Do You Support The War In Iraq?

[XT]

Not sure how this is GD material (looks more like a poll to me…and a poll where anyone out of lock step is going to get leaped on like a particularly juicy deer…), but I’ll play along.

Unlike most here (are claiming), I did actually initially support the war in Iraq. I felt it was necessary to remove what I considered a dangerous (and anti-US) regime from the region, and also provide a base of operations for the US in what is probably the number one region of strategic importants to the US. I felt that Saddam had more than provoked both the US and the region, had flaunted the UN for years, and basically needed to be removed from power. I also felt that a crushing victory in Iraq would give the Iran’s and Syria’s of the region pause.

Over the years however I’ve come to see my previous attitude and stance as wrong…and wrong headed. A quick and crushing victory, while more than possible for the US at the macro level, doesn’t seem to be in the cards at the micro level…IOW we could and did destroy the Iraqi military, infrastructure and government cohesion, while completely failing to qwell the aftermath. In rhetrospect (for me…I know some of you feel you knew this all along, and maybe you did) this seems obvious in the region we are talking about where anti-West/anti-American sentiment runs so high.

So, where do I stand today? I think going into Iraq was a HUGE mistake and distracted from our efforts in Afghanistan. I think we have trapped ourselves in Iraq for the foreseeable future to no good end…and in doing so have shown the world our soft underbelly so to speak. The US military is VERY good at destroying other nations militaries, their infrastructure, their C&C…even their governments. Its not so good at this kind of low boil insurgency…and the American people are completely intolerant of this kind of long, drawn out affair.

That said however, I still don’t think we should bolt from Iraq. Yeah, it was a huge mistake. Yeah, our dick is firmly caught in our own golf shoes. However, I don’t think its in our best interests to bolt and leave the Iraqi people holding the bag…and not just for their sake (though to be honest I think we owe them something for throwing their nation into chaos). The main reasons I don’t think we should bolt are the location of Iraq in a region that is of vital strategic importance not just of the US but of the world…and Iran and the possible ramifications of an all out civil war in Iraq between Sunni and Shi’ia (with Iran being a predominently Shi’a nation…and Saudi being predominantly Sunni). I think that would be a Very Bad Thing, personally.

So…my hopes at this point are that things keep from flying completely apart between now and when we finally kick the dust of Bush et al from our collective boots…and that whoever takes over as the next administration can actually find its collective ass with both hands wrt Iraq.

And yeah…its probably all wishful thinking. Hope springs eternal, and all that jazz…

-XT

[John_Mace]

@Zambini57

I realize that in the 4+ years that this war has been going on that this question has been asked and answered many, many times.

However, opinions change. I have been noticing at work that several supporters of the war have been wavering. Most of them are conservatives.

Might as well admit it: ALL of them are. I was simply seeking some other input.

This question could be asked every two weeks. Pros could become Cons, or vice versa.

A thread from a month ago may not be reflect current views.

I wasn’t suggesting that this thread as a waste of time, but I can guarantee you that no one this board has changes his/her mind about the war in the last month. I would have searched for the thread myself, but Iraq is a 4-letter word.

[Quartz]

Invasion? Yes. Removal of Saddam? Yes. Occupation of Iraq? No.

[RedFury]

Like I need to answer the OP.

My opposition to this genocidal invasion began waaay before it started and it even got me death threats on this very board. Not that I took them seriously or thought the issuer had the cojones to carry them out…

[tomndebb]

@Zambini57

How so, Miss Prophecy?

While this does not quite sink to the level of namecalling (such as “poopyhead” that would get a reprimand in this Forum (or in IMHO where it started), it is unnecessarily rude for either a poll or a debate.

@wisernow

This is what you can expect from people who are blind and are rabid in their blindness. Do you really think you will get a reply from someone like ivylass??

This was out of place in a poll and is too close to a personal attack to be permitted in GD. Do not do this again.

@Wee Bairn

How cute- ivylass thinks after a few more years/decades of US presence in Iraq, eventually America will win out, and the different factions will join together and embrace not only each other, but Democracy and western values, just as long as the US “stays the course”. And will all convert to Christianity as well!

Since ivylass did not actually say such things, your straw man is out of line.

---

If you folks need to make this personal, go open a Pit thread. This thread was originally a poll and is now (apparently) intended to be a debate, neither of which requires anyone to make personal attacks on another poster just because one disagrees with their position.

[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

I was against it because I saw no good reason for it. Hussein was thoroughly contained as a military threat to his neighbors, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had nothing to do with Islamic radical terrorism.

What to do about it now is more complicated. IMO, the Coalition forces should leave ASAP. And then there will be a bloody civil war. Regrettable, but the same thing will happen if we stay – it will just take longer and cost even more lives, including American and British lives. Iran’s sphere of influence will expand westward – but that is likewise inevitable.

