Skip to main content

View Diary: One Hundred Names You Won't Hear This Memorial Day (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fine for you and good for them. (none)
    I'm glad you and your whole family practice what you preach. My thoughts and prayers are with you and them. But not enough people are like you and are willing to practice what they preach and sign up for the war. Think about the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. That is why the US effort is going down the tank. Not enough people are willing to put their lives on the line and enlist. So the US effort, which reached its high-water mark last January, is getting less and less effective as the war drags on.

    We tried your idea in Vietnam. Nixon spent four years trying to train the South Vietnamese Army to resist the North and the VC after the US left. It didn't work. The South collapsed two years after we left.

    You are promoting the "Break it/own it" frame. I accept that, but it does not follow that we should own it in a way that means blowing people's heads off. Just because there are a lot of evil killers in Iraq does not mean we should make things worse by giving them a chance to organize around a common enemy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    And the other flaw with the "Break it/own it" frame is that it was tried in Vietnam. We used it as an excuse to drag the war on for years, with nothing to show for it, but 58,000 US lives lost and over a million Vietnamese.

    Trying to bring people to the table is much better. It might not be effective at first with our damaged credibility, but it is still better than continuing to take people's lives. We should prepare for the possibility of genocide by opening our country up for refugees and working with other countries to accept refugees as well. There may very well be a refugee crisis as the result of this war; we should take responsibility for that. I'm sorry, but there are better ways of resolving problems than the taking of human life.

    If we are really in this war to prevent genocide, then why don't we go to Sudan, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Congo? If going to these countries will effectively prevent genocide, we need to go to those places as well as stay in Iraq by your logic. But the problem with that is that we are not Superman. We cannot be everywhere at once. Our people do not want to die in some place they can't even find on a map. Recognizing the limits of the military's power is just as important as knowing what they are capable of, and right now, our leadership has not done so.

    •  So many misconceptions (none)
      First of all, I don't agree with the premise behind the war.  I don't think it's our business to invade countries to spread freedom.  That's the difference between me and the Non-Fighting Keyboardists.  I think we never should have gone there.  I was overruled.  That's democracy for you.

      There are so many problems with the Vietnam analogy that I won't get into all of them here, but I will address the narrow claim you made--that Vietnam proved that we cannot prevent civil war.  First of all, the Vietnam civil war had already started--we tried to stop it.  No true civil war has started in Iraq.  Alos, unfortunately for your argument, there was the Korean conflict.  South Korea still exists and thrives.  We were also able, with international help, to end genocide due to the Bosnia conflict and prevent further civil war.  So, Vietanm teaches us that the tactics of Vietnam doesn't work, not that we cannot prevent civil war and genocide.

      Also, you seem to think that these evil killers would be a lot nicer if they didn't have a common enemy to fight (i.e. us).  This is foolish.  A number of them would stop fighting altogether if we left, I agree.  But remember, most of the terrorist violence is not being directed at us, it is being directed at Iraqis who have sectarian differences.  If we are not there, it just makes these attacks easier, making full-scale civil war much more probable.

      Another fallacy of your argument is that there can be force or diplomacy, but not both.  Not only is this supposition untrue, but in fact the opposite--negotiation from a position of strength is much easier.  The sides will be much more willing to listen about peace if our forces make war impractical.  We should be using as much effort as possible to bring people to the negotiating table, but if the extremists think they can win it all by force, there will be no peace (see Israel-Palestine for a practical example of this).

      And the reason why we are here in preference to the other regions where there is genocide is that (and I can't emphasize this enough) this is our fault!  We caused this potential genocide!  We have the responsibility to fix what we broke as best as we can, accepting the costs.  I think that the best way to fix this is to hold the country together until the local forces can.  By doing this, we can prevent a Vietnam from forming by preventing armed sectarian differences from starting in earnest, making settling of a peace easier.

      We can't (and shouldn't) police the world.  That's what got us into this mess to begin with.  But we should clean up our messes, if for no other reason than to try to atone for our wrongheadedness in starting this war.

      "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

      by Shygetz on Fri May 27, 2005 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq, South Korea, and Bosnia. (none)
        In South Korea, Dwight Eisenhower stepped in and negotiated an end to that conflict. He negotiated with the Chinese, who were the biggest jerks in the world at the time. Bosnia was won because we had a great general on the ground -- Wesley Clark. We have no such leadership in Iraq.

        There may be no true civil war in Iraq yet, but we're getting there. The longer we stay, the more likely there is to be one with us caught in the middle. That would be the worst-case scenario and one we can't afford.

        Bosnia and South Korea were different. Bosnia was won with good diplomacy and solely in the air. Clark ran the campaign without a single American life being lost; he was very careful not to involve the US military in a long drawn-out conflict that they had no chance winning.

        Korea was in danger of becoming Vietnam until Eisenhower was able to negotiate an end to that conflict. But it came nearer to becoming a Vietnam than Bosnia. Before Eisenhower, the war, like Vietnam and Iraq, was a long drawn-out stalemate.

        In Korea and Bosnia, we had international help. We were able to convince the world that we needed to stop an evil from spreading. But Iraq and Vietnam had little international support. No other countries are willing to commit troops to Iraq. Our people are not willing to undertake a national effort to fight this war, whether you like it or not. So we are left with our only option: Leave and do the best we can without contributing to the conflict.

        Vietnam may have already had a civil war going on, but we escalated it by going there. And you failed to answer my main point, which was that Nixon's 4-year Vietnamization plan failed; the government collapsed like a house of cards after we left. And the Iraqi "army" has the same kind of lack of will that the Vietnamese did.

        By your own admission, the tactics of Vietnam didn't work; they are being repeated in Iraq all over again.

        When you say with a high degree certainty that there will be a civil war, you miss a fact of human nature. When someone does the right thing, other people will end up doing the right thing as well. So for every Iraqi who decides to take advantage of the power vacum, there will be others who decide to take responsibility for the building of their country instead of depending on us to do it. It works both ways. It is a lot more likely that the Sunnis will come to the table if we leave because they can no longer see the Shiites as puppets of America. And the Shiites will be much more likely to stand and protect themselves rather than depend on us to do the work.

        And if we take an active role in helping them build a better Iraq, we will fulfill our share of responsibility for preventing a major civil war from breaking out.

        You contend that we would negotiate from a position of strength if we stayed. But we are not in a position of strength to start with; we are losing this war. That is why we are having this debate in the first place. The insurgents can hide beind walls, shoot at our soldiers, and blend into the crowd. If we destroy a city piece by piece like Fallujah, they will simply go off somewhere else where we aren't. Insurgents will wait as long as they want because this is their home. We cannot; our soldiers must go back home at some point. And who will be there to replace them?


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site