Sunday, March 5, 2006

The Cost Of War

I thought this post up last night but had already turned my computer off so I couldn't get it down while it was fresh in my mind. I hope I don't forget something I wanted to say.

We all know that public opinion on the War On Terror has swung. More people today think we should begin an immediate pullout from Iraq. That going into Iraq was the wrong move to make. I myself think we should begin a pullout, but not too fast and not by too many soldiers. People, in general, are impatient and tend to think with their hearts rather than their heads. I'm guilty of that as well, sometimes. We tend to quickly get feed up with things that aren't going the way we hoped they would. And the fact that over 2,000 troops have lost their lives doesn't help the situation. In doing this we tend to forget exactly what it is that's going on. This isn't a war that can be won in a matter of four or five or even ten years. We're not dealing with a single country and one single group of people. The enemy here is vast and determined. Not for power or control of the world, but rather the killing of people who they deem "infidels". The death of freedoms and oppression of anyone they don't like. They don't care about you or me. They don't care about your parents, friends or children. They would sooner put a bullet through your child's head than sit down and talk to you. There's an old adage that says "cut off the head and the rest of the snake will die". Well, there is no head this time. There is no single leader that we can arrest or kill that will stop this. War is ugly. War is messy. War is evil. War is long. Nobody ever said that going into Iraq would be easy and simple. President Bush has stated many times that this war won't be easy or pretty. It's only been three years since American troops went into Iraq and it seems that some think we should already be done with it. That we should, somehow, have already killed or captured every Islamofacist terrorist in the world. How long were troops in Europe during WWII? Even after Germany surrendered? When things aren't going our way we get angry. We get frustrated. And we let that anger and frustration take over and we loose perspective. Like it or not this war will be going on for quite some time. If not in Iraq then somewhere else. Chances are our children will be fighting it one day.

I wish I had a better finish than that, but I don't. Only it's going to take time. Time some in this country are unwilling to give.
Filed under War On Terror

15 comments:

40 said...

Sorry you lose big cred when comparing Iraq to WWII. There are NO similarities.

I agree we need to begin to pull out. If only to show the middle east that we aren't going to be there forever.

As Jack Kemp said today, "I think there’s a very important consideration that we have to announce, that we have absolutely no plans to leave bases in Iraq as—and in my opinion, it’s very important to set some type of a timetable. Not ‘06 or ‘07, but they have to know that by ‘08 or ‘09 at the latest, we’re going to be—totally be out of Iraq."

Indian Chris said...

And what if they're not ready by 2009? You all like to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Well, we pull out to early and it really will be like Vietnam. Slaughter.

Za said...

Only if people are stupid enough to leave the rebuilding down to market-driven forces.

In the space of 3 or 4 years, given adequate funding, Iraq can be self-sustained, if that's what the US government really wanted.

But oddly enough I believe they're too busy attempting to funnel money to dissidents in Iran now.

Opinionnation said...

Iraq is barely the infantile beginnings of the new hundred year war. There is no doubt about that and its time everyone get on board for the long haul.

When I hear people speak about Iraq as if it is a separate effort then the war on terror it really upsets me. We were told Iraq had WMD's but as of yet there are none, that point is well taken, although it's not the relevant point. Every person that understands how "it" works should realize the WMD argument, although at the time was thought to be true, was simply a way to gather support for the necessary effort of Mid-east reformation. That is why I support this war 100% and that is why if Bush had said in the beginning that this Iraq war was for the purpose of a long term effort to reform the Mid-East as well as WMD everyone would still understand. Of Course many people are incapable of recognizing this strategically complex plan so the Administration had to say well it's WMD and he might give them to terrorists. It would have worked if those weapons were not moved buried or destroyed. So now, all of those people who are unable to comprehend the military and strategic objectives of the Mid-East reformation better get their shit together and become team players. This isn't a joke and this effort should not be constantly undermined.

Indian Chris said...

