The big theme running around the anti-war blogs nowadays is a revival of the classic “chickenhawk” accusation. In a nutshell (a singularly appropriate turn of phrase in this context), the idea is that it is cowardly of those who support the war (myself proudly included) to do so unless we are ready, willing, and able to go and fight it ourselves — and prove that commitment with action.
I’ve spoken at length at my own personal circumstances that make that impossible for me, but I won’t fall into that trap here. And the argument is, indeed a trap — a dishonorable, dishonest, fraudulent tactic that has been allowed to remain unchallenged for far too long.
I’ve always believed that one should limit one’s arguments to the issues, not the individuals. I always try to refrain from gratuitous personal attacks when discussing matters of grave import. (I don’t always succeed, but I do try.) To me, the message is far more important than the messenger, and the cause far greater than its advocate.
That belief stands in stark contrast with the “chickenhawk” argument, which tries to shift the discussion from the message to the messenger. It tries to move the topic from “is this a good idea?” to “who the hell are you to say anything?” It is an attempt to silence the opposition by assailing them personally, by punishing them for daring to have a dissenting opinion.
But it is even more fundamentally dishonest than that. It is a wholesale attempt to shift not only the topic of the argument to one side’s proponents, but the entire burden of the argument on to them as well. The anti-war advocate, by converting the argument from a philosophical one to a personal one, is freed from the onus of having to marshal facts and citations for their position.
Let’s see how this normally plays out:
A: “I believe that the war in Iraq was necessary.”
B: “I believe that the war in Iraq was wrong.”
A: “I’ve looked into this extensively. Because of A, B, C, D, and E, the war became the least worst option.”
B: “If you believe that the war is such a good thing, then why aren’t you over there fighting it yourself, you fucking coward?”
At that point, A usually falls into the trap and starts explaining why he isn’t currently serving in the military. Lord knows I’ve done it myself on more than a few occasions.
B: “OK, so fine, you won’t go. Then why don’t you encourage others to sign up and go fight your war?”
Please note that at no point in the argument has B even attempted to refute any of the points that A spelled out. They are left in the dust as A suddenly finds himself not having to defend the decision to go to war, but his own personal character and choices. And B has managed to distract and silence a voice spelling out reasoned arguments without having to actually answer the facts presented.
But for just a moment let’s run with the idea that the “chickenhawk” squawkers are putting forth. They toss their accusation at me. I am immediately mortified in shame. The very next morning, I race down to the recruiting station to volunteer. Once they look at me and my medical history, and once they finish laughing in my face, they formally send me away. I start encouraging others to enlist, and start getting called a hypocrite for trying to get others to do my dirty work for me. Finally, in shame, I go home and kill myself.
Just what has been achieved? I have been silenced, but have my points been answered? The Left raves all the time about “the suppression of dissent,” but that is the very core notion behind this argument.
I’ve spelled out my reasons for believing that the war in Iraq was necessary, and some of the reasons it’s working here. No one successfully refuted them at the time, but I’d like to re-open the discussion here and see if any of the “chickenhawk” squawkers would like to take a run at them again.
But please, make it about the WAR. I wasn’t raised to believe that “it’s all about me,” and this topic is far more important than I could ever be. See if you can counter any of my points without attacking me. And anyone who takes this opportunity to bash me instead of my opinions is, in my humble opinion, tacitly admitting that they can’t refute my arguments.
Back on topic:
For a perfect example of the chickenhawk argument embraced by the left (via instapundit this morning) read the first comment to this fisking of kerry .
Jay:
I have two points to make.
1) The chickenhawk tactic is in fact pointless and counterproductive. It is similar to calling liberals communists, or gitmo guards Nazis. It reduces the argument to name calling. That I agree with you on. However…
2) I have yet to see a convincing argument to come from the conservatives that makes Iraq a unique case when it comes to every single point you made in your posts about the war before. Saddam, IMO, is still the most qualified individual to run Iraq and, if the war was about oil, the easiest way to get to oil was to drop the sanctions.
Gordon says, “the first non arab invader of an arab country in nearly 100 years”
Are we forgetting a little ten year invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets? How about the Israeli invasion of Lebabnon in ’82? And hmmmm, didn’t the US invade Afghanistan just two years before Iraq?!