[Der_Trihs]

@DiosaBellissima

All of my male service member friends are constantly talking about their female friends (who are often a rank or two above them, strangely enough) and how much they adore and respect them.

Sure, there’s going to be sexual harassment and other vile things, just like in real life. Hell, there may even be a slightly higher incidence of it. But I’ve never in my life heard of female soldiers being afraid to walk outside for fear of being gang raped.

Link

I have talked to more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war in the past few months, interviewing them for up to 10 hours each for a book I am writing on the topic, and every one of them said the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.

The female soldiers who were at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, for example, where U.S. troops go to demobilize, told me they were warned not to go out at night alone.

< snip >

Spc. Mickiela Montoya, 21, who was in Iraq with the National Guard in 2005, took to carrying a knife with her at all times. “The knife wasn’t for the Iraqis,” she told me. “It was for the guys on my own side.”

[tomndebb]

Der Trihs, all of us who know your posting style and history are aware that you see the world only as either evil or those who agree with you. Your grand statements of condemnation of all with whom you disagree are duly noted. However, if you are going to start throwing out bullshit claims that U.S. troops are happy rapists and similar nonsense, you are going to have to provide actual evidence of your claims. Other wise we will be forced to conclude that you are of the same level of intelligence and honesty as those who make grand claims for the supernatural using imaginary evidence and non-existent logic.

[tomndebb]

Very good. You at least came up with an Op Ed piece where one author claims that it is a serious problem–although I still see no numbers.

[dalej42]

I supported the first Gulf War. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened the stability of the region. I thought George H. W. Bush did an excellent job in handling the war and stopping short of an invasion of Iraq.

I opposed the second Iraq war from the beginning. W seemed to be like a drunk guy picking a fight in the bar because someone hustled his daddy in a game of billiards. This war is one of the worst decisions the United States has ever made.

[spicymustard]

Not to make a sweeping generalization here, but having known a few of the soldiers that are fighting in Iraq I will say that they had to be some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. They wallowed in the propaganda the Bush administration was feeding them and they had no sympathy for the innocent Arabs. That in of itself makes me wish that they’re dead already.

Which brings up my next point that I don’t believe soldiers are heroes at all. It doesn’t matter which country they are from, they are not heroes in my eyes. I think scientists, astronauts, and thinkers are the purest forms of a hero. Finding ways to save us from extinction and to liberate our minds with knowledge. Meanwhile, soliders are only facilitating our extinction.

[DiosaBellissima]

@Der Trihs

Link

As was mentioned, your cite was hardly a particularly strong one.

My argument would be this lengthy report found here. ((AAAH PDF!)) While it is a bit older, it’s the best I can scrounge up without going on my school’s research host and actually putting some real time into this.

Women generally leave the service at higher rates than men. The overall
attrition loss for enlisted women was 48.6 percent, or 4.5 percentage
points higher than the 44.1 percent rate for men. However, the basic
pattern of attrition losses for both men and women was similar.

While it does show that the the attrition loss rates for women are higher than men, it’s by a very small percentage. I would argue (someone is more than welcome to pop in and poke a hole in my bone headed logic if it’s false) that if the military is such an abysmal place for females, you would see MUCH higher attrition loss rates for enlisted women (attrition loss meaning they leave sometime during their actual enlistment- mid enlistment).

That’s just attrition loss though, so we can always look at the retention rates for females.

For the services combined, men had higher retention after 3 years, by
7.9 to 9.9 percentage points, and after 4 years by 3.9 to 4.4 percentage
points. Women, however, had higher retention after 20 years, by a range
of 3 to 9 percentage points. This aggregation, however, masks within-
service patterns.

So, while men are at most 10% more likely to stay in after 3 years, women are at most 9% more likely to stay in past 20.

The article also explains the difference (particularly at the 3 year mark) by saying:

For example, major shortages
in combat rather than support assignments can provide a greater need
for men than women, because women are prohibited from combat
assignments.

So perhaps I am utilizing flawed logic here, but I would wager that if things were as bad as you are suggesting-- gang rapes and having to carry knives (btw, it’s my understanding that in a warzone ALL service members are required to have a knife on them at all times)-- you would see a dramatic difference in retention rates of women.

And spicymustard- I can tell you that the military folks I know are some of the strongest, most principled people I know. Many of whom are very “book smart” but the vast majority of whom have a level of “street smarts” (something that counts a whole lot more in a war zone, I imagine) than I can even imagine. So there you go, our two little anecdotal evidences cancel each other out.

And while your philosopher king idea is noble, you have to remember that the soldier played a very important role in that equation as well. At least, that’s what Plato said. What does he know, right?

[spicymustard]

@DiosaBellissima

And spicymustard- I can tell you that the military folks I know are some of the strongest, most principled people I know. Many of whom are very “book smart” but the vast majority of whom have a level of “street smarts” (something that counts a whole lot more in a war zone, I imagine) than I can even imagine. So there you go, our two little anecdotal evidences cancel each other out.

