SUMMARY: A pretty popular cartoon/comic character once referred to the noble yet fruitless actions of his adversary as "such heroic nonsense." Nowadays, you could use that phrase to describe those who think "victory" in Iraq is absolutely neccesary in order to protect America from terrorism.
Now back to the program.
This has gone way past the realm of ridiculousness. I'm too tired and frustrated. I can't even come up with a sensible rebuttal to any of my more conservative friends. How do you give a sane response people who act and speak in an irrationale manner? You can't.
So I'll just put it this way: the talking point that says we need to "win Iraq" militarily in order to win the "War on Terror" is just complete and utter nonsense.
"LOSERS?" I DON'T THINK SO
You'd be hard pressed to find an American who wants to be called a "loser" in anything. We're socially conditioned to not only want to win, but expect it. Manipulating this trait is the last tactic the Bush Administration has, considering that nobody outside the White House thinks Cobra Commander has clue one what he's doing. Unfortunately, this one-trick pony has actually paid off with some fools who can't bare to see Dear Leader look bad. "We have to stay and keep fighting," they say, "Otherwise we'll lose."
We would have never become the United States of America if these idiots were running the Revolutionary War. In fact we'd still be fighting the Battle of Long Island with these clods screaming "Retreat will give the British strength!" Well answer this, warmongers: if George Washington can save face with two major losses and go on to be the Father of Our Country, why can't we entertain the idea of redeployment in Iraq?
One ridiculous response is "if we leave, the enemy will follow us." Complete and utter bullshit, and Fred Kaplan explains why:
First, it assumes that "the enemy" in Iraq consists entirely of al-Qaida terrorists, when they comprise only a small segment of the forces attacking U.S. troops. Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias are not likely to "follow us home."
Second, if terrorists wanted to attack American territory again (and maybe they do), their ability to do so is unaffected by whether we stay in or pull out of Iraq. It's not as if they're all holed up in Baghdad and Anbar province, just waiting for the fighting to stop so they can climb out of their foxholes and go blow up New York. If al-Qaida is a global network, its agents can fight in both places.
Third, this is a hell of a thing to say in front of the allies. It's a crudely selfish message, suggesting that we're getting a lot of people killed over there in order that nobody gets killed back here. What leader of a beleaguered nation, reading this remark, would seek America's protection?
These guys can't get over their own sense of twisted herioc pride. They couldn't acknowledge that the "enemy" was initially pissed-off Iraqis who wanted food, clothes, and running water and had decided to stop wondering why the Coalition of the Photo-Op didn't provide these things. They trust a guy (PM Nouri al-Maliki) who makes NBA Star Chris Webber look clutch to patch this mess up for him. They overlook the the real things that hurt troop morale. They ignore specific threats from the real enemy, and overreact to the vague ones.
ALL IN THE FAMILY
It's strange that the most rah-rah-rahing is coming from one family in particular, at least until you hear that the family name is "Cheney." Think I'm kidding? You've got Liz Cheney writing opinion pieces, Lynne Cheney doing a pre-school propaganda tour, and Dick Cheney just being an outright liar. The common theme with this family of yo-yos? "Don't Believe You're Lying Eyes!" I can only imagine what it's like to have a chat with that crowd around the dinner table.
OK, BEAR WITH ME HERE
I don't hide the fact that I'm a fan of Transformers (specifically Generation One). I looove the movie, and I can't help but go back to a scene there that reminds me of the bloodthristy warmongers I read about and see on TV here in the real world:
OK, so the Decepticons (the bad guys) are attacking a shuttle that the Autobots (the good guys) were using for a re-supplying mission. In probably his worst move ever, Autobot Leader Optimus Prime (think a robot version of George Washington with a splash of FDR) assigns only four Autobots for this mission: the head medic, the head military strategist, their tough guy (and the only one who carries no weapons) and a past-his-prime security officer (named Ironhide).
The Decepticons come about twenty deep and it's a massacre. After taking the helm, Decepticon Leader Megatron (think Dick Cheney with good aim) and his second-in-command banter on about the difficulty of the next mission: blowing up the very base the Auotbots were going to for supplies. Ironhide, who's barely alive, reaches for Megatron's legs and whisper-shouts "Noooooo!!"
Megatron, who has a fucking cannon on his arm, blows the guy's head off with little hesistation other to say: "Such heroic nonsense."
Now was Ironhide heroic? Hell yeah. But did his attempt to stop twenty foes who just shot him multiple times really matter in the scheme of things? No; it didn't. He was down, broken and defeated. His best chance was to play dead, hope everyone ignores him, and then try to send out a distress call.
So what the hell does this have to do with reality? Well, our country is being misled by a bunch of Ironhides: people who think fighting a lost battle will somehow win the war. They're still wearing their "greeted as liberators" googles and can't get over the fact that Iraq hasn't turned into Agrabah yet. So they have nothing left but to equate Iraq's survival to World Peace. Or in math terms:
IRAQ + ANYTHING BUT TOTAL VICTORY = WORLD WAR THREE
Now how stupid is that? And how stupid do they think people are? Maybe these warmongers think we forgot that in the beginning, they were more than willing to use the name of brave men and women in order to create the fantasy that we were winning some glorious, righteous war. Has it been so long that we've forgotten about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch? I don't think so. There is nothing unheroic about wanting to have troops redeployed so we can "win this fight." On the flip side, there is nothing heroic about sending our troops to die because the Bushes, Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world are too stubborn to admit that they were dead fucking wrong.
Let's get one thing straight: the soldiers who are risking their lives abroad are heroes. But to claim that redeployment, or withdrawal, or anything other than what Bush says we should do is failure...that is false, stupid and un-American. And to claim, in this flawed world, that we must fight another country's war for a style of democracy that the warmongers themselves can't bother to afford us is hypocrisy and nonsense.
We owe the our soldiers (like Private Lavena Johnson) better than that.