Oleg says, “Saddam, IMO, is still the most qualified individual to run Iraq”
WTF?! So murdering millions of people makes you a qualified leader?! That is one of the more ignorant comments I have ever read.
D-Hoggs:
When Saddam was in power there was no such thing as daily suicide and car bombings. He was a strong leader for what Iraq needed. He squashed uprisings, he kept religious factions in check, and kept Al Qaeda out of the country.
Oleg
Are you joking Oleg or are you just completely retarded? Do you care at all about the millions he tortured and murdered? Obviously you don’t seeing as you think he was strong for what Iraq needed. I wasn’t aware that Iraqis NEEDED to be tortured, raped, murdered and buried in mass graves. Get a grip man. And he absolutely DID NOT keep Al-Quaeda out of the country, this has been proven time and again.
Oleg:
If the war was about “blood for oil” and keeping oil cheap, please explain why—using current economic indicators and citing company-profit reports—the current per barrel price of $60.34. (I think it’s gone down a tad today.)
To Jay Tea’s point, once again the left makes blanket and diverting arguments. Why can’t stay on point? What is so hard about stating fact instead of conjecture? I never understood it, even when I was liberal back in the 80s and early 90s.
“Frustrating” is the only word that comes to mind.
I’ve recently written a few letters to the editorial page of my local paper. Both of the last two were along the lines of “Support for the Iraq War”(As the editor titled the latest) After these letters were published I received what I jokingly refer to as “hatemail”. Both came without return addresses, and no signature. Both questioned my intelligence, personal courage, spouted unfounded accusations, and here’s my favorite, “grow some hair on my tiny balls and call the recruiter to enlist”. Funny thing is I have been an enlisted soldier for 10 years, and volunteer for duty in Iraq monthly. I’m a full time (AGR for those of you in the know) reservist, and am more than willing to do my part, Uncle Sugar just hasn’t seen fit to send me yet. I guess my MOS just isn’t in great demand in the theater. I’d be happy (yet apprehensive) to ride into battle with the brave men and women that I call fellow soldiers. The chickenhawk argument is a fallacy used to distract the attention of the argument away from an intelligent and reasonable discussion. That’s all it is.
ryan:
Regarding our failure to intervene in Rwanda, there’s no denying that everyone (the U.N., the U.S., the E.U., other African nations, etc.) screwed up big time. No apologies, no justifications.
As for Sudan, the reason we aren’t there is because we’re stretched too thin as it is. (Which, incidentally is the only VALID reason I’ve ever heard for opposing the war in Iraq, IMHO.) That does not preclude the U.N. from taking military action, if they deem it necessary, using troops from Russia, China, Pakistan (I woudn’t send troops from India, though), the E.U. (not Britain–they’re stretched as thin as we are), particularly the Scandinavian countries. Except, of course, that it’s highly unlikely that any of those countries would agree to do it.
Jay Tea:
Just re-read my comments in this thread and realized how far off topic I had at least helped drag it. Sorry. I’ll try not to do it again.
fatman:
The point I was trying (poorly) to make was that, pre-9/11, the combination of Saddam Hussein, WMD and terrorists–Al Qaeda linked or otherwise– was for some insane reason considered “tolerable”. POST 9/11 it wasn’t.
That is something that I have wondered about also. One reason might be the fact that GW I had just gone down in the early 90s, and the American people probably wouldnt have been too supportive of another war right afterward, especially in the same place. Hussein never left the priority list, but the time had to be right to go back in. 9/11, apparently, was that time.
Of course we dealt with Hussein in the 80s, and he was our little buddy in the region for a time. As long as he played by our rules, we didnt seem to concerned with his methods. That is something that bothers me, and something that I really disagree with. It’s not the first time that we have lent support to a nasty dictator who met our needs for a short time period. I dont think that the temporary gain was worth it, and Hussein certainly came back to bite us in the ass. Also, when I hear all the indignant talk about Hussein’s crimes today, honestly the fact that we worked with the fucker in the 1980s is pretty embarrassing and ironic. Preferably, we wouldnt associate ourselves with such thugs, for any reason.
