What is the definition of neo-conservative mentality in fighting a war? what is a conservative mentality of fighting a war? Liberal way? Feminist way?
I think that there is no doubt that there were things that could have been done better in the Iraq war. number 1 is that in 1991, we could have got rid of Saddam at that time. When one nation attacks another nation unprovoked and starts hanging people from rafters along the way, that nation should be severely beaten, and their leaders jailed. In 1991 we did not do that and there we are, left with the promises of a man who has committed horrible acts against persons in the country and outside of his country (which for the sake of space, lets say justifies another nation’s intervention).
Clinton era: we left troops there in the middle east, one of the legitimate reasons (despite possible illegit ones) is to protect people in Iraq from their own leader and to protect Kuwait and to ensure Saddam complied with his surrender deals. Ok so we have about 26 separate agreements that he violates and Clinton in 1998 decides to launch some missiles into the country to show he means business (or to distract attention from his Monica affair). Just a question now, what would you call this? neo-liberalism? I’m not going to go into all of the reason’s that this was dumb to do, especially given the fact that it did the complete opposite of showing that we intend Saddam to keep his promises.
Clinton gave us 8 years of hanging around Iraq and increased troop presence in other middle eastern nations, and all the while allowed Saddam to break promises, and other terrorist attacks to occur without a problem (Yemen, Tanzania, Kenya etc etc). Clinton also allowed genocide to occur in Rwanda without so much as a flinch. Oh, did I mention that he was offered Osama on a silver plate and he refused? Wouldn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. Now what do we have? We have Bush 1 and Clinton leaving the state of the world in worse positions than they found them.
September 11th occurs a couple months after W is elected president. After Kobar towers, Saddam’s invasion, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, and now September 11th, (and others), the question is what do we do.
Under-estimating whether the Iraqi’s would welcome us with open arms is NOT a big deal. And guess what, tons of them did and still do. The fact that there is still insurgent violence occurring is not surprising. In Japan, there were insurgent attacks all the way into the 1970’s, and they are now a functioning stable democracy. Were they ready in 1945 to function democratically? No. Do we even want to start talking about the craziness that occurred in Germany after WW2. Hell, their is an incredible amount of violence occurring in the United States and people who are not ready for democracy here. There are quite a few communities that may be “better off” in a dictatorship here.
The biggest error of all of the war critiques is that they think the war is a failure because their are still people who hate the US and who are still committing acts of violence. The United States fell into a civil war where over 400,000 people were killed. In Iraq, the people fighting against the US are a big mix of persons from all over the Muslim world who had no loyalty to Saddam Hussein. They see a power vacuum and they desire to fill it.
How did Vietnam win against the US. Patience. How do the Terrorists think they can win the war against the U.S? Patience. That is the key, and it only takes someone who isn’t interested in gaining political power in the US to see it. Osama and friends because of their smaller fire power and resources are able to
Here’s the Neo Conservative War fighting position. We tell the American people to sit back, relax, and wait. Stop using your microwaves and forget about drive thru’s. Your high speed internet access has corrupted your sense of reality. Pretend like we don’t have those. You think technology can change everything in a blink of an eye … your right. Nuclear weapons can do that … but lets pretend like we don’t have those either. Unfortunately for us, we don’t kill innocent persons, and our goal in this war is to give those who are an opportunity to live in freedom without the threat that someone will come take your wife and daughter and rape them before your eyes before they gouge them out. We don’t torture people to give us information (raping wives, killing children, bamboo reeds up fingernails, cutting body parts off until they talk). (if you want to argue the US tortures people, we better find a new word instead of torture to describe sawing an aid workers head off). If we did do that, this war could end quickly just like everyone wants. We could hammer the insurgents into the sickest submission ever. But we don’t. We can’t, because we draw lines. Should we do this? War is Hell. You can’t reconcile it with love for the enemy, except to say that it is a love for those you are legitimately trying to protect from harm. And I think most persons agree that even if War is sometimes necessary, we should not kill innocents to further our own goal.
If leaving the middle east NOW would truly be better for those innocents, then so be it. But it is clearly not. There are people who are fighting and doing so with patience for their position. Their numbers are few, their resources are small and so they are pushed into patience like the North Vietnamese.
Imagine with me, that the tables where turned militarily. In this Iraq, the Insurgents rule the country and the only US soldiers are in hiding, and planting bombs and staging little attacks that kill a few people here and there. How would we respond? ABSOLUTE DEFEAT, the Insurgents have control and there’s nothing we can do. This has lasted a few years and all we are doing is denting their armor etc etc. Nobody in this country would view it as a successful operation because we are so used to fighting wars in one certain way, and obtaining results that you can see immediately.
