Was it worth it, or not?

[darius]

Or, instead of simply insulting them, you could entertain the notion that perhaps they have a better idea of what is supporting them. Or maybe they have a little different idea of "needless" - and I imagine theirs would take precedence over yours.

Loch's post was harshly worded. But at the same time, most soldiers aren't calculating the calculus of why we need (or not) to be in Iraq; they may be contemplating it, but Big Picture(tm) analyses are often easier to do from a distance, especially since there are more information retrieval resources back in the U.S. of A.

The trick is to reconcile the two; that's why selectively pruning intelligence to support the neocon agendas, publicly claiming definitive proof based on reports known to be sketchy or untrue, and starting a war over it rankles me ... it's intellectually dishonest at best, criminal at worst.

That's not limited to the intelligence community. Gen Shinseki said he believed we'd need a troop deployment much larger than 100K for the occupation ... back in early 2003. Of course, the White House, wanting to do this on the cheap, fired him. Never mind that he was right -- and it's a shame that the ADHD news cycle prevents him from being vindicated. If I'm president, I'm listening to the military folks and the diplomats over the chickenhawk theorists.

Look, I wish the neocons were right, and we managed this with no losses and paid for it by siphoning off Iraqi oil like Wolfowitz wanted. But 1,400 dead Americans, and a mind-boggling 100K dead Iraqis just seems like a pretty steep price for a tenuous toehold on democracy with no guarantees of ever making it out of the cradle. But at least we got an Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, by making one!

I'm torn about troop withdrawal. On one hand, the Marshall Plan was an amazing piece of work, and based on Mom's logic (clean up the mess you make), rebuilding Iraq is the right thing to do. But we don't have a ceasefire to work with now, and the populace doesn't seem entirely friendly. What happens if the Iraqis democratically elect a strict Islamist government that ends up being anti-American (since there's not exactly a wellspring of love from the Muslim world right now)? Do we remove them too? Dick Cheney asked these same questions in '91, justifying the ceasefire that left Hussein in office. To my knowledge, they've never been answered in a satisfactory manner.

darius

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Or, instead of simply insulting them, you could entertain the notion that perhaps they have a better idea of what is supporting them.

Well, the "No Blood For Oil" slogan isn't talking about my blood, it's talking about their blood. They might stop to think that maybe the person wearing that T-shirt is doing so out of concern for them.

If "supporting the troops" means giving them the best pay, equipment, and training we can provide, count me in. If it means swallowing whatever bullsh*t reason the administration submits for frivolous adventuring around the globe, count me out.

Or are you one of those who believes that the soldier must completely believe that he/she is "doing the right thing" in order to fulfill their mission? That for the sake of morale we have to "get behind" whatever stated reason lies behind their commitment to the field?

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I won't lie about it. I don't think we did the right thing, and I do think that there are a lot of American soldiers who have died and been wounded unneccessarily. If telling the truth--as I see it--has become somehow "un-American", then I wonder whether the nation is worth defending anymore.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

If "supporting the troops" means giving them the best pay, equipment, and training we can provide, count me in. If it means swallowing whatever bullsh*t reason the administration submits for frivolous adventuring around the globe, count me out.

Paying taxes = Supporting the troops???? Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but highly insulting (to those that voted for JFK vice GWB).

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Or are you one of those who believes that the soldier must completely believe that he/she is "doing the right thing" in order to fulfill their mission? That for the sake of morale we have to "get behind" whatever stated reason lies behind their commitment to the field?

Of course not. It is ridiculous to think that every member of our fighting force is in 100% agreement with the war. It is not lack of intelligence that allows them to blindly perform their duties (that are so obviously wrong in your eyes), it is their commitment to an ideal they are willing to support and die for, that demands our respect and support.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I won't lie about it. I don't think we did the right thing, and I do think that there are a lot of American soldiers who have died and been wounded unneccessarily. If telling the truth--as I see it--has become somehow "un-American", then I wonder whether the nation is worth defending anymore.