So I can add on to your question…why was it okay to have diplomatic relations with Hussein in the 80s when we knew that he was a bastard then??? Politics and strategy. The humanitarian aspect wasnt as big of a concern then, or now. It’s not a pretty view, but thats how I interpret it.
Regarding our failure to intervene in Rwanda, there’s no denying that everyone (the U.N., the U.S., the E.U., other African nations, etc.) screwed up big time. No apologies, no justifications.
I agree totally.
As far as Sudan goes…I think that if there was something to gain from going in there, then we would be there in some form. I personally believe that we arent there because there isnt much that our nation will get out of stopping the violence that is occuring there. Most of the wars that I have learned about in the past were not undertaken for altruistic reasons.
I agree with you that those other countries arent going to be heading there either, and for the very same reason that I stated above. It sounds really cold, but they arent going in there unless there is something to be gained…genocide or not. Rwanda is a case in point, where 500,000-800,000 people were killed in 100 days and the rest of the world just sat back and watched. Sudan seems to be the same kind of thing.
I think that the fact that our military is overstretched COULD be a reason why we are not in Sudan, but isnt necessarily THE reason. When Rwanda went down, our military certainly wasnt stretched as thin, and we were just as uninvolved.
2BrixShy:
Why is this pinned on Bush? As of 1998, regime change in Iraq became official US public policy.
Thats a great point, one that undermines the idea that the war in Iraq was all Bush’s idea, or all his fault. Hussein had been a problem since the day he rolled into Kuwait, as far as the US was concerned. Gulf War I didnt really take care of him, and we all knew that there would be a time when we went back to deal with him again…it was just a matter of when.
Dictators who defy the US openly make themselves targets, and thats exactly what Hussein did. Dictators and authoritarian regimes that toe the line generally get left alone…Saudi Arabia and Pakistan come to mind. (By the way, I do know that Pakistan is now nominally a “democracy”, but I would hardly consider the country to be a beacon of freedom and human rights. The recent political history of those in power is still pretty shady.)
Jay Tea wrote in Casus Belli: The main justification for the war is simple — Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender during the first Gulf War
Everything else in that essay is just an explication of this basic legal argument.
And let’s be clear, it’s just a legal argument. Basically, Jay wants to justify the IraqWar™ by making an appeal to a legal authority he regularly disregards whenever he finds it inconvenient. “Saddam violated a treaty!” Yeah? Since when do we care about international law?
He offers no moral justification for War™, so I don’t have an opportunity to criticize his thinking there other than to point out the obvious lack of a moral viewpoint. Likewise, he offers no technical argument that makes any sense, e.g. “weapons of mass destruction,” support for stateless global terrorism, etc.
Jay isn’t really offering a casus belli, i.e. a justification for war— he’s putting forward an excuse. A real justification for war would, necessarily, as a matter of first principles, translate into a call to arms. Now, at the risk of making this sound like a personal attack again— Jay has told us at some length why he feels he shouldn’t have to answer that call to arms, but he tends to get really pissy when you ask him to tell you why he thinks you, personally, should answer it yourself when he has better things to do with his time.
He may be out of shape, and medically unfit for most of the glamorous billets where he would have the chance to be a hero, but many of his readers— readers like me— are prime A-1 draft bait. If he wants me to quit my job, leave my family, join the corps, and go fight his IraqWar™ for him, he needs to offer up more than a cheap legal theory for why he thinks it isn’t a war crime. He needs to tell me why it’s worth my time when it clearly isn’t worth his.
The short answer is easy:
“Let’s play DD214 Poker!”
(For those who don’t know, a DD214 is the separation document issued to a serviceman or servicewoman on separation from service.)
That does not make the contributions of those that cannot serve less meaningful, but may cut short the ‘Chickenhawk’ talk.
The HOBO
Draft bait? Maybe. Prime? Hardly. And just in case you haven’t noticed, there is no draft, nobody wants one but a few lefties in congress and they aren’t going to get one passed.
bullwinkle writes: And just in case you haven’t noticed, there is no draft, nobody wants one but a few lefties in congress and they aren’t going to get one passed.
