Considerations of a Rabid Liberal
My recent political posts have been a pretty solid wall of fury at this country's right (though again, I'm sure no one cares what I think), so I thought I'd take the time to review some points in which I surprised myself by sympathizing with Republicans. There was, of course, the Schiavo controversy a few months back. But lately there's been a lot of talk about anti-war agitation, which don't get me wrong, is good because it's at least opening some debate; and as I was listening to both sides, I noticed that the Republicans - in spite of all their stupid Bush-is-the-Second-Coming rhetoric - may actually have a point.
Let me first state that I'm about as anti-war as they come, generally; in principle, I'm a pacifist, because I don't think there are many occassions that are worth the terrible costs of war, instead of diplomacy. My one exception, pretty much, is WWII. I was totally against the Iraq war up until the day they captured Hussein. On that day I groaned and thought, "Now we're stuck with this foreign policy nightmare for the next twenty years, and we'll have to bear all the costs of rebuilding Iraq."
I thought I was thinking what everyone else in this country was thinking, but I guess I should have known better. All this anti-war stuff that's sprouting up NOW has convinced me that the long-term consequences of the war must have occurred to precisely NONE of its supporters. To withdraw our forces now - when there's a complete political vacuum, and bombs are going off by the hour, and chidren are exposed to all kinds of violence/corpses on the streets/extremist demagogues/poverty/death - is not only unethical and irresponsible, but it's also totally foolish where our own self-preservation is concerned. My God, if I were an Iraqi kid living in that kind of world, the idea of holy wars against the US would be starting to sound about right to me, too.
In sum, the conservatives are right in saying that we have to finish the job we started, in the interest of national security. But, the liberals are also right to point out that our national security is more vulnerable post-Iraq. THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF ALL THIS BEFORE WE STARTED THE WAR. I further agree with the Republicans that the Democratic party is kind of retarded, because yes, we did have a certain number of tools in Congress who voted to go to war. If we're going to oppose the insanity and delusion that is the Bush regime with any success, we're going to have to present a more unified front than that.
Finally, with all that having been said, my heart still goes out to the soldiers who are dying in Iraq. It's a real tragedy. Nevertheless, I can't say with the rest of my anti-war collegues that it's time to bring them home. The quickest way out of Iraq would be to prop up a sympathetic dictatorship, like we did in the South American countries (not to mention, ahem, Hussein); but even then, all the political turmoil in those places shows us how well that worked. A constitutional government would be nice, but it's going to take a long, long, long time. How long? Probably as long as it took Palestine to elect a diplomatic prime minister by a majority vote.
Let me first state that I'm about as anti-war as they come, generally; in principle, I'm a pacifist, because I don't think there are many occassions that are worth the terrible costs of war, instead of diplomacy. My one exception, pretty much, is WWII. I was totally against the Iraq war up until the day they captured Hussein. On that day I groaned and thought, "Now we're stuck with this foreign policy nightmare for the next twenty years, and we'll have to bear all the costs of rebuilding Iraq."
I thought I was thinking what everyone else in this country was thinking, but I guess I should have known better. All this anti-war stuff that's sprouting up NOW has convinced me that the long-term consequences of the war must have occurred to precisely NONE of its supporters. To withdraw our forces now - when there's a complete political vacuum, and bombs are going off by the hour, and chidren are exposed to all kinds of violence/corpses on the streets/extremist demagogues/poverty/death - is not only unethical and irresponsible, but it's also totally foolish where our own self-preservation is concerned. My God, if I were an Iraqi kid living in that kind of world, the idea of holy wars against the US would be starting to sound about right to me, too.
In sum, the conservatives are right in saying that we have to finish the job we started, in the interest of national security. But, the liberals are also right to point out that our national security is more vulnerable post-Iraq. THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF ALL THIS BEFORE WE STARTED THE WAR. I further agree with the Republicans that the Democratic party is kind of retarded, because yes, we did have a certain number of tools in Congress who voted to go to war. If we're going to oppose the insanity and delusion that is the Bush regime with any success, we're going to have to present a more unified front than that.
