« Previous · Home · Next »
Another Armchair General
By John
This chick kills me. Just kills me. From, where else? The Los Angeles Times:
Polls show the American public — and the troops themselves — to be deeply critical of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and concerned about the war's devastating effect on the American military. We've watched the situation in Iraq go from bad to worse, from worse to worst and then from worst to unthinkably awful, as "insecurity" morphed into "sectarian violence," then into chaos and civil war.
The "war's devastating effect on the American military?" You mean wars can devastate militaries? Get out. Only this one isn't. Devastating, that is. I won't play the numbers game, it's lame, but on the off chance that she feels a sudden, striking urge to educate herself, she can google casaulties of past wars. Devastating. Yeesh, could we be any more dramatic?
We've seen the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq roughly tripled since the 2004 election. We've seen the war in Iraq fuel anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide; we've seen copycat suicide bombings increase in Afghanistan; we've seen the Iraq conflict further inflame tensions with Iran and throughout the Middle East; we've seen hostile states around the globe emboldened by the image of the U.S. caught in a quagmire; we've seen Al Qaeda regroup; we've seen Iraq become a top training ground for aspiring terrorists from all over.
We've seen the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq roughly tripled since the 2004 election. Well hold on, let me get my abacus out. March 03 to November 04 = roughly a year and a half. Then a little over three years since the election. Uh, doesn't that mean casaulties are pretty much par for the course? Like I said, the numbers game is just lame. I imagine casaulties tripled between 1941-1945 during World War II as well. Time, you know. It has that effect in war zones.
We've seen copycat suicide bombings increase in Afhganistan. Ugh. Yeah, Afghanistan was a pretty happy, terror free place until Bushco invaded Iraq. Her point about the hostile states becoming emboldened was pretty confusing too. I guess she feels that UN-esqe appeasement doesn't embolden? Oh, and Iran's hostility towards the US is our fault, and began the minute we invaded Iraq. Just so you know.
Look, her whole column is pretty stupid. The thing is actually about the Swift Boat Vets or something. But it just runs in line with my enormous pet peeve of people who know absolutely zilch about the military, strategy, war, et al running around like they're second coming of Patton. Rosa Brooks couldn't tell an insurgent from the dude who on the corner who washes her car windows, and I'm supposed to be listening to her sound military jugdment? Credibility, folks. It counts.
Oh, and never trust some dorky columnist when they try to lecture you on the collective attitude of the US military. I'm in the military and I can't do that. Not with a straight face at least. Most of the troops support the mission. That's a fact. Some don't. That's also a fact. I'm sure that Rosa and every other prissy Hollywood drama queen loves to build a fantasy world where the US military is ready to revolt against Buscho and his unjust war. But that's just what it is, fantasy.
Brooks' article just goes to show how opposition to the war in Iraq has become a religion for some people. You can't penetrate that dogmatic force field with logic. Why try? These are the same type of people who believe William Arkin when he says we military types are just in it for the money. I'd rather just let them feed me this steady stream of bad comedy, and hope that the uncounted ranks of the rational in this country recognize this type of punditry as just that. Comedy.
Hotel Tango: Michelle
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/780
Comments
I can't believe she managed to slime the country's most decorated living military veteran in her piece -- and not even mention Bud Day's military record at all.
More here:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2007/03/los-angeles-times-smears-medal-of-honor.html
Hmmm. The LA Times doesn't bother to inform readers that Ms. Brooks served on the Kerry Edwards Campaign in 2004.
Most real newspapers would alert readers to any potential conflicts. You would think that the Los Angeles Times might have learned something from the Staples Center incident.
Apparently not.
Freeman,
We haven't caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
And no one ever at any time said Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- but they did give some aid and comfort to those who did. It was okay to contain Saddam before the attacks, but after them it was appropriate to be more aggressive. I only wish we continued to be aggressive.
we may have caused quite a few civilian casualties. It's a sad, sad truth, but that's the way of war. It's also why war should be avoided at all costs.
However, once the bullets start flying, like they did on Sept. 11, all bets are off. You prosecute the fight until you eradicate the enemy. Period.
I've always believed that, like in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Cold War, et al....fighting and destroying evil will always be worth the high sacrifice.
OK, moon6, I'll not argue your statement that "We haven't caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.". I've already agreed that numbers games are pointless, so I see no reason to play it here. I could be wrong about the actual numbers - the US government refuses to quantify them for us, and the counts available vary widely. What I was getting at with my statement is that not only has our response vis-a-vis Iraq been misdirected, but disproportionate as well. Would you disagree with the statement that WELL OVER 3,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed as a result of our invasion of their country? How is that justified by a loss of 3,000 of our own - even if Iraq WAS behind it. How is even 20 eyes for an eye morally justified?
Here's my point in all of this: terrorism is a law-enforcement issue, and cannot be diminished through military action, which tends to cause MUCH more damage than the original crime it intends to punish, inciting further terrorism in response. It just doesn't work. That's why we don't use our military to fight a "war on murder" or even a "war on serial-killers" in our own country - it wouldn't work and would cause more harm than good. The only difference in Iraq is that it is those "others" who are being harmed, not us.
As for your statement "And no one ever at any time said Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks", well all I can say in response to that is this: If you are correct, how do you explain this article from September 2003. If "no one ever at any time said" it, how did SO MANY PEOPLE come to believe it?
From the article:
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
Whether or not it was specifically stated, it most certainly was suggested by our leaders before the war started, so much so that a vast majority of our population believed in the notion. Google for it, and you'll find many the suggestive statement from Cheney and Bush on the subject.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
Your counter-points are well made. The numbers game doesn't help her argument at all. Casualties? At the current rate, we'd have to fight this war for 75 years to match the casualty numbers our side suffered in Vietnam (according to my abacus). Of course, if we were counting Iraqi civilian casualties... well that's another story.
...we've seen Iraq become a top training ground for aspiring terrorists from all over. This was a predictable outcome (see Soviet occupation of Afghanistan) that seems completely counter to our stated goals for the region. While you didn't offer a specific counter-argument to this, the "best" I've seen elsewhere is the "fly-paper" argument that we would rather attract them to the area to fight them there so we don't have to at home. But like with flys, if you just hang fly-paper over something else that attracts them, you'll kill plenty, but won't get rid of them or even reduce their numbers.
I think those of us opposed to this war would be better off arguing our case along moral lines. Is it morally right to fight our wars in someone else's homeland, letting their civilian population bear the "collateral damage" of our "war on terror"? Is it morally right for a superpower to "pre-emptively" invade and occupy a MUCH, MUCH weaker nation (making it necessary to massively over-hype whatever threat might be conjured up and attributed to them in order to "justify" it)? Where is the moral justification for causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in response three thousand deaths of our own civilians, in a country that everyone from the President on down now admits had nothing at all to do with it?