The other day, the most worthy LT SMASH had a truly insightful encounter with the loathsome Code Pink protesters who have set up camp near Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. It’s the sort of thing that really portrays Code Pink as they truly are, and shows us all just how fortunate we all are to have someone of SMASH’s caliber not only among us bloggers, but wearing our nation’s uniform.
But something struck me as I was reading his piece, and (with absolutely no disrespect to SMASH — this is just the odd way my mind works) I wanted to toss it out for discussion:
Anti-war activists: “support the troops, oppose the mission.”
Anti-gay fundamentalists: “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Compare and contrast in the comments, please.
Publicus, if you think abandoning Iraq to the terrorists is in the best interest of this country, you might wish to rethink that. Ask the South Viet Namese. Back on topic. To compare the two statements is to say that all human action is equal. Sin, as such, and homosexual acts, serve self. Those in the military serve others. There is no biological need for homosexuality. Nature will handle that. The military serves the nation through the government. This government, both the legislative and excecutive decided to remove a perceived potential threat in the person of Saddam Hussein. There is a faction that stands against whatever this government does. They stand against America. There is a name for that.
MunDane –
Actually, I favor the WoT. I think we can and should win in Afghanistan (though that conflict, too, is unfortunatley being run badly.)
I oppose the war on Iraq as a dangerous diversion that wastes resources and, much worse, needlessly sacrificees the lives of our soldiers.
No..not at you, Tom. More the situation. You can’t teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.
IMO, war ends when once side defeats the other so utterly that they no longer have the will nor ability to fight. War is not civilized and to try to place the restraints of civilization on it is to choose to loose… which is what our politicians are attempting to do (i.e. The Unlawful Combatants Bill of Rights). I believe that showing ‘restraint’ often prolongs the fight and results in a greater suffering and greater total loss of life.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III —
I don’t “favor” abandoning Iraq to the terrorists. I thnk, however, that is the least bad option among all the (bad) options available to us. If it is a civil war that the U.S. cannot win, we gain nothing by letting our soldiers die in the chaos.
I can’t make head or tail of what you’re saying about homosexuals…or what they have to do with our soldiers.
I know I shouldn’t ask this BUT:
Pub, should we stay in Irag or go? If you say stay then shut up about it. If you say go, the government there will fall and the bad guys move back in and set up shop again. You know the stories of Saddam’s reign there. The bad guys will start killing civilians who 1. the Leaders of the new democracy and 2. their families and 3. any civilian sympathsizers who supported freedom.
Is this what you want?
Mike –
I believe that showing ‘restraint’ often prolongs the fight and results in a greater suffering and greater total loss of life.
Could be. But the Republicans are in control of all 3 branches of government. For better or worse, the war in Iraq is for them to win or lose. If they are exercising too much restraint, your complaint should be directed at them.
Two points: (1)’Republican’ means that they share the same political party not necessarily the same principles. (2) The alternative to a Republican party that lacks political will is a Democratic Party that has gone off the deep end (i.e. there are no viable alternatives).
Mike –
Then, either the Republican party IS carrying out the policies you want or the Republicans are too divided to carry out those policies. Either way, your solution involves working with people in power who are in a position to control policy.
I’m not buying the part about the Democratic Party going off the deep end, but I’ll let that slide… ; – )
Publicus:
I never got the impression that you hated the country or the troops. Although I disagree with some of your conclusions, you’ve presented them in a sensical manner that promotes thought.
As to why we went to Iraq next instead of North Korea or Iran, I’m not sure I could adequately answer that. I do believe there was solid reasoning when we went, though it may not be as solid now.
Regardless, we part ways on what to do next. I believe we are acting as a stop-gap, preventing rather than catalyzing a civil war.
Leaving too soon will only ensure that we will be going back to Iraq in a few years fight a worse and more bloody war with absolutely zero support from the Iraqi populace…the populace who’s trust and lives we would have squandered by throwing them to the dogs; half-assing the job we came to do.
Someone else touched also on another extremely important reason to finish this: How we would look to our enemies. Hate is hate, but if we look weak, we’re due for extermination.
Those are some of the reasons why I disagree that we should leave.
Thanks to all, especially Tom, Heralder, Mike, Gary and MunDane. It’s been a pleasure blogging with you!
Publicus:
That’s is the question. Can we win it? I think we can if we put forth a unified front; technically and psychologically. That’s not happening.
I’m not so worried about out troops being demoralized. They’re largely unified in their effort. What I am complaining about (and I sure can complain :)) is the psychological fodder handed to our enemy. They believe we are weak, we aren’t unified, and if they hold out long enough public pressure will bring the troops home and they’ll win. History has shown them that. They’re counting on it and we’re proving to them it will happen again. They’re looking to the next elections in ’06 and ’08 because if the Democrats get in control they have clearly stated what their goal is. If that isn’t comfort and encouragement to them, then I don’t what is.