So, it seems my interlocutors are united on many fronts. They believe I am a mindless follower of Republican talking points. They believe I am labeling all critics of the Iraq war unpatriotic. They believe I am bloodthirsty, love war, don’t care about civilian deaths, am ignorant of history, don’t understand the current situation in the Middle East, slavishly slurp up anything President Bush says, act in bad faith, disregard facts, etc.
They also seem to be united in believing that if more people die as a result of our leaving Iraq that’ll be okay since they’re already dying in droves and have been killing each other for centuries anyway (my, what a charitable, sensitive view of Muslims!).
I admit I have no good answer for the fact that our invasion has cost the lives of thousands of civilians. It may indeed have been a mistake to invade Iraq. I categorically admit the possibility. What I can’t admit is that President Bush did so mendaciously and for puerile, selfish motives. I think an honest case could be made for invading Iraq back in 2002 and that good people can disagree about that.
But I can’t admit that the battle is lost and that we should just give up on what was from the beginning a fool’s errand. I know it’s really satisfying for those who were against the war in the beginning to point and say, “I told you so.”
Okay. You’ve had your moment of glory. You bet on the U.S. being wrong and you were right. Congratulations!
(By the way, I am really amused at how Mr. Parker and Ms. McCann try to explain away the strong Democratic support for the war back in 2002. Mr. Parker says they were just giving authority to Bush to conduct foreign policy; Ms. McCann says at least they admitted they were wrong. And they accuse me of not acknowledging reality!)
Now we have to figure out what to do. Mr. Carter, like his daddy, advocates negotiation with the surrounding powers and laments us not being buddy-buddy with Hamas and Hezbollah. He also wants us to force Israel to give up the Golan Heights.
I have to side with the Bush administration on this one. I really can’t believe Syria, Iran, and their paramilitary offshoots are partners in good faith. It would probably work about as well as our “negotiations” with North Korea in the 1990s or Neville Chamberlain’s “reaching out” to Herr Hitler in the 1930s. Can’t you understand that some people and regimes just can’t be trusted?
I don’t know much, as my counterparts claim, but I would assume Bush is working with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait on resolving this issue. Those are surrounding powers, right? They have their issues, but are sufficiently less wicked than those fun-loving folks in Iran or Syria.
Sorry to disappoint, but I honestly, sincerely come back to the fact that withdrawal is just too dangerous and immoral as an option. Granted, a few more deaths are no big deal to the Big 3, but to me, the inevitable carnage caused by our leaving is simply not acceptable. So would the resultant rogue government or governments, who would pose a greater threat to us than Saddam ever did.
You know, Bush did learn lessons from the past election, but the election was not a mandate to leave Iraq immediately. It was a mandate to change course. He is changing course and trying to win.
Previously, we tied our military’s hands for fear of offending the Iraqis and our critics. We didn’t want to appear to be the oppressor or occupier, and as a result we encouraged the insurgency to attack. The policy was an honest attempt to avoid appearing as an overbearing conquerer and to give the Iraqi government a chance to deal with the problems. But, it failed.
So now we are trying a little more of a blunt approach. It seems Sadr has high-tailed it to Iran and that there is some anticipation that the troop increase together with a more aggressive engagement will prove effective. If it does indeed fail, then we will have to consider withdrawal in shame. But I think it’s worth a try. Weren’t Democrats just a few months ago calling for more troops, anyway?
Last but not least is this whole patriotic issue. Let me be clear: I understand and fully accept that there are plenty of critics of the war who are patriotic and I am not accusing Messrs. Parker and Carter or Ms. McCann of being unpatriotic. I could never assume to know what’s going on in their heads, but I take them for their word.
What I am saying is that there are critics who are not motivated by love of country, but rather by hatred. Those folks are by definition not patriotic because they do not love their country, but they mask their criticisms and invectives with a false patriotism in order to insulate themselves from analysis or rebuke. It’s hypocrisy of the worst sort and it goes on unpunished (not in a legal sense; calm down!) and unnoticed because the mainstream media in this country refuses to do its job and really investigate out of its bias against Bush, conservatives, and Republicans.
I really hope Bush’s effort to solve the military and security problem in Iraq succeeds. It’s going to happen anyway and I know any lives lost in the process is tragic. But I can’t escape the conclusion that failing to pursue victory would result not only in vastly more deaths in Iraq, but in a dangerous vulnerability and lack of resolve on our part.
Osama bin Laden cited Vietnam and Somalia as examples of our weakness and was emboldened by that apparently weakness to launch his attacks. My view is that we should do every thing possible to dissuade him of that impression, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere (including Iran!) where dangerous extremists plot to terrorize innocents and undermine our civilization.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.