Was it worth it, or not?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

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.

...I think you completely mis-read my post. Oh well.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

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

So your contention is that any serviceman or servicewoman is, by definition, tied part-and-parcel to the views of the executive? That they must assume the executive's views as their own (the military person's) views, and that therefore any criticism of the executive's decisions must ipso facto be a criticism of the military person?

Is that what you're saying?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by keith

But if the troops and the executive are the same - all together now 'commander in chief' - then you cannot denigrate one but not the other.

By this logic, the military is merely an extension of the President and therefore any criticism of the President on any issue--say fpr example, Social Security--is also an indictment of each and every man or woman who serves.

I don't think that is a reasonable position.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

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.

There are "goals", and there are "goals". You are mixing up "strategic goal" with "tactical goal".

I agree that the tactical goal of war is to win without it costing too much. That logic would advocate nuking an area to be a method to "win" with minimize friendly casualties.

However, the strategic goal of war is to impose your intended outcome on the conflict. If your strategic goal is to set up a democracy, then perhaps military conflict shouldn't even be one of your tactical choices, and nuking the area--though it might be a good tactic--would completely obviate your expressed wish.

However, re-thinking your tactics in the context of strategic goals is not necessarily a reflection on the abilities of the soldier.

Again I return to the building crew analogy: You have a crew building a building, and the boss comes along and says, "We've decided that a building here is not the best idea. Stop work." How does this in any way imply that he thinks that the crew can't finish the work?

The soldier's view is that the enemy shouldn't be good enough to spill their blood.

Which of course is contradicted by the fact that the enemy has already spilled their blood, as witnessed by the body bags and stretchers being loaded to go home.

The soldier's view is that they were told to fight this war and they'll either come home victorious or not at all.

However, it is not for the soldier to define what "victory" looks like, nor once having been given an objective is it unreasonable for his/her leaders to change that objective in the light of new thinking. C'mon, you were a soldier--did you think that your original orders were always going to be the final word, never to be changed?

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.

Maybe so, and maybe not. I knew quite a few soldiers in 'Nam that had serious doubts about their mission and its cost, both to themselves and to the Vietnamese.

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.

But not everone at home defines "winning" in the same way, nor does everyone at home think that what they have been sent to do is in the best interests of the nation or in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are doing the bleeding and dying.

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

Touche, if taken out of context. How am I not speaking clearly? It is the person who sneers at my T-shirt without ascertaining what it means to me who is the simpleton.

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.

Based on an assumption which has not been demonstrated to be true. Once again I refer to the building analogy. How does deciding that we don't need or want a building in this particular location somehow translate into "you guys weren't good enough to finish the job"?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Fine. Fine. Fine, although I am curious how you show your support, if you don't mind sharing.

By that simple verbal expression of support you mentioned earlier. By ascertaining my representative's views on military expenditure and training issues and voting accordingly. And by passionately opposing the placement of troops in harm's way when there is no demonstrated benefit to the United States that I can see which would justify the death or dismemberment of even one US soldier.

Why do you say that our military is not voluntary? Part of their oath is specifically to obey the orders of their appointed leaders.

You misunderstand what I mean by "volunteer". Yes, the members of the Armed Forces volunteered to join, but they didn't volunteer to nation-build in Iraq--they went there because they were ordered to go. They obeyed that order because they volunteered to place themselves under the command of their officers and civilian authorities. Let's not confuse the two.

My statement was in response to your proposed poll of the military members in Iraq as to whether or not they thought their mission the right thing to do.

To clarify my point further, I would propose another poll: If the administration said tomorrow, "We've changed our minds. We're pulling out, but you're welcome to stay if you want, with full pay and all of your equipment," how many of them do you think would opt to remain?

Or put another way: If the administration had said at the beginning, "We think Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, and we think he should be deposed. We're asking for volunteers for a force to go over there and kick him out and put an elected government in his place," how many military personnel do you think would have stepped forward to go?

"But Dad, I like saying the pledge and studying about both creationism and evolution".

"But Son, you can't read, you can't write, and you can't multiply two numbers together and get a correct answer. You're going to another school."

