»#1 Best Argument Against the Iraq War: It's Cowardly«

It seems to me that most people think the best arguments against the Iraq war somehow revolve around two things (1) the causes of the war; and (2) the effects of the war.

So in argument 1, you have people who say we shouldn't have gone to war because the intelligence was bad (there were no WMD's), and there was no plan for after Saddam was toppled. But really the first point is specious, because the war's supporters and the president will always say in response that, although there were problems with the intelligence, the real reason for the war was always stated as "regime change," because of Saddam's potential in the future to produce or finance WMD's, terrorists acts, and general nastiness. All of which is true. And the second point is also specious because the war's supporters will say it was impossible to know that there would be such a stong insurgency after the war and that the sectarian divisions in Iraq would spill over into the new Iraqi government, so the post-war plan for Iraq had to be modified. This plan, they might say, could still work if given enough time. Which is also true.

Argument 2 (arguing against the effects of the war) says that too much American blood and treasure has already been spent in a quagmire which resembles Vietnam, and that there are plenty of economic problems at home in the USA to deal with that are being neglected by the war, as well as the threat of terrorism. However, both these points are specious as well: when one considers that the Vietnam War was so completely different from Iraq, the parallel is not a good one. The Vietnamese communist insurgents had support from the Soviet Union for one, and one half of the country (North Vietnam) had already fallen to the communists, while the insurgents in Iraq have only private support and are spread around all of Iraq. In addition, the South Vietnamese government that had American support was corrupt and incompetent, and thus could not really command respect, while the current Iraqi government is attempting to build a multiethnic, democratic coalition and seems to enjoy some degree of Iraqi and international support. Which is true. The second point is specious too, because all a war supporter has to do is point out the fact that wars have traditionally been good for the American economy, and also the fact that Bush's strategy of "fighting the terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight them at home" may actually be working, given that al Qaeda has yet to strike at America since 9/11. All of which is true.

So all the points are answered: even though the war was started with bad intelligence, the legal reason for the war has remained the same. Even though the aftermath of the war has not worked out perfectly, this was impossible to predict and it's not over yet. Even though the war has been terrible, it is not as bad as Vietnam. And finally, even though there are problems in America, things will get better and al Qaeda hasn't gotten us again.

But what about cowardice? Why do I say that the Iraq war is cowardly? Simple: it's perfect. The war in Iraq is perfect . The war may outlast Bush's presidency, but then someone else will eventually win it. It will be won; it's just a matter of time. There has never been a major modern war more easily won than the one in Iraq will be. This war is a deadly equation, and when both both sides have been simplified, the fact remains that whatever you consider to be the enemy of the US in this war, that enemy will lose. If I am right, the Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are going to lose big time; they just don't know it yet. Sure we can laugh at them the way our ancestors laughed at the American Indians when the Indians got all worked up and fought back against us, but the truth is that kind of laughter is cowardly. Because the equation is so unbalanced, it's easy to resolve, and that makes it cowardly to do it.

The US has almost every government in the world basically behind it in Iraq, and only in America could so many people be so spoiled as to say, "this war has cost the US too much," with fewer than 15,000 casualties (dead and wounded) so far (to put that in perspective at least 10,000,000 Russians died in World War Two) I'm sure it hurts when people lose loved ones overseas or people come home with injuries, but this is the reality of the equation. Iraq is just not that expensive to the US. So I don't hate people who support the war in Iraq: I pity them the same way I would pity someone who tortures animals for no reason. The whole thing is cowardly, and that's the best argument against it.

posted by holy_of_holies

in-my-opinion.org -> Politics -> Bush, Kerry, Iraq -> #1 Best Argument Against the Iraq War: It's Cowardly

h_o_h:

Because the equation is so unbalanced, it's easy to resolve, and that makes it cowardly to do it.

So if the equation were balanced --- if Bush had invaded with equal forces, equal resources --- would it still have been cowardly?

posted by Tiefling

Tiefling:

h_o_h:

Because the equation is so unbalanced, it's easy to resolve, and that makes it cowardly to do it.

So if the equation were balanced --- if Bush had invaded with equal forces, equal resources --- would it still have been cowardly?