Really? I’m just SHOCKED to learn there is no draft.
Just in case you’re a dimwit, the phrase “draft bait” is a figure of speech. It means, somebody who could be pressed into fighting if necessary, as opposed to guys like Jay who are basically good for guarding the Strategic Beer Reserve in case the enemy makes a deep strike at our precious supply of backup refreshments.
2brixshy
You are saying Clinton started the Iraq war? Oh please, I thought crack pipes were only used by liberals.
An openly hostile country or region also does not have to be riddled with Al Qaeda to be openly hostile. There’s no Al Qaeda in North Korea but I wouldn’t fancy your chances if you were dropped in the middle of it.
Ghadaffi was already changing in 2000, as witnessed by Tony Blair’s visit with him in Tripoli. This was before Bush even came to power.
The rest of the world are the victims of propaganda? Through all their different media outlets, all their different languages, all their different continents and religions, they are the victims of propaganda? Call me with the number of that PR firm, I need them. I would contend that it would be much easier for you to be that victim.
If you’ve stepped outside these borders recently I don’t think it will take you too long to find that Bush is universally hated. He was even booed at the Pope’s funeral for God’s sake.And the muslims were’nt even there.
D-Hoggs, apologies.
ryan:
I really do think that the reason we haven’t gone into Sudan is strictly a question of manpower. But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong (stealing from Dennis Miller). As for Rwanda, don’t forget that the Rwandan genocide occurred about a year after the debacle in Mogadishu, and Clinton may have been more than a bit gunshy about getting involved in another humanitarian military operation, though that didn’t stop him in Kosovo. That doesn’t excuse it; it may explain it.
Re: our dealings with Iraq in the eighties. I don’t know how old you are, so I don’t know how well you remember that time. I remember it vividly. We hated the Iranians with a passion (at least most of us did), and anybody who was an enemy of theirs was a friend of ours, even Saddam Hussein, who had just come to power in 1979. As the decade wore on we did start distancing ourselves from him (see Iran-Contra, which I still shake my head over) as we realized just what we had crawled into bed with.
ryan:
As for going after Saddam being more acceptable after 9/11 than before, the point I was trying to make (still poorly) was that before 9/11, CW held that we could contain Saddam with sanctions, no fly zones, etc. After 9/11, that argument finally got kicked to curb, where it belonged.
Aside to gordon:
I will start worrying about what the rest of the world thinks of ANY U.S. president when the rest of the world starts voting in U.S. elections. (Though given the current rates of immigration–legal and illegal–to this country, that may not be as preposterous as it sounds.)
Damn page ate my first draft of this…
An amazing contrast is emerging. I have a knack for completely separating myself from issues, to the point where I often support positions that are directly opposed to my own self-interest. It borders on the self-destructive.
s9, however, seems to reduce every single issue to a single question: “is it good or potentially bad for me?”
It’s like someone took all my ego, all my self-identity, all my self-interest and dumped it into s9.
By the way, s9, here’s a little reality for you: there is no draft. There hasn’t been a draft for 30 years. And there ain’t gonna be a draft any time soon.
But if you wanna look back at the causes of the war, let’s look at one single determining factor: Saddam himself. If he had actually abided by the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War, the sanctions very well could have been lifted years ago. Instead, he played “cheat and retreat” over and over while he funneled BILLIONS of “Oil For Food” money into bribing key individuals in the UN, Russia, France, Germany, the UK, and even the US (remember Scott Ritter’s movie deal, anyone?). He was betting that he could leverage those bribes into a solid block against further action, while hyping the “sanctions are killing thousands of Iraqi babies each month” propaganda.
And he also attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States for actions taken in the course of his official duties. For that alone I can never forgive Bill Clinton. If only for his own self-interest, he should have retaliated much more firmly than a couple missiles into a couple government buildings (at night, when they’d most likely be empty).
And if Gore had been elected in 2000, and 9/11 had not happened, it might very well have worked.
So, s9, I hate to be the one to tell you what your mother should have told you when you were younger, but it’s NOT all about you. You are not the center of the universe. Not only are some things bigger than you, but nearly everything is. Get over yourself.