My judgement put him in this school to begin with, and my judgement will move him to another school if I think that's best for him. He can study whatever he likes when he's no longer my responsibility.

It is not for the soldier to make policy, it is only for the soldier to execute policy. And if policy changes, the soldier must accept it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So your contention is that any serviceman or servicewoman is, by definition, tied part-and-parcel to the views of the executive? That they must assume the executive's views as their own (the military person's) views, and that therefore any criticism of the executive's decisions must ipso facto be a criticism of the military person?

Is that what you're saying?

No, but that's part of the question I'm asking.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

There are "goals", and there are "goals". You are mixing up "strategic goal" with "tactical goal".

I agree that the tactical goal of war is to win without it costing too much. That logic would advocate nuking an area to be a method to "win" with minimize friendly casualties.

However, the strategic goal of war is to impose your intended outcome on the conflict. If your strategic goal is to set up a democracy, then perhaps military conflict shouldn't even be one of your tactical choices, and nuking the area--though it might be a good tactic--would completely obviate your expressed wish.

However, re-thinking your tactics in the context of strategic goals is not necessarily a reflection on the abilities of the soldier.

Loch, not to be an arse, but you've got the concepts of Strategy, Tactics and Grand Strategy all jumbled up. Strategy is intelligently picking what you want to do, Tactics is how you do it. They exist in a hierarchy. Generally, until you do something, you are playing around strategic goals. Grand Strategy has nothing to do with strategy and tactics, but rather with the integration of economic, diplomatic and political efforts with military action to achieve the "overall strategic goal". This "overall strategic goal" is the "why" for fighting the war in the first place. It generally fits into a larger Grand Strategic plan that has an infinite goal to be happier then everyone else.

Again I return to the building crew analogy: You have a crew building a building, and the boss comes along and says, "We've decided that a building here is not the best idea. Stop work." How does this in any way imply that he thinks that the crew can't finish the work?

Because generally the building and the site is returned to the state it was in when the crew came along. It is often sold to someone who will do something useful with it. In the context of a war, it's hard to un-kill someone.

Which of course is contradicted by the fact that the enemy has already spilled their blood, as witnessed by the body bags and stretchers being loaded to go home.

Right, which sounds like the main reason for you not supporting the war. Had the troops been better, their blood would not have been spilled and it would have been a grand venture.

However, it is not for the soldier to define what "victory" looks like, nor once having been given an objective is it unreasonable for his/her leaders to change that objective in the light of new thinking. C'mon, you were a soldier--did you think that your original orders were always going to be the final word, never to be changed?

"On the bus, off the bus" is how we described it. But we always had to deal with the consequence of changing orders. In the context of war, that means reparations, war crime prosecution and murder trials.

Maybe so, and maybe not. I knew quite a few soldiers in 'Nam that had serious doubts about their mission and its cost, both to themselves and to the Vietnamese.

And it was public pressure that put these thoughts in their heads. It became understood that the war was unwinnable and that those that participated in that war were "baby killers". It's the social difference between "victory" and "defeat" when it comes to wars.

But not everone at home defines "winning" in the same way, nor does everyone at home think that what they have been sent to do is in the best interests of the nation or in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are doing the bleeding and dying.

And this gets me back to my original question. Can you support the troops and not the war? Do you have to win the war before you can be supported? My contention is that if you are not winning the war, it is impossible to support the troops and not the administration because you have to demonstrate to the administration that you are not capable of winning the war and they should give up and bring the troops home.

Touche, if taken out of context. How am I not speaking clearly? It is the person who sneers at my T-shirt without ascertaining what it means to me who is the simpleton.

*I* interpreted what you said as being against the troops more so then against the insurgents. The belief that the war is over oil and that blood is being spilled over oil is not a view in support of what the troops are doing. It was communicating to me that the troops should stop killing Iraqis for their oil. Now, if your t-shirt said something like, "No blood for Iraq" then maybe I'd buy your story about it being in support of the troops against the administration. If you meant to communicate the latter and not the former then you are the simpleton for choosing a misleading message. *grin* Not to be a prick.

