army and special forces. We may never need them for war but a
deterant is priceless.Third - become energy independent at home. We
have the oil at home to rid ourselves of middle east oil.Forth -
ELECT A GOP PRESIDENT.
A principled statement. Meanwhile, my Republican friends want to see more blood
shed. American blood.
And yet there are still letter being published by this paper they cannot see
what this op-ed sees. Some still proclaim Bushs' greatness and blame Obama
for Iraq.Hilarious how some letter writers value party and ideology
" the idea that U.S. power can decisively influence Iraqi sectarianism seems
from the beginning to have been largely a fantasy."This is the
core of the problem that advocates for continued involvement just refuse to
accept. Volumes have been written why this is true in Iraq and Mr. Blankenhorn
gives us moral justification for it's acceptance. A letter
writer today made the case for continued involvement saying that despite the
origins the reality of today is what we have to deal with, and then went on to
simply recount the obvious. What he and others like McCain refuse to believe is
that our military force will not now nor will it ever permanently effect the
"Perhaps. But for me the main moral of this story is the importance of
restraint. We didn’t understand Iraq in 2002 and we don’t seem to
understand it much better now. We’ve made some heavy footprints there, but
the idea that U.S. power can decisively influence Iraqi sectarianism seems from
the beginning to have been largely a fantasy."Enough said....
didn't have an understanding to start with. Didn't have an exit
strategy either. And we still don't have a coherent strategy... nor do I
think we will in the near future. It seems the best we can achieve at this time
is a policy of containment.
The Nephites were not destroyed for Same Sex Marriage, Drugs, or
Socialism....The Nephites were destroyed for PRE-emptive wars
against the Lamanites.They attacked, without being attacked.They also "justified" it.They loved War more than Peace.They fell into anarchy by filling their lives with fear, hatred, and
revenge.Their hatred of others [Lamanites] became so great, that winning and going home was no longer the ends...They went on
the OFFENSIVE, Attacked before being attacked, Enemies were defined
by location and race -- not actions, Their hatred led to rape,
pilliage, and near the end - eating those they killed.If ISIS in
Iraq ever attacks the United States, call me.These cries of
pre-emptive wars, fuled by hatred of a people in a place, is the
final warning of the Lost civilization in the Book of Mormon.BTW --
In the End, The Nephites themselves were destroyed, and God allowed
those heathen Lamanites to survive....So I say -- God bless
the Lamanites, Allah bless the Muslims for the same reason.
Where to start with Iraq? Stay out. 11 years ago, and today.
Saddam kept relative tranquility in Iraq via fear and force.Those
bashing Obama for abiding by Bush's agreement to leave in 2011 somehow
think Iraq was on the fast path to a full-functioning, stable democracy.As soon as we left, Maliki replaced competent military leaders with
political hacks, following Saddam's model, abandoning ours.Were
we supposed to babysit Iraq for a hundred years?
@ LDS liberalExactly. I cannot tell you how many fellow LDS forget
to read this part of the Book of Mormon. It's towards the end, so maybe
they just skim through it. But it's one of the most important lessons of
the entire book!The Nephites were protected as long as they only
fought in self defense. But as soon as they invaded the Lamanite nation, they
were swept up.And unlike many armchair commanders, you have actually
served in our armed forces. You know what war is like.I encourage
the pro repub war chickens to actually join. We have the lowest enlistment rate
in the country. Even Alaska has a higher rate! So I suggest we get off our
computers, war isn't a game of Starcraft or Call of Duty, and put our money
where our mouth is. If we want to wage war, it's only fair that some of you
slap some skin into it. Serving a mission and then getting married at Byu
doesn't count as military service. We can't have noble
folks like LDS liberal pulling all the weight!
I wholeheartedly agree with the author. Well, almost wholeheartedly, but I
digress.Where to start with Iraq? Don't.
Bush tried to impose a Jeffersonian democracy on an Iraqi society dominated by
religious fanaticism and tribal loyalties. Obama has/had the same fantasy in
Afghanistan. Leave it alone, you can't improve something by making it
The cruel irony of our Iraq involvement is that it opened up a front that in
twelve years has gone from having no connection to the war on terror to
potentially becoming militant Islam’s biggest gain and greatest triumph.
Explain that for us, Mr. Cheney.
Did Bush go to war upon the principle of pre-emption? Or was he
enforcing UN declarations, which had been abused and broken by Saddam
repeatedly? The answer is both. War with Al-Qaeda and
the Taliban was a correct response to 9/11.War with Iraq upon the
principle of preemption was not a correct response. But, enforcing UN sanctions
and declarations against Iraq was justified, and supported by Democrats and
Republicans. If one party was wrong, both were wrong.
Many people I know, including my youngest son, fought in Iraq. They all came
home saying similar things and that is that America didn't understand the
people or the internal conflicts of the middle east before intervening in them.
They acted as if it was Europe in 1944. Making sure that what we are doing is
making us safer rather than making matters worse should be the first guiding
principles of any actions we take now.