At the very least, supporting our troops can be as simple as going up to a serviceman or his family member, and saying "Thank you for your service and sacrifice". Thats it. Now some are so vehemently against the war, that they would not be able to choke up those words. Fine. No one is saying that your dissent is un-American. The issue is support of our troops.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Paying taxes = Supporting the troops???? Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but highly insulting (to those that voted for JFK vice GWB).

??? How does "providing the best pay, equipment, and training" equate to "paying taxes"? And even if that were what I said--which it isn't--how is that "intellectually dishonest"?

Follow up question: What would be intellectually honest, in your opinion?

Of course not. It is ridiculous to think that every member of our fighting force is in 100% agreement with the war.

Agreed.

It is not lack of intelligence that allows them to blindly perform their duties (that are so obviously wrong in your eyes), it is their commitment to an ideal they are willing to support and die for, that demands our respect and support.

And I do respect and support their commitment and doing their jobs to the best of their ability. That is not in question, and I don't know how you construed what I said to imply that I don't respect their commitment or idealism.

It is the use to which our present leadership has put that commitment that I find reprehensible. I do not find fault with the way they are doing their job--I find fault with the job they've been asked to do. Not the same.

At the very least, supporting our troops can be as simple as going up to a serviceman or his family member, and saying "Thank you for your service and sacrifice". Thats it.

Yet you stated that if I wore a "No Blood For Oil" T-shirt, that simple voicing of support would be looked at with jaundice, even though it is the soldier's blood that I object to trading for oil. How do you reconcile that?

Now some are so vehemently against the war, that they would not be able to choke up those words.

I am not one of them, and I don't understand those people who equate fireman = fire.

No one is saying that your dissent is un-American.

On the contrary, I got the distinct impression otherwise.

The issue is support of our troops.

...or more precisely, the issue is the definition of what constitutes "supporting the troops". I won't accept that I am "unsupportive" just because I don't want American servicemen and women to bleed and die for no good reason. And I don't believe Iraq is or was a good reason.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Agreed.And I do respect and support their commitment and doing their jobs to the best of their ability. That is not in question, and I don't know how you construed what I said to imply that I don't respect their commitment or idealism.

It is the use to which our present leadership has put that commitment that I find reprehensible. I do not find fault with the way they are doing their job--I find fault with the job they've been asked to do. Not the same.

But it is the same. Would you agree that the war might not be such a bad idea if there were no casualties on either side, yet the objectives of a free society were being met? If so, then the issue is not with the fact of the war but with its prosecution. And that, my friend, is the soldier's job.

I agree with you that the war was a dumb idea, but now that the troops are there, what's to be done except help them achieve their mission and get home sucessfully? To encourage a soldier to quit before accomplishing the objective is to simultaneously say that the soldier is not good enough to do what it takes to win. Three-quarters of training is to teach the troop that the only way they lose is to give up.

Further, if you tell a soldier that they're doing a good job killing but saying at the same time that the leadership is wrong in getting them to kill in the first place you make them feel stupid and worthless. Morally, how does that make the soldier feel about the deaths they caused? Good or bad?

Yet you stated that if I wore a "No Blood For Oil" T-shirt, that simple voicing of support would be looked at with jaundice, even though it is the soldier's blood that I object to trading for oil. How do you reconcile that?

By understanding what it means to be a soldier. "No blood for oil" is generally interpreted as "None of THEIR blood for oil". So you are supporting the enemy by wearing that shirt.

....or more precisely, the issue is the definition of what constitutes "supporting the troops". I won't accept that I am "unsupportive" just because I don't want American servicemen and women to bleed and die for no good reason. And I don't believe Iraq is or was a good reason.

Fair enough, I agree with you. What I'm wrestling with is the knowledge that those people are there and fighting. Whether they should have been there in the first place is, largely, irrelevent. They're there, so what do we do about it? If GWB turned around tomorrow and said that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, how would that change anything?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jBirch

But it is the same. Would you agree that the war might not be such a bad idea if there were no casualties on either side, yet the objectives of a free society were being met? If so, then the issue is not with the fact of the war but with its prosecution. And that, my friend, is the soldier's job.

I'm not certain that even if there were no casualties on either side, that we had any authority or obligation to enter that country with the intention of removing their "elected" leader. I don't think we can just go impose freedom - even if we do it peacefully, any where we think there is a need.