J.
D-Hoggs: Saddam torturing, raping and tormenting millions of his own citizens is hardly our problem as long as he doesn’t bother us. There are plenty of other countries were government sponsors torture, rape and persecution that we do nothing about. All of these arguments above fail to convince me that Iraq was uniquely [in comparison to Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc.] positioned to be attacked. Please tell why, of all the countries in the world that violated UN sanctions, Iraq had to be attacked.
Oleg
I think you missed the call on s9 Jay. He doesn’t have the mental capacity to determine what is best for him, he’s a Kerry supporter and Kerry has argued for MORE troops on the ground since the war began. The only we can reasonable expect have more troops on the gorund in Iraq is through a draft. s9 is blindly anti-Bush, no matter how the results work out for him. He would rather be drafted by Kerry than defended and allowed to walk the streets here safely while others fight the war for him. s9 reduces every issue to whether he can find some reason that he can justify his hate for what he lacks the even the capacity to even understand. That’s the driving force behind liberalism, just like the stem cell debate, Bush is against spending tax dollars on what amounts to corporate welfare, the government isn’t in the business of making drugs, any fruits of the research will bring profits to those evil drug companies but every “corporations are evil” leftist has come out supporting corporate welfare. The only reason they can give is because Bush is against it. Had Bush been for it they would be attacking him for being in the pocket of the drug companies. When your ideology is based on dishonesty you have to be dishonest to support it. s9 has given us another fine example of that, again. Between that and his self-proclaimed prime worth to our military he’s so laughable I look forward to his response to this. Should be good for a few more guffaws.
bullwinkle writes: I think you missed the call on s9… he’s a Kerry supporter…
Wrong. I advocated boycotting the Presidential election in 2004.
bullwinkle continues: He would rather be drafted by Kerry than defended and allowed to walk the streets here safely while others fight the war for him.
Excuse me? Allowed? No, that’s bullshit. I don’t want to be drafted. I would strongly, possibly even violently, oppose the draft. But nobody allows me to “walk the streets here safely”. I don’t have to get permission to be safe from anyone. Jeez.
bullwinkle writes: Between that and his self-proclaimed prime worth to our military he’s so laughable I look forward to his response to this. Should be good for a few more guffaws.
Oh? Is there some reason you think the military should refuse my offer of service? I can’t imagine what it would be— I am in perfectly good health, I have an excellent psychiatric history, no criminal record, I have a college degree, and I’m young enough to serve. Isn’t that the profile they’re supposed to be interested in recruiting?
Jay Tea writes: If [Saddam] had actually abided by the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War, the sanctions very well could have been lifted years ago. Instead, he played “cheat and retreat” over and over while he funneled BILLIONS of “Oil For Food” money.
For this, you want me to give up my career, leave my family and risk my life in a war? Over a few billion dollars worth of corruption in a U.N. programme that never should have been created in the first place? Because Iraqi air defenses returned fire at American and British aircraft when they were being bombed during the so-called cease-fire? Do you even realize how silly this sounds?
Jay Tea writes: And he also attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States for actions taken in the course of his official duties.
I don’t know whether I should believe that’s true. I understand that American intelligence people made a determination to the effect that Saddam ordered the Mukhabarat to assassinate Bush[41] in Kuwait. But then, American intelligence people made a lot of false determinations about what Iraq was doing. Do you need to be reminded, yet again, that there was no weapons of mass destruction related program activity in Iraq?
And I’m not sure I should be all the pissed off about it. After all those years of the CIA trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, the U.S. doesn’t have much high moral ground to stand on when complaining about foreign intelligence services plotting to assassinate heads of state. Now, if the Mukhabarat had succeeded, it might be another story. But they didn’t. And you still want me to go to war over it?
Come on. You can do better than that, can’t you?
Whisper to fatman
World opinion of an American President doesn’t matter?
Did it matter when bush Snr was putting together a coalition in Desert Storm?
Does it matter when this admin is trying to work with other countries intelligence agencies?
Does it matter now when you need them to help in Iraq?
Does world opinion matter on any decision the President makes on anything other than his domestic Agenda?