I agree with almost all of what is written. One point of disagreement is that
many just war theorists accept the permissibility of preemptive war (like the 6
day war), but reject preventive war (which many consider the second Iraq war to
be).It seems the reasons not to answer the Iraqi government's
call for help might be, in Just War terms, that there is no probability of
success and that the government may not be legitimate.
" But for me the main moral of this story is the importance of restraint. We
didn’t understand Iraq in 2002 and we don’t seem to understand it
much better now."Right. Restraint is important.The
default state should be neutral, and not striking out at every windmill or
innocent bystander you see.Restraint = DIPLOMACY. And if that fails,
then perhaps military force, but ONLY if we can clearly see WHY we should
fight.When we act that aggressively, we can be easily played.The US is big and strong, and we know we can lick ANYBODY in a heads up
match, but when we are too aggressive, that makes us susceptible to slick
international judo, and we are played like fools.The Middle East has
been doing the old rope-a-dope, like Muhammad Ali, and we've been punching
ourselves out.We need to smarten up.
Republicans and Democrats both voted for the intervention in IRAQ.The Bush Administration did a good job mis-representing the alleged facts to
the representatives of the American people.The Representatives of
the American people fell for the mis-representation.No more nation
building...or specious preemptive wars.
@LDS Lib,I think you missed the point of the Nephites and Lamanites and
their wars. When the Nephites went to war for power and conquest and hatred,
they were left to their own devices. When they fought under Captain Moroni for
freedom, they were able to prevail. Being wicked (blood-thirsty, immoral,
likely mind altering substances) caused their downfall. While I am a big fan of
the tactics used(the same as those in the Old Testament), our current weapons
make them obsolete. There indirect fire weapons were archery, we have artillery
and air power. We have electronic intel gathering, they had eyes on spies. So,
making a blanket statement such as only fight in the defense, gets you a whole
lot of dead and the land laid waste. It is the reason to fight, not the tactics
that make the difference. An Iraq War vet....
@LDS Lib, Part2Your desire to wait until attacked leaves out 9/11. We
were attacked, and we responded. You may not like that response, but we were
attacked none the less. Waiting to be attacked hearkens to the Cold War, when
our troops in Germany were nothing but a speed bump and we trained to fight on
the defense......and couldn't win in that scenario. I prefer the just war,
where we take the advantage. In the case of Iraq, we had sanctions; Saddam got
around them. We patrolled the no-fly zone, he shot at our planes. We sent
inspectors, he stonewalled them and lied to us. We warned him, he thumbed his
nose at us. We got several UN resolutions against him, he didn't care. He
terrorized his people and his neighbors, he raped and pillaged Kuwait and showed
that he would do it again if he had the chance. Cause? I think we had it many
times over...An Iraq War vet.....
RE JackAurora Colorado"we were attacked and we
responded." I guess you are talking about 9/11?With all due respect I
think most people agree that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.Tell me your thought if you feel Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11
I would be interested in reading them.According to current polls,
72% of those responding feel Iraq was not worth the lives and money.Which of the decision makers were responsible for this fiasco?
@Iron Rod,Yes, if you read the first line of my post, I was referring to
9/11. Was Saddam directly responsible? No. Did he harbor and allow terrorists
to train in Iraq? Yes. I was referring to our response in Afghanistan, and LDS
Lib's proposal that we only fight if attacked. I disagree. We cannot allow
being attacked to be the only criteria used to determine military
involvement.As for polls.....I don't put much stock in polls,
unless I can see the questions and can how they were asked. Also, not everyone
likes to participate in polls, so often the results only reflect a certain
demographic that does participate. Therefore the results can be skewed.I speak from experience, most others on this board speak from reading a
book, never having served in combat. Most in foreign policy making positions
haven't even been to the places they are supposedly the expert in. You
want to fix blame? Let's see, the military fights and wins the battles,
the civilians in Washington DC make the policy, and there are lots of them with
input into those policies, which change with the flavor of political party.
Take your pick.
Re JackAurora ColoradoThanks for the clarification. An
additional question. In your opinion was Al Quaida in Iraq in any size able
numbers before the invasion?
JackAurora, COThat "Just War" was based on lies and
deceit.Mormon wait until the Lamanites attacked 3 times before
counter-attacking.Iraq and Saddam Hessein NEVER attack us, not
once.Meanwhile in -- Rwanda 100's thousand killed via
genocide and machets.U.S. Humanitarian resonse? nothingThe
differennce?O-I-LAn older Veteran, but old enogh to
remember Vietnam, older and wiser - and too old to be active duty anymore,
but still proudly serving our Country as an Engineer in Civil
Service keeping our USAF flying today.
@LDS LibI was in basic training when Saigon fell in 1975, and I retired in
2008. I was in uniform for the aftermath of Vietnam all the way through a tour
in Iraq in 2003 and more. Lies? yeah, but who told them? Foreign intelligence
services? Our own intelligence services? President Clinton? All of them
believed the reasons were there. My earlier post lists all the valid reasons we
went there. Rwanda? An atrocity of epic proportions, but the military
isn't in the business of Humanitarian response. The military is for
tactical and strategic response.Again, you confuse the reason to
fight with the tactics involved.