I liken it to vegetarians and meat eaters. Both can patron the same restaurant and consume the products they want. But the vegetarian does not have the authority to walk up to the meat eater and remove his steak from his plate, with the intetion of imposing healthful eating habits on him.

Now, as a concerned vegetarian, if I saw that this man was clearly unhealthy, and that his continued consumption of meat would kill him, then I could talk to this man, I could produce studies on the benefits of vegetarianism, I can broadcast radio and television productions on the benefits of healthy eating, I can hold seminars and offsite meetings where I invite this meat eater and his fellow meat eaters to join me in my quest to make these people healthier. I can use all sorts of slick marketing tricks to show this meat eater how much better life is as a vegetarian. But I can not make him become a vegetarian soley by removing his meat.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

??? How does "providing the best pay, equipment, and training" equate to "paying taxes"? And even if that were what I said--which it isn't--how is that "intellectually dishonest"?

You are correct that I was putting words in your mouth. Too me, paying your taxes means that the government will then use it to provide what is needed for our troops. A stretch? Sure. What i felt was intellectually dishonest was that it seemed to be just lip service. "Sure I want what is best for our troops, therefore I support them". I guess thats more supportive than the people who don't want good pay, equipment and training for our troops".

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Follow up question: What would be intellectually honest, in your opinion?
And I do respect and support their commitment and doing their jobs to the best of their ability. That is not in question, and I don't know how you construed what I said to imply that I don't respect their commitment or idealism.

Say it/Mean it/Show it.
I questioned your respect for their commitment and idealism, because of your comment about their intelligence quotient.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

It is the use I won't accept that I am "unsupportive" just because I don't want American servicemen and women to bleed and die for no good reason. And I don't believe Iraq is or was a good reason.

Fine. Hypothetically, If you were to state your views on the war and the administration to all the servicemen in Iraq...what percentage do you think would leave that exchange feeling encouraged by you?


Your son is in school. You feed him, cloth him, provide the best for all his needs. When he comes home from school, all you do is complain about how messed up his teachers/classes/textbooks/football team are. "By the way, keep up the good work son".

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

{snip}
Your son is in school. You feed him, cloth him, provide the best for all his needs. When he comes home from school, all you do is complain about how messed up his teachers/classes/textbooks/football team are. "By the way, keep up the good work son".

Keeping this hypothetical--your son is in school. You think the curriculum is misguided and the materials he got which caused him to go to the school were fraudulent (or at least overstated).

Are you supporting him by telling him to stick it out, it's really a good school?

Or when you tell him you think it was a mistake to go there--he's a great student, but the school isn't what he thought it would be and he should transfer?

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Say it/Mean it/Show it.

I do, I do, and I do. I just don't agree that "Showing it" means lying to them to make them feel good.

I questioned your respect for their commitment and idealism, because of your comment about their intelligence quotient.

Sorry, but they can be as committed and idealistic as St. Michael and all the angels--and still be as dumb as a bag of hammers. The two are not equivalent. And I question the intelligence of anyone who adamantly insists on confusing lack of support for the war with lack of support for the warrior.

But you're right. "Stupid" is an unjust and unjustified verdict. I'll change it to "misguided and unable to see correctly." Does that help?

Fine. Hypothetically, If you were to state your views on the war and the administration to all the servicemen in Iraq...what percentage do you think would leave that exchange feeling encouraged by you?

Irrelevant.

The men and women serving in Iraq are not some volunteer force, like the Mujahedeen or the Republican Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. If they were, then no one--myself included--has a right to say anything. But they are not. They were sent there as a tool for expressing US national and international policy, and as such they have chosen to abide by their leader's choices for them. And the very least they should be able to expect is to trust that those leaders will not WASTE them callously in senseless adventuring.

If they want to stay as volunteers, then the burden of consequence falls to them alone. But if they stay as an extension of administration policy, then the burden of guilt falls to us--to you and me, and every other citizen of this nation. And I for one don't want any more of their blood on my head in this pointless, senseless cause.