Fair enough.

And while your philosopher king idea is noble, you have to remember that the soldier played a very important role in that equation as well. At least, that’s what Plato said. What does he know, right?

Just because Plato said it doesn’t make it true. The problem I have with “foreign conflicts” is that it’s circular. There really isn’t a true end. They just tell you that. So basically this war on terror will eventually evolve itself into another war. Whether that happens right away or ten years after the war on terror.

[BrainGlutton]

@spicymustard

Meanwhile, soliders are only facilitating our extinction.

Soldiers will never render humanity extinct, unless with nuclear weapons.

[spicymustard]

@BrainGlutton

Soldiers will never render humanity extinct, unless with nuclear weapons.

I agree.

[DiosaBellissima]

@spicymustard

Just because Plato said it doesn’t make it true. The problem I have with “foreign conflicts” is that it’s circular. There really isn’t a true end. They just tell you that. So basically this war on terror will eventually evolve itself into another war. Whether that happens right away or ten years after the war on terror.

Well, you yourself said you uphold the great thinkers as true heroes so I gave you an example of one of the greatest that not only supports your case, but mine as well.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your foreign conflicts point- I’m of the camp that believes WW1 and WW2 were pretty much “The Great War with a little break in the middle.” And without WW2 you wouldn’t have the Cold War and without the Cold War you wouldn’t have Afghan— my point is that I actually agree with that point.

And if you want to get particularly philosophical, it seems that even you are arguing that war is inevitable. My own personal belief is that war is just inherently within humans- well, perhaps it isn’t war, but it certainly is a certain level of greed and selfishness that definitely leads to war. And if war is inevitable, how is it even moderately just to blame the players, particularly if it is inborn within each and every one of us? (This is of course less of the political discussion and more of the philosophical, which you yourself said you prefer to uphold so I’m more than happy to discuss ideals in this manner).

[BrainGlutton]

@The Controvert

I don’t support the war in Iraq, but on the plus side, out of the universe of possible things George W. Bush could have done, the war in Iraq is not the worst possibility. For that, I am truly grateful.

The only worse one I can think of is that he could have started with Iran.

[DiosaBellissima]

@BrainGlutton

The only worse one I can think of is that he could have started with Iran.

Or China. That probably wouldn’t have ended so well.

Wait, we better shut up before he gets wind of this and starts getting ideas. . .

[sturmhauke]

Before we actually invaded, I was slightly in favor of the war. I never thought that Bush’s publicly stated reasons were especially solid, and I was worried it would not be handled especially well, but I thought that Hussein was dangerous and needed to be removed from power.

Now I am completely against the war, and think that we should pull out immediately. Our continued presence can do nothing but cause more resentment and death. Leaving will cause more violence in the short term, probably, but staying will just create entirely new levels of FUBAR.

I don’t hate the soldiers. They have been thrown into a meat grinder heedlessly; that’s hardly their fault. I don’t know that I respect them as a whole, exactly - certainly some of the things that have happened I would call war crimes. I know that only a small number of soldiers are direct perpetrators of such atrocities, but there are also a larger number who turned a blind eye and did nothing, or even attempted to help cover things up. I am deeply ambivalent towards military culture generally. I respect that soldiers are willing to make sacrifices to defend our country, and yet there is also a requirement that their individuality be supressed to an extent so that they can function as a more efficient group. That may make for better combat ability, but I believe it also hampers moral judgment.

[melvin_coznowski]

I was against it from the start. It never made any sense to me, and frankly, bush’s speaking style turned me off when I first heard him campaign before the 2000 election. Though it wasn’t just his speaking style, the Enron deal was heating up, and I just didn’t like what he said then, or how he said it. Then trying to sell the invasion, he kept calling the terrorists “folks”. “We’ve got to capture these folks” or something like that. Now that’s pretty much emotion, as to why I don’t like him.

As for the war itself, it never made any sense to me. War on terror? Who the hell were we going to fight? You can have a war against a people, that is, a nationality, or a group, but to say you’re fighting terror always struck me as just like the war on poverty, or the war on drugs.

Okay, so no one listened to me. Fine. We invaded Afghanistan because we were after bin Laden, “dead or alive”. Then what? We couldn’t catch him, couldn’t even find him, so we went after someone else because, among other reasons, “he tried to kill my daddy”.

Now that may be a rambling answer, but to sum up: bush (IMO) had a hard time communicating a coherent thought, tried to be too folksy, went after the mastermind (one of them, at least) behind 9/11, then gave up, and finally went after another dictator because of a personal vendetta (and to control the oil fields – again, IMO). And lied about the reasons (WMD), while at the same time trying to fight an idea (war on terror, rather than going against a specific group).