Based on an assumption which has not been demonstrated to be true. Once again I refer to the building analogy. How does deciding that we don't need or want a building in this particular location somehow translate into "you guys weren't good enough to finish the job"?

Because you would not decide that you didn't need the building if it weren't falling down around the neighbourhood.

What about the humanitarian good that is being done there? Is it not right for soldiers to die to defend towns, villages, farms and wells from marauding bands of thugs? Is that not a noble cause? And if so, why would you tell them to stop? That their lives are not worth protecting people from harm?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So your contention is that any serviceman or servicewoman is, by definition, tied part-and-parcel to the views of the executive? That they must assume the executive's views as their own (the military person's) views, and that therefore any criticism of the executive's decisions must ipso facto be a criticism of the military person?

Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by jBirch

No, but that's part of the question I'm asking.

Oh. Well, in that case, the simple answer is: No. Criticising the executive who decides to go to war is not the same as criticising the men and women who prosecute the war, anymore than criticising the decision to build a shed equates to criticising the hammer used. The two are completely separate and distinct.

As was once said of the Army of Northern Virginia: "They are the best soldiers that history has known, fighting for one of the worst causes that man has conceived."

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Loch, not to be an arse, but you've got the concepts of Strategy, Tactics and Grand Strategy all jumbled up. Strategy is intelligently picking what you want to do, Tactics is how you do it. They exist in a hierarchy. Generally, until you do something, you are playing around strategic goals. Grand Strategy has nothing to do with strategy and tactics, but rather with the integration of economic, diplomatic and political efforts with military action to achieve the "overall strategic goal". This "overall strategic goal" is the "why" for fighting the war in the first place. It generally fits into a larger Grand Strategic plan that has an infinite goal to be happier then everyone else.

Let's quibble over words for a minute, shall we?

Grand Strategy: Make a better neighborhood.
(Long Term) Strategy: Build a community center.
(Mid Term) Strategy: Determine the corner on which to build the community center.
(Short Term) Strategy: Remove the currently standing shops and homes on the corner you want.
Tactics: Bring in a bulldozer.

This series of heirarchical decisions can be debated and opposed at any point, up to and including the moment the bulldozer is fired up. Perhaps a bulldozer is not the best way to clear out the existing structures. Perhaps that particular corner isn't the best place to locate the community center. Perhaps a community center isn't necessarily the best way to improve the neighborhood at all, and something else should be done instead.

In any case, none of the debate at any point must be construed to say that we hold the bulldozer driver to be an evil person, nor is criticism of the plan necessarily criticism of the dozer driver.

Because generally the building and the site is returned to the state it was in when the crew came along. It is often sold to someone who will do something useful with it. In the context of a war, it's hard to un-kill someone.

Certain actions are regrettable and irrevocable. This doesn't mean that we must continue on a bad course simply because that's how we began.

Right, which sounds like the main reason for you not supporting the war. Had the troops been better, their blood would not have been spilled and it would have been a grand venture.

You misunderstand me, I think. I am not opposed to the spilling of American blood in the right cause. Iraq is not, and was not, the right cause.

And this gets me back to my original question. Can you support the troops and not the war? Do you have to win the war before you can be supported? My contention is that if you are not winning the war, it is impossible to support the troops and not the administration because you have to demonstrate to the administration that you are not capable of winning the war and they should give up and bring the troops home.

And my contention is that the chances of winning and/or losing is not the primary determinant of whether a war should be fought at all. Winning in some cases is actually the worst thing that can happen, because it encourages the administration to gallop off into more adventures. Winning can mask a fundamentally flawed policy that will eventually result in a big disaster later rather than a small disaster now. I submit Hitler's Third Reich as a sterling example. The relative easy victories over Poland and France led to the disaster that was the invasion of Russia, with incalculable cost to Europe in particular and the world in general.

And before anyone jumps on that particular hobby-horse, I am not comparing the US military to the Wermacht nor am I saying that Dubya is another Hitler. I am simply positing an analogy to demonstrate the principle that whether one wins or loses is not the sole criterion of whether it was right to fight in the first place.