Usually your arguments are well put together and coherent. This comment reeks of arrogant, jingoistic naivety.
We need a new Godwin’s Law to deal with the knee-jerk invasion of lefty trolls to every thread on every conservative blog with the “why don’t you enlist” whine. I’m tired of even bothering to link back to the many refutations of this point. Heck, we’ll make it Crank’s Law if nobody else wants to claim it: every time a left-wing blogger or commenter cries “chickenhawk” or complains about war supporters not fighting the war, the left-winger has lost the argument.
Crank writes: We need a new Godwin’s Law to deal with the knee-jerk invasion of lefty trolls to every thread on every conservative blog with the “why don’t you enlist” whine.
Meanwhile, you guys still can’t come up with a good reason why anyone else should enlist to fight this war for you.
Cheap appeals to jingoism are just that. Try making a rational argument. Maybe you’ll be able to do better than Jay Tea has so far. “[paraphrasing] Join the Corps and fight in Iraq! You’ll be helping show the world that Saddam Hussein can’t steal billions of dollars from the U.N. “oil for food” programme and get away with it!” Hooray. Where do I sign up? Ugh.
Muttered to gordon:
Then I guess that on this subject at least, I’m arrogant, jingoistic and naive.
Oleg:
You still won’t answer the question. I have not once denied that there are not other coutries in the world that violate UN sanctions and have horrible, murederous leaders. But that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. I want to know what in the hell is going through your mind when you say that Saddam is exactly what the Iraquis NEED?!! Please, answer my question, do the NEED to be tortured, raped and murdered? You yourself said, “Saddam torturing, raping and tormenting millions of his own citizens is hardly our problem as long as he doesn’t bother us.” So you know he did these things and still think that he is somehow what Iraq needs!! I just can’t understand what in the hell you are thinking.
D-Hoggs:
Perhaps the people of Iraq are neither ready nor are interested in a democracy. Saddam came to power because he demonstrated strong leadership. Removing him from power created a vaccuum that is threatening to suck the country into a civil war. He was the necessary evil that held Iraq in one piece.
That said, by the time we attacked him he was a toothless lion.
Oleg
Oleg:
I think I understand what you are trying to say about Hussein, but the way you are saying it makes it sound like you feel that he was a beneficial leader, which he certainly was not. They guy was corrupt, and cared more about power than he did the people of Iraq.
It’s common, however, for such thugs to be the ones who hold desparate countries like Iraq together, which is what I think you are saying. Strong arm tactics like theirs keep nations together through fear and intimidation.
They also create an environment that breeds radicalism and terrorism.
Perhaps the people of Iraq are neither ready nor are interested in a democracy.
I dont think it has anything to do with whether they are ready or not, but more to do with whether the opportunity exists. They have been decimated by war and corrupt leadership, and freedom isnt exactly abundant. I certainly doubt that the people of Iraq are not interested in having a say about their destinies…saying that they are just not interested in democracy or self determination doesnt make any sense to me. You really think that they dont want to choose who leads them???
Saddam came to power because he demonstrated strong leadership.
Saddam came to power because he was willing to kill people to do it. If thats what you mean by strong leadership…
fatman:
I was pretty young in the 1980s, but have spent alot of my time the past few years reading about the whole Iran-Contra affair, the Iran-Iraq War, and all of that. I remember seeing North on TV, but I really had no idea what the hell was going on. I must have been about 12 years old when that was going down (I’m 30 now).
As far as I know, we did indeed hate the Iranians with a passion, and we buddied up with Hussein for convenience, since he hated them as well. That is what I would chalk up to political and strategic positioning on our part.
Interestingly, we werent all that concerned with Hussein’s human rights record at that time, which supports the idea that humanitarian goals are often supplanted by other goals.
We basically wanted to help Iraq kick the shit out of Iran, but also didnt mind if Iraq got torn up in the process, especially as the 80s wore on and Hussein became more of a pain in the ass. Gulf War I attempted to finish what the Iran-Iraq War started, but didnt really work…so GW II had to happen, and finally the remaining major military power of the region was removed.
