Monday, July 30, 2007

Does anyone still support the war?

I have to admit, I initially supported the Iraq War back in 2003. I listened to the war propaganda, and while I didn't believe the whole uranium bit, I was hopeful that we would finally prove the UN wrong and get all the WMD. I chose to ignore the fact that we gave him the WMD in the first place, but it wouldn't be hard for an evil genius like Saddam to make some more.

So the war dragged on, and we didn't find the WMD. Well, at the very least, I thought, we were liberating them, correct? Unfortunately, Rumsfeld ignored the advice of senior commanders to use the number of troops required to pacify a nation the size of Iraq. "Shock and Awe" would be enough to bring down Saddam Hussein, and the people would rise up and spontaneously create a new, peaceful, democratic, multicultural government. Then I watched in horror as these newly "liberated" people proceeded to pillage their own museum without nary a US soldier in sight. Since the Iraqi army disbanded, it was up to Iraqi Citizens to take up arms and patrol their own neighborhoods, and soon an insurgency set in.

Well, I thought, if we just ship some more troops over there, drastically lower the unemployment, and provide basic security, the country will right itself. Unfortunately, all the sweet sweet contracts assigned to Iraq go towards hiring Americans at over 100 grand apiece. Some of these hires were going towards outsourcing duties the army ordinarily performed, at much lower costs than private contractors. Of course, we COULD have hired a dozen Iraqi's for the same price to do a lot of the reconstruction and truck driving. Perhaps the administration cynically never trusted the Iraqis to rebuild their country? Regardless, massive unemployment likely fueled the insurgency, as pissed off young men tend to want to break things when unemployed.

Allright, fine. So we screwed up on the reconstruction front. And we don't nearly have enough people patrolling the country. Well, at least from an imperial standpoint, we have their oil right? Well, instead of nationalizing their oil industry and selling off the crude to the highest bidder to repay for the war and reconstruction effort (as promised) we simply let foreign corporations come in and do the drilling operations as they please. I'm not being anti-capitalist, I'm just pointing out that we gave away their oil reserves without conditions for paying back the American Taxpayer or the Iraqi Government. Also, due to the aforementioned lack of policing, the pipelines are constantly bombed. The end result is that to fill a tank of gas where I live it costs $3.50 per gallon (I live in Chicago), so the Iraq War didn't put a dent in my gas bill as promised. Also, the American Taxpayer is stuck with the 10 billion monthly tab. As a comparison, the experimental fusion reactor in France, which will lead us to true energy independence, costs just 12 billion US dollars.

So where does that lead us now? I say just give up, and bring the boys home. Sure, that does sound like cowardice, but at this point, it's the most rational thing to do. Yes, people will die, but people will die regardless if we stay there or not. Eventually one of the three ethnic groups in the country will assert dominance over the other two, and stability will be restored. If and when they are ready for a democracy, they will have one, because at this point, we can't afford to force it down their throats.

I would also like to point out how this war has eroded our civil liberties, and how the Abu Ghraib Scandal helped to tarnish our reputation, and made us lose the moral high ground when it comes to things such as torture and the Geneva Convention.

The knee-jerk reaction in this election cycle will be to elect Hillary Clinton to pull us out of this mess, but don't be fooled. Hillary Clinton is not anti-war. The three truly anti-war and anti-Patriot Act candidates are Dennis Kucinich (Democrat), Mike Gravel (Democrat), and Ron Paul (Republican).

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

How much advance warning did Saddam get before we "invaded"? Weeks ... months? The idea that he would leave around his WMD's for us to find is ridiculous - he had plenty of time to bury them at the bottom of the ocean. It doesn't matter whether we "find" them or not - or if they were "ever there" or not - it's that he will never get to use any ever.

As for our "reputation" - who cares? There was never any real scandal anyway - with such horrors as - gasp - embarrassing photos being inflicted on the poor, poor, terrorists. Frat boys are subjected to more "torture" than that. It's a joke - and other countries seething with AmericEnvy exploit any opportunity to bash us. Does anyone actually care what the rest of the 3rd world thinks? I don't.

Personally, I would have bombed them nearly out of existence and let them rebuild THEMSELVES, since they harbored our enemies to begin with and get no sympathy from me.

So, I agree it's gone on too long under stupid philosophies like "just war" - but retreating is probably not the best idea. After all, Iran was probably the real target all along. And how do you invade Iran? By sea? Nokthx. You need to have a location by which to invade other dangerous fanatical nations.

I say stay in Iraq. But only if we really MEAN it.

- Pete

Egosumabbas said...

Maybe he ditched them, maybe he didn't, the fact is that we didn't find anything. Look at it this way, if Saddam Hussein was willing to gas his own countrymen for insurrection, wouldn't he have saved a nice WMD attack for our troops once they got into Baghdad? It's pure speculation.

Strangely enough, I do agree with you on one point: if America wants an empire, it should have the will to do it. Until then, we should let islamofascism self-destruct through civil war and squandered oil resources - they'll run out of the stuff eventually. No need to waste American lives over it.

Anonymous said...

The question is, what if Iran really needs to be stopped? Starts pointing nukes at the West and whatnot. What do we do then?

After a future theoretical retreat from the Middle East, it would be harder to act, potentially costing more lives/money than the current Iraq occupation.

My ideal candidate would be one that pulls the government out of domestic interference and concentrates on intervention abroad for defense purposes mercilessly.

Because no such candidate exists, I cast my vote on libertarians like Ron Paul only warily - their foreign policy being very weak in my eyes.

- Pete "Free Mars" Szablowski