Your son is in school. You feed him, cloth him, provide the best for all his needs. When he comes home from school, all you do is complain about how messed up his teachers/classes/textbooks/football team are. "By the way, keep up the good work son".

No, that's not what I tell him. I tell him, "Hold on and do your best until I can get you out of that cesspool." And then I move heaven and earth to get him out of that school and into a good one.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I'm not certain that even if there were no casualties on either side, that we had any authority or obligation to enter that country with the intention of removing their "elected" leader. I don't think we can just go impose freedom - even if we do it peacefully, any where we think there is a need.

I think you mean to say "I don't think we should..." because, obviously, you can and have done so. This is the major problem the rest of the world had with the invasion in the first place. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the situation now. The troops are at war. What's to be done but hope they crush the enemy and give them whatever tools they need to do it?

I liken it to vegetarians and meat eaters. Both can patron the same restaurant and consume the products they want. But the vegetarian does not have the authority to walk up to the meat eater and remove his steak from his plate, with the intetion of imposing healthful eating habits on him.

Now, as a concerned vegetarian, if I saw that this man was clearly unhealthy, and that his continued consumption of meat would kill him, then I could talk to this man, I could produce studies on the benefits of vegetarianism, I can broadcast radio and television productions on the benefits of healthy eating, I can hold seminars and offsite meetings where I invite this meat eater and his fellow meat eaters to join me in my quest to make these people healthier. I can use all sorts of slick marketing tricks to show this meat eater how much better life is as a vegetarian. But I can not make him become a vegetarian soley by removing his meat.

Great analogy and I think it applies absolutely to the case of going to war or not. However, now that you are at war, what does further objection to it accomplish? Is it possible to object to the war and work to convince others that it is unwise to continue to prosecute it without, simultaneously, denigrating your own troops? Can you convince the political leadership that the war is unwise without showing how you are losing it?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

But it is the same.

But it is not the same.

Would you agree that the war might not be such a bad idea if there were no casualties on either side, yet the objectives of a free society were being met?

Why, yes. If we had such a magic wand, we could accomplish freedom and justice throughout the world at no cost to anyone. But we don't have any such magic wand, so the question is moot.

If so, then the issue is not with the fact of the war but with its prosecution. And that, my friend, is the soldier's job.

You are conflating "methodology" with "causality". How the war is prosecuted is completely separate from why the war is prosecuted.

One can oppose the need for building a structure without ipso facto casting aspersions on the skill or dedication of those who are building it.

I agree with you that the war was a dumb idea, but now that the troops are there, what's to be done except help them achieve their mission and get home sucessfully?

How about this: How about just saying, "Listen, this mission was a mistake. We're sorry we got you into this mess, and we'll get you out as soon as possible." Then put them all on transports and get them the hell out.

To encourage a soldier to quit before accomplishing the objective is to simultaneously say that the soldier is not good enough to do what it takes to win.

What if we admit that the objective wasn't worth spilling their blood over? How does that impact the soldier's view of him/herself? Or is it the soldier's view of the country's leadership that we're protecting?

Further, if you tell a soldier that they're doing a good job killing but saying at the same time that the leadership is wrong in getting them to kill in the first place you make them feel stupid and worthless.

Rather they should feel cheated and used by the leaders who sent them to do a job that didn't need doing.

Morally, how does that make the soldier feel about the deaths they caused? Good or bad?

So you are saying we should let them get shot and blown up just so they won't feel bad?? What sort of logic is that??

By understanding what it means to be a soldier. "No blood for oil" is generally interpreted as "None of THEIR blood for oil". So you are supporting the enemy by wearing that shirt.

See "misguided and unable to see correctly" above. If they don't stop to ask whose blood we're talking about, I can't be responsible for their misunderstanding. I won't stop expressing my support for their safe return--but not my support for their continuing to die and get maimed so that Dubya can pose as a great exporter of democracy.

Fair enough, I agree with you. What I'm wrestling with is the knowledge that those people are there and fighting. Whether they should have been there in the first place is, largely, irrelevent. They're there, so what do we do about it? If GWB turned around tomorrow and said that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, how would that change anything?

We have the means to bring them all home tomorrow. We only lack the will.