When I hear people speak about Iraq as if it is a separate effort then the war on terror it really upsets me

The Left will never understand that. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Bush has said that he will do what he can to fight terrorists. Which brings me to North Korea and Iran. What's been the Lefts biggest bitch the whole time about Iraq? That instead of trying to work things out we invaded. So why are they now saying Bush isn't doing anything about NK or Iran? We're trying to negotiate a peaceful ends and still they're not satisfied. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Za said...

Actually, no, Saddam was not a terrorist. At least, not by any legal or dictionary definition that wouldn't cover the US as well.

And no, you're not trying to "negotiatie peaceful ends" with EITHER Iran or North Korea. For heaven's sake - you're going to fund dissident groups in Iran, that's not negotiation! And you're not doing anything with NK at all.

I'm seriously wondering how much reality you guys take in.

Za said...

Oh, yeah, and baslessly accusing Iran of attempting to build nukes is also not negotiation.

Indian Chris said...

Not trying to negotiate with NK or Iraq? So what the hell is all this "six party talks" going on with North Korea that they keep walking away from and we're not trying to work with the UN into getting Iran to stop their nuclear program?

Opinionnation said...

I guess the left has select memory because "negotiation" with Iran has been happening for years. Clinton negotiated with North Korea and was even dumb enough to make a deal, which of course N. Korea ignored and used to build their weapons. Hell, Saddam had over a decade of negotiations which he ignored and he chose not to step down after violating international law and ignoring over a dozen UN resolutions. In actuality Saddam Hussein chose war not the US.

What is with the left? For some odd reason they think the world Community will protect them and do the right thing. I guess they refuse to understand how corrupt the "world Community" is. Oh, and anytime you hear the word negotiation with countries like Iran and N. Korea that just means giving them more time to develop their weapons. Here is a tip for the left: Negotiations never work if one party has no true intention of keeping its word. Just to let them know because obviously they don’t.

Indian Chris said...

Anthony,

With some countries, there is a little glimmer of hope that maybe it can work. Like with Germany and Japan after WWII. But, so long as Iran is controlled by radical Muslims and North Korea has monkey man Kim Jong Il in power that faint glimmer isn't there.

Za said...

Nothing's happened on the "six party talks" in ages, since you kept pissing NK off.

And "trying to work with the UN into getting Iran to stop their nuclear program" isn't negotiation. That's forceful and unrelenting demands. Negotiation requires coming to an agreement, not pigheadedly demanding people do what you say.

Indian Chris said...

Always us. Never them. We piss North Korea off. We piss al-Qeada off. We piss Iran off. Those poor people have no other options because of us evil Americans. They have to create nuclear weapons and fly planes into buildings. All because of us.

Za said...

Oh, them as well, but we're not talking about them, we're talking about what the US is doing.

You're using a diversionary tactic to avoid taking responsibility.

If any other nation treated the US in the same way the US treats everyone else, you'd be screaming and ranting. If North Korea went to the UN to get them to take away your nukes, what would you do? Huh? Say it's none of their business, that's what. If Iran went to the UN and got them to pressure you over your election fairness, you'd be bloody well pissed off.

If China started heavy-duty trade talks, with images of eagles with swords through them all around the negotiation room, your guys would probably storm off in a huff too.

And so on, and so forth.

You guys are too full of yourselves.

Opinionnation said...

Za said, "If North Korea went to the UN to get them to take away your nukes, what would you do?"

You see Za, when you equate the historical generosity, protection, sacrifice, freedom-bringing, peace-making country of the United States of America to the dictatorship of N. Korea you automatically forfeit the relevance needed to make your argument.

N. Korea is not the US. The US established the UN. The US freed Europe; the US has kept Taiwan free from the clutches of China. The US has secured S. Korea providing them with freedom and peace. The US has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. The United States of America, with all of its faults, IS NOT NORTH KOREA! And when you try to bring them up to America's level in order make a point, I get upset.

-They just don't get it-

Za said...

Oh for fuck's sake! It doesn't matter WHO does it, you'd still tell them to sod off.