Finally, with all that having been said, my heart still goes out to the soldiers who are dying in Iraq. It's a real tragedy. Nevertheless, I can't say with the rest of my anti-war collegues that it's time to bring them home. The quickest way out of Iraq would be to prop up a sympathetic dictatorship, like we did in the South American countries (not to mention, ahem, Hussein); but even then, all the political turmoil in those places shows us how well that worked. A constitutional government would be nice, but it's going to take a long, long, long time. How long? Probably as long as it took Palestine to elect a diplomatic prime minister by a majority vote.
posted by Rex at 12:46 PM
5 Comments:
Good points, all of them. I pretty much agree in full. Although I think the the US made the wrong decision to go to war in the first place, it would be even worse to just say, "Sorry dudes! We're OUTTIE!!" Which is one thing I never understood about the people (for instance) who held up the "Bring The Troops Home NOW!" signs, at Embarcadero and El Camino every weekend. Did they truly think it would be a good idea to leave Iraq in shambles after we went in and fucked it all up? Basically, in those situations, the policy must be: If you break it, you must fix it. The only thing we can do now is to try to leave it better than we found it.
Well its statistically proven that the one thing that increases terrorist attacks is foreign occupation. I too thought "well we made a mess now we've gotta fix it." But now it just seems that staying is NOT what needs to be done. Yes Iraq needs to be built back up BUT I hardly think it has anything to do with our occupation. Bush's whole speech about why we were continuing occupation was along the lines of "well we're training Iraqi troops and helping them with infrastructure issues." Well I contend that this can all be done without overwhelming occupation. Republicans have made mistakes before and have bowed their heads in shame and moved on (ehem vietnam) realizing that foreign occupation just isn't going to get the job done. We've already got Saddaam. I feel republicans should just do what they do best. Say some crap to justify the leaving and that we're not really "leaving" we're just taking a different approach to rebuilding Iraq. A more diplomatic approach.
But what really bugs me is why the US thinks we can rebuild Iraq and make it a more democractic place in the FIRST place. Just b/c we can build a democracy here doesn't mean it works everywhere. Iraq has way too many races, religious facttions, and cultures for a democracy to work long term. And yes the US has these things NOW but the US democracy was built from a more homogenous group of people who shared the same beliefs and ideals, hence why democracy works HERE.
ANYWAY.. I'll get off my soap box, stop pretending I know whats going on, and get back to work.. yes work.. on a sunday :(
I don't know if I can agree with the statistical analysis. In the case of Israel and the Gaza strip, that seems to have been rationale, and probably the right one. On the other hand, South Korea has been occupied by US troops for over 50 years, and it's been assimilated fairly well into pro-America ideas. I guess the variable would be the degree and type of occupation.
For Iraq (IMO), it seems like they haven't quite gotten to the point of being pissed off about subordinating their government to our military (mostly since they don't have a government yet); it's more like they're still pissed off that we fucked their shit up. In that environment, I imagine that the default ideology would become Islamic extremism...unless we can offer an alternate theory.
I do, however, totally agree with you that it's a little silly (and presumptuous) to try to impose democracy onto everyone.
Gyangbang wrote: Well I contend that this can all be done without overwhelming occupation.
How? Who will train the Iraqi police forces and military units? The fact is, they are just not adequately prepared at this point. You say that Iraq needs to be built back up, but that doesn't have "anything to do with our occupation." But who is going to do that?
In addition, how are you defining occupation? Simply the presence of troops? Because, it's also statistically proven that the presence well-trained troops can prevent a lot of chaos that would otherwise occur. Which is why there are still UN peacekeeping forces in Kosovo. It's not simply roadside terrorist bombers that are the problem: it's the whole shattered infrastructure and the civil discord that accompanies that. It won't undo itself.
"Occupation" generally refers to a situation in which one nation controls the government of another, which was the situation in Iraq basically up until their elections in January, when the US-backed Allawi lost to Ibrhaim al Jaafari.
As for Vietnam, there never was an occupation: US forces were unable to achieve one. And was it really the Republicans erring in that situation? Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat's Democrat, was more responsbile than any single other individual for the escalation of the War, and he truly bowed his head in shame when he announced to the nation that he would not be seeking reelection. And as Rex pointed out, shitloads of Democrats (sadly- or at least sad for me, as a Democrat myself) voted to go ahead with the Iraq war.
So this isn't an issue of Republicans vs. Democrats; it's an issue of actual analysis of what is, pragmatically, the best thing for Iraq, rather than what is the best thing in some abstract sense. I just can't see how pulling troops out at this stage would truly benefit Iraq.
Oh, another point. I do also agree that the neoconservative policy of democracy-spreading is very unrealistic and unpragmatic. At the same time, I think the end goal for countries should be democracy. But it's highly problematic to thrust democracy upon them. Not sure what to say about Democracy in the Middle East... that's a very complicated issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home