We must throw off this hurried concept and prepare for a long drawn-out process. Bush has said this a million times. And I agree with him. Even an Iraqi civil war could mean success in the long run. Even if it split, who ever said that Iraq as an arbitrary nation state should exist as the borders currently set? To be sure, tactics and approaches must shift when we realize that the enemy is changing theirs. We must change our tactics constantly in the face of a dynamic war. Reducing troop levels or even elimination at some point may fit our goals. But that time is not now. It is especially backward thinking to believe that since things don’t happen beautifully in a couple years time, that we have lost and should give up. The old way’s of fighting wars where the victor is seen triumphantly returning at sun down from the battle field is over. Those who think it should happen that way are stuck in the past. Bush, while not perfect, is a progressive in this important area in that he realizes that Wars cannot be won the same way as they were in the past. To constantly insist that we have a “winner” the way we have in the past, as many are doing, is to be regressive in the worst way.
Creating a country with freedom is obviously important. If it mattered what the people would do with that freedom, then it would justify police state tactics in most inner-cities in the United States … where the murders that occur in a year are more than the total amount of US soldiers who have died since Bush stepped up to the Plate. I believe that Love and Truth can prosper in times of dictatorship. And perhaps this is an argument against War in the first place. But I’m of the position that nations should intervene at times to stop gross injustices against humanity. I’m also of the position that sub-nations, such as the group in the world the United States is no fighting against must not be allowed to impose their will on everyone else simply because they are willing to suffer some loss and wait it out for years and years. The United States citizens and Politicians cannot claim defeat because of our belief that things must happen in a certain expedited time period. Wars in the past were fought this way. But unfortunately, the dual barrier that our enemy does not fight this way and the fact that we want to fight wars absent the savagery that might speed things up.
Those who think the war unjustified in the first place, if they want a peaceful Iraq, must change their approach. (to be sure, many want the US to fail for an I told you so effect and to obtain power). To make this world a better place however, a united United States, who supported the mission of creating a free and peaceful Iraq, need to realize this is not a traditional war and It will NOT end in Iraq. We will need More patience than the enemy, we will need exchange of ideas on how to better the situation instead of constant attempts to tear down the United States and the Bush Administration. Seriously, those who constantly try to check the US positions are helping the enemy and giving them constant comfort rather than attempting to find solutions.
The fact that the news won’t show pictures of a Muslim prophet but will show repeatedly the pictures of Abu G. Prison is clear indication that they desire the US to be harmed and the soldiers. Saying that leaving Iraq is the answer, may show concern for soldiers, But is no solution to the Iraqi’s plight and to the Terrorist problem. The terrorist problem would be strengthened incredibly by giving them a nation state where they can declare victory and prove that they can indeed wipe the west of the face of the map.
I think the neo-conservative position, is that once military action is justified (debatable), then we need to exercise patience, react to changing threats and enemy tactics, change our own tactics to throw the enemy off, and forgo the use of extreme methods of winning that the enemy uses. Laying all of this out before hand is impossible. Clearly this is not to say that we should jump into wars without thinking through outcomes. But if someone is seriously accusing the US military of this, then I doubt their intelligence. Thinking that the insurgents might not be as patient may have been a mistake, but its hardly major. The fact that the United States Public want the Microwave War is their own fault. Even if Bush promised I’ll win this in a year (which he did the exact opposite saying the war on terror would continue well past his presidency), that kind of error is not one that you say “oops, guess its going on a long time, I guess we lost.”
The American public and democratic party is much like the social elites during the American Civil War. They wanted a quick, couple battle war, that they could go and watch while picnicking on the hillside. War is not like this. At least the American Public can claim stupidity. The other side of the spectrum are those who are actively rooting for United States defeat. And its those people who concern me.
The true realist, would understand that leaving Iraq would not reduce terrorism. The United States could go to a nation and build houses for free for them and they would be hated. (Indonesia). Only defeating insurgents, outlasting them, being a constant loving friend to persons who would live and let live, and being a constant virus to those who wish to impose their evil on others through sick and twisted violence, will we make our lives and others better.
Thank you President Bush, for doing something about it. Even though you have made mistakes, as everyone does, at least you have stood up for those who could not defend themselves. At least you have made progress by showing that free people will not cower to those who wish to commit violence upon others. At least you have moved us past the antiquated notion that Success is measured in time fought.
posted by: Summa Theologiae
