Ok I admit it. I supported the right to give Bush permission to use military force in Iraq. I thought it was the right thing to do. After all we should be able to trust the president, and we were not going to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq without showing we meant business. That meant beginning troop mobilization, that meant going to the U.N. , and it certainly meant being able to act at a moment's notice to get Saddam Hussein to take us seriously.
I even thought he had WMD. I admit it. What I didn't know was Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and, yes, Powell couldn't be trusted to live up to their fiduciary duties to be straight with the facts. I'll spare readers the thousands of words I could spill to document my assertion. I don't need to do much convincing around here.
My point is that I'm a new-jack peacenik. I didn't go to the marches and didn't write any letters to the editor saying "no blood for oil." I'm not a pacifist either. I supported the bombing of Yugoslavia, I agreed with the political rationale behind the first Gulf War, and I wish we had intervened militarily in Rwanda.
But now I've flipped flopped. I'm anti-war. I think it was a mistake. I think that in the end it was exactly what the MSM said was so crazy: a war fought only for the ability to commandeer natural resources.
But I'm having real trouble with the "pull out now" argument as well. I fear it would be a mistake. I fear a massive power vacuum. And I fear it sets a horrible precedent to the world. After all, if we pull out the fascist insurgents win. Most of all I fear that the death and destruction that would take place as a result of our departure would actually be worse than the bloody status quo. Sure our soldiers will be spared further risk, but at what terrible cost to the people of Iraq.
Am I alone here? I want to be antiwar but not anti-pull out now? Is that even possible? Please someone explain to me how my fears are unfounded. Until then, I have to go with my conscience on this.