The whole Iran-Contra ordeal was amazing. We sold weapons to Iran at inflated costs, in order to raise funds for arming terrorist forces in Nicaragua…who were created to fight the radical Sandinistas in a not so legal war. Very convoluted, to say the least. We sold weapons to the very people who we were helping Hussein to fight against…still something that is hard to grasp. The best answer I have ever seen is that we wanted both of them to get decimated by the war, which did in fact happen.
In my opinion, the decision to align ourselves with a murderer like Hussein doesnt help our credibility, especially when 20 years later we are harping about the crimes the guy committed. We knew what he was all about, and we sided with him anyway. Maybe it would be best not to associate ourselves with dictators like him in the future, since we are supposed to be all about democracy, freedom, and human rights. But that would be in a perfect world, of course.
fatman:
As for Rwanda, don’t forget that the Rwandan genocide occurred about a year after the debacle in Mogadishu, and Clinton may have been more than a bit gunshy about getting involved in another humanitarian military operation, though that didn’t stop him in Kosovo. That doesn’t excuse it; it may explain it.
The official line included the whole fear of a repeat performance of Mogadishu, but I’m not sure how much I buy that one. The way that Clinton et al. handled what happened in Rwanda really pisses me off, so I really have zero desire to justify any of it.
True, this country does have a long history of siding with brutal dictators such as the Shah of Iran and Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua (the enemy of my enemies is my friend), but even that doesn’t completely explain why we paired up with Saddam Hussein.
Try to imagine the feelings in this country towards Japan after Pearl Harbor. Such feelings toward Iran may not have been quite as wide spread, but they were every bit as virulent. I don’t think the “pox on both their houses” attitude (did I mix a metaphor there?), really entered into it at first, at least not among the general public.
As for Iran-Contra, my problem was with the way it was done, not with the fact that it was done. I thought that the Reagan administration was right and the Sandinistas were a communist front, determined (with aid from Cuba) to spread the revolution through out Central and South America. But selling weapons to the Iranians? Jeez. On the other hand, it was Congress that cut off aid to the Contras; proof, I think, that we need ONE Secretary of State, not five hundred thirty five.
As for Rwanda, I assure you that I wasn’t trying to justify Clinton”s (or the world’s) response or lack thereof; refusing to act because something might happen to embarass you isn’t justified.
Gotta go; talk to you later.
“When Saddam was in power there was no such thing as daily suicide and car bombings. He was a strong leader for what Iraq needed. He squashed uprisings, he kept religious factions in check, and kept Al Qaeda out of the country.”
Yeah Riiiight…300,000 plus and climbing found in mass graves…THATS how he squashed dissent.
As far as Al Quida goes, explain Salmon Pak to me then. Not to mention Saddam’s support of Hammas and a number of similar terrorist groups.
He was a hub supporter of terrorism, and if we are to be serious about fighting terrorism, he HAD to go.
Oleg, Saddam came to power through murder. That is NOT strong leadership. I could murder as well and that makes me niether strong, nor a leader. And an evil that murders, tortures and rapes, is NEVER necessary. Further, by the time we attacked Saddam, there were still many suffering and dying under him, guess a toothless lion is still very dangerous after all. You have some REALLY warped views.
The issue here is credibility of our national leadership.
If our leaders cannot even persuade their strongest military-age supporters to serve when our country clearly needs them, then how can anyone expect our leaders to persuade all Americans to continue to support our intervention in Iraq?
–
Jay Tea, In strict terms, of course, logic is on your side. The war may or may not be a good idea, but that has nothing to do with your ability or willingness to fight in it.
But this really isn’t about logic, is it? It’s about commitment. Some on this thread have suggested sarcastically that perhaps only soldiers should get to vote on the merits of the war. In a way, that’s where we already are. The war goes on only because soldiers are patriotic/scared/professional/concerned/foolish enough to keep fighting it. If they give it up, the war’s over, and we lose. What the rest of us think doesn’t mean jack. That’s why I don’t have much use for people who cheer the war on so long as they don’t have to serve, their taxes don’t go up, and they can keep driving their Hummers.
Personally, I would never vote to wage a war that I would be unwilling to fight in myself. I don’t argue that my position is logical. But I won’t ask others to bear a burden that I am unwilling to carry.