*I* interpreted what you said as being against the troops more so then against the insurgents. The belief that the war is over oil and that blood is being spilled over oil is not a view in support of what the troops are doing. It was communicating to me that the troops should stop killing Iraqis for their oil. Now, if your t-shirt said something like, "No blood for Iraq" then maybe I'd buy your story about it being in support of the troops against the administration. If you meant to communicate the latter and not the former then you are the simpleton for choosing a misleading message. *grin* Not to be a prick.

*grin* Too late. You already are a prick.

The war is over oil, and American blood is being spilled for it. That translates to "Blood for Oil", no matter how you want to dress it up, and I am opposed to spilling American blood for Iraqi oil.

The message is not misleading--or rather, it is only "misleading" when interpreted through the lense of your pre-existing prejudice.

Because you would not decide that you didn't need the building if it weren't falling down around the neighbourhood.

Non sequitur. You are positing additional assumptions that weren't part of the original scenario, then arguing against those additional assumptions. See the Strategy/Tactics example above.

What about the humanitarian good that is being done there? Is it not right for soldiers to die to defend towns, villages, farms and wells from marauding bands of thugs? Is that not a noble cause? And if so, why would you tell them to stop? That their lives are not worth protecting people from harm?

Another non sequitur. The invasion was not sold to the American Congress and public as a humanitarian effort, but as a necessary part of the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein was painted as a threat to the US that needed to be removed. That there are secondary benefits in the form of humanitarian aid that are flowing from this action cannot be used to mask the fundamental nature and primary purpose of the action.

Understand this: The United States Army is not a humanitarian organization, although it can be bent to humanitarian ends. It is, first and foremost, a weapon. It's raison d'etre is to protect the State from foreign enemies, not to "liberate" any and all peoples around the globe from governments we don't think are nice.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The war is over oil, and American blood is being spilled for it. That translates to "Blood for Oil", no matter how you want to dress it up, and I am opposed to spilling American blood for Iraqi oil.

Brother
Up to this point you have made good comprehensible arguments. This comment, however, is ridiculous.
If we were in it solely for the oil, we could have claimed Kuwait as a new US territory in 1991.
Or we could have eased the sanctions on Sadam or got oil under the table like others in Europe.
This thoughtless rhetoric is beneath you.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Let's quibble over words for a minute, shall we?

Grand Strategy: Make a better neighborhood.
(Long Term) Strategy: Build a community center.
(Mid Term) Strategy: Determine the corner on which to build the community center.
(Short Term) Strategy: Remove the currently standing shops and homes on the corner you want.
Tactics: Bring in a bulldozer.

This series of heirarchical decisions can be debated and opposed at any point, up to and including the moment the bulldozer is fired up. Perhaps a bulldozer is not the best way to clear out the existing structures. Perhaps that particular corner isn't the best place to locate the community center. Perhaps a community center isn't necessarily the best way to improve the neighborhood at all, and something else should be done instead.

In any case, none of the debate at any point must be construed to say that we hold the bulldozer driver to be an evil person, nor is criticism of the plan necessarily criticism of the dozer driver.

Fair enough.

Certain actions are regrettable and irrevocable. This doesn't mean that we must continue on a bad course simply because that's how we began.
You misunderstand me, I think. I am not opposed to the spilling of American blood in the right cause. Iraq is not, and was not, the right cause. And my contention is that the chances of winning and/or losing is not the primary determinant of whether a war should be fought at all.

I'm not questioning whether the war was to be fought. I agree it was not. However, given that the war was fought/is being fought, can you criticise the administration and support the troops?

Winning in some cases is actually the worst thing that can happen, because it encourages the administration to gallop off into more adventures. Winning can mask a fundamentally flawed policy that will eventually result in a big disaster later rather than a small disaster now. I submit Hitler's Third Reich as a sterling example. The relative easy victories over Poland and France led to the disaster that was the invasion of Russia, with incalculable cost to Europe in particular and the world in general.

