The war in Iraq is without doubt the most critical issue we face as a nation. There is, as all regular Kos readers know, a vocal minority that vilifies anyone and everyone who voices dissent or even questions President Bush.
I speculate that one reason the righteous right noise machine is so prevelant and strident is that there has been so much approbation from those who are like thinkers (Limbaugh's ditto-heads, for example), and so little voice from those of us who differ. Granted, it is often difficult to get the attention of the MSM, or to get a right-wing outlet to air a contrary view. Nonetheless, It seems to me that every little effort to get a rebuttal out will contribute, and if there are evough of them, perhaps would either weaken the right-wings rants or encourage the emergence of a progressive equivalent of the noise machine.
To this end, I have decided that my contribution is to challenge ideas put forth by wingers in our local weekly newspaper. Below the fold is the second letter I have written within the last month. It's a small thing, but I hope you would consider using some of your considerably writing talents to reach out beyond the friendly confines of DailyKos.
Dear Sir:
I feel it necessary to respond to the letters by James Parcher and the Griffins in the February 22, 2007 issue of the Kent County News regarding the war in Iraq. I regard the war as having been entered into blithely with no thought as to the costs in blood, treasure or international standing should democracy not spring into being spontaneously upon the fall of Saddam.
Mr. Parcher asks if Pelosi, Obama and others opposed to the war in Iraq have talked to the troops, saying "they would hate the idea that we would pull out before we secure Iraq into a stable political entity and would consider it as making their brave service and sacrifices useless." On this point, it is useful to reflect on the history of our involvement in Iraq. I would argue that in fact the war was won, exemplified by the statue of Saddam being pulled down. The opportunity for a peaceful establishment of a stable political entity was lost immediately, due to a number of factors. (For those interested in detail in this point, I recommend "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," one of many excellent accounts of the planning and conduct of the war.) For an early instance, consider the looting that went on in Bagdad due to the lack of troops to keep order. I am sure the people serving in Iraq do hate the idea of pulling out, but even so, there are a sizeable number who favor doing just that. Their reasoning is that we are caught in the middle of a civil war that we can do nothing about. Viewing events in Iraq over the past several months persuades me this is correct.
Mr Parcher, in his letter, also says, "this war in Iraq is even more important than WWII . . . ." In WWII, we were facing an enemy in a traditional war with uniformed forces and recognized battle lines. Futhermore, the nation was completely mobilized, i.e., there was a draft, there were increased taxes, critical supplies were rationed, etc. If this war is that important, why are we not doing those things now? So in a narrow sense, I reject this reasoning. In a broader sense, however, Mr Parcher has a legitimate point. We have to recognize there are people who mean us harm, and in particular this includes Al Queda. But this is not a national organization we can attack with conventional military force. We must, in what President Bush has described as a "long war," win the cooperation of the people of the Muslim world to defeat the ideology driving Al Queda. The war in Iraq, far from contributing to this goal, has instead strenthened anti-American feeling and fostered Al-Queda recruiting!
The above points also speak to Mr. Gilchrest’s vote on the House resolution regarding Iraq, which was so strongly criticized by Mr, and Mrs. Griffins. Because our troops are in harm’s way in the midst of a civil war, a few more troops won’t solve the problem. I personnaly feel the Congressman should be commended for thinking independently about this issue, which I do not see as strictly a partisan political matter. Intererstingly, the KCNews published a lengthy piece in this same issue in which Mr. Gilchrest explained his position.