Continuing to allow them to die and suffer just because they're already there is just pouring more sand down the rathole.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Great analogy and I think it applies absolutely to the case of going to war or not. However, now that you are at war, what does further objection to it accomplish?

I'm sorry does this mean that it is not possible to criticise any action after the fact? Assuming we live in a democracy then any government policy is open to re-evaluation. Its what happens in elections and between them; argueing about the direction a country should take.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Is it possible to object to the war and work to convince others that it is unwise to continue to prosecute it without, simultaneously, denigrating your own troops?

A matter of personal opinion.

Most western armed forces are professional forces made up of paid volunteers. Now a soldier, as a citizen of a democracy, should be aware the military is a tool of the executive, and it is quite possible that they may be engaged in actions that are the will of government but not (at any given time) the will of the majority of the people.

Why on earth would you expect the populace to support any given military action 100%?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

I'm sorry does this mean that it is not possible to criticise any action after the fact? Assuming we live in a democracy then any government policy is open to re-evaluation. Its what happens in elections and between them; argueing about the direction a country should take.

Well, sort of. Once you've ejected it really doesn't make sense arguing about whether you should have flown today. To a certain extent there are great arguments about not going to war in the first place, but now that your troops are in that undesirable situation, does it make sense to keep arguing about whether they should have gone in the first place?

A matter of personal opinion.

Well then, this entire discussion is moot. I think that it is a rational thing. I'm not sure whether it is possible or not and was looking for rationale, one way or the other.

Most western armed forces are professional forces made up of paid volunteers. Now a soldier, as a citizen of a democracy, should be aware the military is a tool of the executive, and it is quite possible that they may be engaged in actions that are the will of government but not (at any given time) the will of the majority of the people.

Absolutely. The question then, is whether it is possible or not to denigrate the executive without denigrating the troops.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Why, yes. If we had such a magic wand, we could accomplish freedom and justice throughout the world at no cost to anyone. But we don't have any such magic wand, so the question is moot. You are conflating "methodology" with "causality". How the war is prosecuted is completely separate from why the war is prosecuted.

One can oppose the need for building a structure without ipso facto casting aspersions on the skill or dedication of those who are building it.

Yes and no. Why the war is prosecuted directly impacts on how the war is prosecuted. If the goal is to build a democracy, for example, nuking the area doesn't make sense. It is understood that the goal of war is to win without it costing too much. If this is not possible, it's because your soldiers aren't good enough to make it possible.

How about this: How about just saying, "Listen, this mission was a mistake. We're sorry we got you into this mess, and we'll get you out as soon as possible." Then put them all on transports and get them the hell out.

Because then you have to pay reparations to the country you invaded, your soldiers all have to be prosecuted for murder and your leaders for war crimes.

What if we admit that the objective wasn't worth spilling their blood over? How does that impact the soldier's view of him/herself? Or is it the soldier's view of the country's leadership that we're protecting? Rather they should feel cheated and used by the leaders who sent them to do a job that didn't need doing.So you are saying we should let them get shot and blown up just so they won't feel bad?? What sort of logic is that??

The soldier's view is that the enemy shouldn't be good enough to spill their blood. The soldier's view is that they were told to fight this war and they'll either come home victorious or not at all. The soldier's belief is that the mission is worth the cost. If it weren't, why were they sent in the first place? Ipso facto, they are there so the cause is worth it. The citizen's soldier's belief is that the people at home want them to win. And if they win, then there is no need to call them home prematurely.

See "misguided and unable to see correctly" above. If they don't stop to ask whose blood we're talking about, I can't be responsible for their misunderstanding.

"Misguided and unable to see correctly" is absolutely false. If you don't speak clearly, I'm not responsible for thinking you a simpleton.

I won't stop expressing my support for their safe return--but not my support for their continuing to die and get maimed so that Dubya can pose as a great exporter of democracy. We have the means to bring them all home tomorrow. We only lack the will. Continuing to allow them to die and suffer just because they're already there is just pouring more sand down the rathole.

True. The question is whether it is worth the cost or not. And part of that cost is telling the troops that they were unable to accomplish the mission. And part of the convincing is showing that the troops are unable to accomplish the mission.