And before anyone jumps on that particular hobby-horse, I am not comparing the US military to the Wermacht nor am I saying that Dubya is another Hitler. I am simply positing an analogy to demonstrate the principle that whether one wins or loses is not the sole criterion of whether it was right to fight in the first place.

I agree with your slippery slope here, that a successful invasion (see Afghanistan) leads to other invasions, one of which must inevitably be wrong (see Iraq). It's nice, but I also submit that the people are behind a sucessful war (see Grenada, Kuwait and Panama) and against an unsucessful one (see Vietnam and, possibly, GWII). They support the troops engaged in sucessful wars and do not support them in unsucessful ones.

*grin* Too late. You already are a prick.

Alas, that too, is true.

The war is over oil, and American blood is being spilled for it. That translates to "Blood for Oil", no matter how you want to dress it up, and I am opposed to spilling American blood for Iraqi oil.

The message is not misleading--or rather, it is only "misleading" when interpreted through the lense of your pre-existing prejudice.

Now now, tone down the rhetoric. Show me an example of my "pre-existing prejudice".

Non sequitur. You are positing additional assumptions that weren't part of the original scenario, then arguing against those additional assumptions. See the Strategy/Tactics example above.

Fine. Why would a building be stopped after starting construction? There's a hole and/or a building shell. Can a building be stopped at that point? And if so, why?

Another non sequitur. The invasion was not sold to the American Congress and public as a humanitarian effort, but as a necessary part of the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein was painted as a threat to the US that needed to be removed. That there are secondary benefits in the form of humanitarian aid that are flowing from this action cannot be used to mask the fundamental nature and primary purpose of the action.

Irrelevent. I agree that the war was wrong. However, the war is being prosecuted, does not the humanitarian benefit (and detriment if the troops are withdrawn) deserve significant consideration?

Understand this: The United States Army is not a humanitarian organization, although it can be bent to humanitarian ends. It is, first and foremost, a weapon. It's raison d'etre is to protect the State from foreign enemies, not to "liberate" any and all peoples around the globe from governments we don't think are nice.

Right. Will the immediate withdrawl from Iraq increase or decrease American security?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Brother
Up to this point you have made good comprehensible arguments. This comment, however, is ridiculous.
If we were in it solely for the oil, we could have claimed Kuwait as a new US territory in 1991.
Or we could have eased the sanctions on Sadam or got oil under the table like others in Europe.
This thoughtless rhetoric is beneath you.

The statement was not intended to express my position, but the theoretical position of one who might wear such a slogan on his/her T-shirt.

My point being that one cannot assume that one knows what is intended by such a nebulous slogan, especially as it admits of differing interpretations. jBirch assumes that it is a derogation of US troops; my contention is that it could just as easily be interpreted as supporting the troops in opposition to the administration and to assume that one already knows what is meant without actually ascertaining same is, in fact, foolish.

On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced that the war isn't over oil on some level. After all, we haven't galloped into, say, Sudan or Ivory Coast even though those places have as much claim on humanitarian intervention as does Iraq. One obvious difference between them is that those places don't have any oil.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The statement was not intended to express my position, but the theoretical position of one who might wear such a slogan on his/her T-shirt.

My point being that one cannot assume that one knows what is intended by such a nebulous slogan, especially as it admits of differing interpretations. jBirch assumes that it is a derogation of US troops; my contention is that it could just as easily be interpreted as supporting the troops in opposition to the administration and to assume that one already knows what is meant without actually ascertaining same is, in fact, foolish.

On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced that the war isn't over oil on some level. After all, we haven't galloped into, say, Sudan or Ivory Coast even though those places have as much claim on humanitarian intervention as does Iraq. One obvious difference between them is that those places don't have any oil.

They do have oil in the Sudan. (Political unrest and a very controlling royal family has caused a slowdown on the exploration. Promise you though, that there are industrials just waiting there at the borders for some sort of assurance of at least partial control of the fields, so that they can go in and start setting up full force.)


I still agree with you though. There's more to this war than freeing Iraqi people from Tyranny and it DOES have to do with oil.