Well war is not like a golf game, where you can handicap yourself to make things exactly equal . But actually, now that you ask, I think (and this applies to the last Afghanistan War as well) that's almost the way it should have been done. The US should have increased its aid to opposition groups against Saddam, engaged in pinpoint airstrikes to degrade his military capabilities (similar to Clinton's missile strikes against al Qaeda, but with better targets), cultivated more intelligence contacts (spies, assassins, and saboteurs) within Iraq, and ratcheted up international pressure - including the much-reviled economic sanctions - on Saddam to reform or go into exile. Speaking of Afghanistan, this strategy would have been even easier and less costly there, where the Taliban lacked any real authority other than its street-gang hold on turf, and the only real danger it was capable of exporting was trained terrorists.

I think if it had been done that way, and the US had not applied the ridiculous and frankly useless "Powell Doctrine" (overwhelming force), it might not have been such a yellow-bellied thing to do. Also, just wanted to point out that I'm not talking about the military being cowardly (obviously they are not cowards, especially enlisted soldiers), but rather I mean the civilian leaders who give the orders to go to war and determine the amount of resources to be used.

posted by holy_of_holies

Well I basically agree with everything in that post. The only thing I differ on is motive. I don't think the US should have taken the actions you described to avoid cowardice; I think the US should have taken the actions you described because the US had no right to send a military force into Iraq.

posted by Tiefling

Tiefling:

I think the US should have taken the actions you described because the US had no right to send a military force into Iraq.

Well really in historical terms all war is war crime, i.e. no one has a "right" to wage war ever. But international law is a relatively new development, and even international law allows for the possibility of unilateral action in certain extreme cases. I certainly wouldn't want the United Nations, world opinion, or any of our allies to be able to veto a particular threat against whom we could go to war. I thought that was one point a lot of people were missing when they opposed the war: the fact that it's always been the case that if a threat is big enough and imminent enough, the US has had the authorization - and probably always will have the authorization - to go after it. And like I said in my first post, even though there was bad intelligence at the beginning, the general idea was that Saddam was so crazy that he could go terrorist at any moment. Whether or not that is true is a matter of debate, but I think it is.

The UN was never designed to be able to veto abusive wars - especially by powers like the US - though the UN can condemn them. And - speaking from the point of view of US national interest alone - who really cares what the French or German or whoever leftist crowd thinks about US foreign policy? White laugh

How many divisions do they have, as Stalin would say?

So really that leaves a certain sense of fair play or what is known in the military as "proportionality", which demands that the punishment fit the crime, so to speak. At one point before 9/11, I think the US was actually more vulnerable to a much more massive strike than 9/11 itself, like an NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) terror strike. And the story that seems to be coming out of American intelligence is that al Qaeda still has access to NBC weapons. Even though we've done everything to offend Osama's pride - seemingly his weakness - we haven't seen that kind of strike either in the US or elsewhere. So apparently Bush's strategy is working, as I said. But think about the cost in lives and human rights of war and oppression, and it becomes clear that some sense of proportionality is lacking in this administration.

That's cowardly in a nasty sort of way: to coin a term, I would call it "active cowardice", as opposed to passive cowardice, which is defeatism or rolling over for the enemy. It's cowardly to attack someone who can't properly defend themselves.

posted by holy_of_holies

holy_of_holies:

#1 Best Argument Against the Iraq War: It's Cowardly

See also IMO → US military can only fight against weak

posted by knn

ebooks-download.com

Denmar

Posts: 2
Topics started: 0
The thought of you people being my fellow countrymen makes me sick ! The commander in chief PRESIDENT BUSH, as he is known by respectfull and patriotic people, is acting in the best intrest of our country. The blood shed and loss of life by our countries finest is a voletary sacrafice and a deed of patriots who understand the cost of freedom and have paied that price for YOU to be able to call them names and abuse that freeom. You need to re-think who you are dogin' out. It is YOU that the freaks on this earth use as propaganda to ballance out this "Unfair war" and turn our people against our Government. We have a right to defend ourselves from anybody that wants to harm us. And we HAVE, do not mistake our restraint as weekness.
We are free people and if you respect that freedom you should put another piece of pie in the hole of yours and thank those who have given the ultimat sacrafice,their LIFE FOR YOU. GET A GRIP!

posted by Denmar

WAR IS BIG BUSINESS... DO YOUR RESEARCH...WHO IS BENEFITTING FROM A PROTRACTED WAR...THE FACTS ARE UNDENIABLE.

posted by bhnbh

bhnba, please let me know who gets rich from this one, it seems as though it's the Saudi's people and they are not in the war. but keep me updated please. Thisd "hyp" oF we Americans are profiting from this is BS, We will get out when the thret is over, not untill. This has nothing to do with business. Read the news

posted by Denmar

The time now is 6 October 2008, 17:44
php B.B.