The debate is on over the continuation of the war in Iraq. Maybe I should have put the word "war" in quotes. One of the things that makes a war is a clear idea of what it means to win. King George the second hasn't given us that.
There's probably a reason for that. If he gave us a clear picture of victory, that picture might come to pass and he'd have to pull troops out of Iraq. The main reason George wants to be a "war president" is that it gives him additional power.
I heard a caller on a conservative talk show yesterday say that George Bush has a plan to change the face of the Middle East. If ever there was an impossible goal, that would be it! We made a move in 1948 to change the face of the Middle East, and it worked. It's just that the new Middle East we achieved was further away from rather than closer to what we wanted.
In fact I'd say nobody has a clear idea what we want in the Middle East. Conservative Christians and Jews want a Jewish homeland there, and it's likely we're trying to stir up a war against Israel since the Evangelicals believe that's what will bring on the tribulation.
Bush and cronies keep saying that pulling out is to wave a flag of surrender. On the same talk show yesterday someone said that because we didn't leave Vietnam right millions of people died in Cambodia.
Now I'm not really sure of the history on that. I do know Pol Pot is responsible, which means we can't be. Could we have prevented Pol Pot? Maybe. So why didn't we? We had freed up our troops. I'll tell you why. Because the country was sick and tired of fighting the wrong war and wouldn't have supported action to stop the misguided Campuchea regieme.
If we are responsible for any problems in Cambodia it's likely due to the fact that we bombed that country, not that we left Vietnam. And the problem we have right now is that we're engaged in a conflict we should never have started.
I could hash this out, but I've already done that in any number of the articles on this site. We took a country where Christians could meet freely and in safety and turned it into a country where destruction and death are familiar.
My own church has suffered signficant economic loss in Iraq because of the violence associated with this war. And when we leave, which we will (the only question is when) it's almost a given that the country will undergo a civil war and turn into an Islamic Republic similar to Iran. That will make it impossible for us to continue our operations in that country.
Saddam Hussein could have been our ally in the war on terror. The one who was tolerating the enemies who struck us back in the fall of 2001 is the one we made an ally. So we support the man who let our enemies operate in his country, and we see to the death of the man who could have been a powerful ally in containing our enemies. Man, are we ever subtle and clever!
Of course since Osama Bin Laden also died it's clear we've properly allocated our resources. ... ... ... Did I really say that? Obviously Osama (not Obama as Rush called him yesterday) IS still alive and plotting more damage to our country.
Here's another way to look at our response to the attacks of 9-11-'01. The Islamists killed some 3000 people in our country, so to retailiate we sent another 3000 and counting Americans to die at their hands. Remember, it's one of Bush's arguments that we're fighting the right war because Al Quaeda operatives are there to fight us.
"If we leave now," he and his supporters tell us, "They'll come over here and attack us at home." I can't argue against that. Our presence in Iraq has allowed Bin Laden's organization to significantly increase its pool of experienced killers and destroyers.
Essentially those who argue that we should stay in Iraq are arguing that because we pulled the dunderheaded move of starting a war there we need to keep being dunderheaded and keep sending our citizens over there to die or get maimed.
One of the issues being railed about on that talk show I've mentioned is the suggestion of John Edwards to do anti-war protests on Memorial Day. They felt this would be a desecration of the "sacred" holiday. "Protest in front of the VFW," one caller suggested.
The host said people who suggest things like that don't understand what Memorial Day is about. I WILL disagree about that. People like me understand that Memorial Day is an important celebration for a country that wants to send people to kill and die. Without the promise of honor few would agree to such an insane mission.
But I say, what better way to honor our war dead that to stand up and say, "Never again!"? Do we truly honor the dead by sending more persons to join them?
Another person on that show, a veteran, said he fought so people like a previous contrary caller had the right to say what he had said. But that can't be true because it's obvious he wanted people like the previous caller to quit saying what they're saying. And as to soldiers "giving" us our rights: God gave us our rights and nobody can take them away without killing us. Soldiers kill, so soldiers take away rights.
The arguments against the host and his conservative friends were very poorly stated. One caller named Bush and all his supporters "Nazis." Name calling is not a good argument. It simply personalizes our disagreements. Here's the tack I would like to have taken had I called in:
"Dave, could you tell me what it will look like when we win in Iraq? How will we know when we have won?" If he was to give me an answer I'd ask why George Bush hasn't clearly and repeatedly presented that vision to the American public.
If he gave me the tired platitudes that we're not fighting a traditional enemy and winning won't look like it ever has before I'd simply ask if that meant we'd never win. If he said no I'd repeat my demand that he tell me what victory would look like. If he said yes then I'd ask how long we should continue trying to accomplish the impossible at a staggering economic and human cost.
To summarize then, those who want us to stay in Iraq need to clearly state what they believe will be gained by staying and what conditions or events will indicate when that has been gained. Do a cost-benefit analysis and tell us why it's sensible to spend dollars and lives in this endeavor. In short, give us fact, not platitudes.