A Salon columnist was quoted in the Washington Times a few days ago, and I apologize for not having either link… but th egits of the reported column included the colummnist’s confession that, as the war in Iraq progressed, a part of him kept hoping for the war effort to go badly - for the Iraqis to put up fiercer resistance, for the American advance to stall, for casulties to rise high enough that the Pentagon and White House were forced to reconsider the whole plan.
He acknowledged that, on one hand, he was wishing for injury and death to be visited upon American soldiers, but he hastened to point out that it wasn’t exactly that he was wishing for – even though he agreed that, ultimately, that would have been the result of his wish coming true. He speculated that although that would have been horrible, it would have been an acceptable price to pay if it meant that the Bush administration got such a black eye over the war effort that we were guaranteed to be rid of them in 2004. In other words, he said, the evils of another four years of Bush in power would be so dramatic, so widespread, that the country as a whole would be better off if we lost a few more soldiers now, and the result was a defeated Bush in 2004.
This may not be a fair summary, since it’s my recollection of some Times’ columnist’s recollection of the original article.
But to the extent it’s true… I’m a little surprised. Is this a view that the typical anti-war protestor would adopt, even secretly? Surely not.
I doubt it. I’m sure some of the more extreme protestors (such as some vomiters or an unnamed college professor…) would call that a rational view… thankfully, the vast majority of anti-war protestors just plain wanted the war to end, and feared that it would go badly, which isn’t quite the same thing.
It’s not at all surprising that an anti-war writer would wish for a truly ignominius defeat at which to point, screaming “See? See? I toldja! I toldja!” Of course, such a man does not truly wish to visit harm upon his countrymen, so the thought remains inchoate and unarticulated. The additional calculus that, perhaps, losing might be better than encouraging the right and the Bush machine is one that few can bring themselves to make, but it’s not so surprising that at least one would do so.
Remember: it’s a population. Populations have extremes.
I think it’s understandable in the same way I can wish (in my fantasy baseball league) for a player playing against the Cubs to have a good game. It’s fundamentally irrational. But many thoughts are irrational when they’re impulse thoughts.
While I would struggle to think American anti-war folks would have such a view, I think many Arabs wished the war would have dragged on, that the Iraqis had put up a better fight, and that many more American lives would have been lost.
I don’t think it would be related to affecting Bush’s reelection chances directly, but to dissuade American pre-emption in other Arab countries. They may have felt, perhaps justifiably, that many more lives would be saved in the long run, if the US would be less likely to commit such preemptive attacks in the future.
What he apparently did not have the cajones to say is…“I wish that more American troops would have been killed” (which of course is the logical extension of longer resistance).
This is certainly not a view I share…and I would not classify myself as pro-Iraqi military action.
It is not legitimate, IMHO. I am anti-war and anti-Bush, but this is an ends-and-means type of situation. Most combatants and other people involved in the war have no ties to Bush (or to Saddam). Most American troops are there because they believe in our country, and they need money for college or just want a good job. Many Iraqi soldiers are conscripts who were forced to fight under duress. Saying that you want to kill the troops just to get at the leaders is kind of pig-headed. IMHO this applies to Saddam just as much as it applies to Bush.
Just like the US actions in Iraq (mostly), we found ways to get at the administration without having to decimate cities. We even found ways to spare the majority of Iraqi troops. We can apply similar to anti-Bush views: there are plenty of ways to go after the administration without wishing or facilitating the loss of life in the US armed forces. There are plenty of ways for Bush’s eyes to be blackened without thousands of American casualties.
I hate to say this, but Yes. I think there are those out there who would like to see the actions of the current President be failures. Even if it means that there are horrible consequences.
I can relate to my own feelings about Clinton when he was in office. I wanted him to screw up just so I could say, “See, I told you so”. I did NOT want people to die though. Or the country to have to be in harms way either. I think its part of being jealous or envious because your guy isn`t the guy who won.
Kind of like when the Bears beat the Packers in football. I want the Bears to get whooped by whomever they play next.
And you have to just love the way the quoted Washington Times article extrapolates that “this confirms Liberals were cheering for the enemy”. Jeeez…
Props to whuckfistle for the self-reflective angle. Yes, it is indeed sad that as humans we don’t seem to get rid of the urge to cut down the guy who won.
Well, the War has been an embarassment to both sides on some key points, but to which side it is hard to tell. Just look at all the things people said over the last few months in the news and online - especially many people here, who haven’t had the courage or honor to admit they were incorrect. Thankfully, the SDMB saves what they said, so they can’t pretend like they didn’t say it.
“For the war” people need to show where all the WMD are, as well as how we can justify so obviously trying to assassinate the leader of a nation.
“Against the war” people need to admit that no, there will not be tens of thousands of dead US soldiers, that we will not be in a Viet-Nam that takes us months to reach Baghdad, and that we will not turn Iraq into a barren carpet-bombed wasteland of death.
If this quote is accurate:
Then this man is yet another disgusting piece of human filth who somehow is able to spout this shit off and hide behind his “journalistic credentials” to keep his job. :rolleyes: It’s really not hard to extrapolate, based on a statement like that, that he’s the sort of person who also was happy to see 9/11 as well, to teach Bush a lesson. But then, that’s just an extrapolation.
Personally, all I kept hoping for as hard as I could was for the absolute minimum or no casualties on both sides, especially innocent Iraqi civilians. But hey, I’m an Evil Arch-Conservative, so I guess you have to expect that…
I dunno Anth what I recall the anti war folks saying was that it could result in a years and years long thing but beyond that I recall disagreeing w/the others about how it would go. the ‘prediction’ thread contained all sorts of “only a few days” American Casualties less than 20 etc. PRedictions of thousands of IRaqi soldiers giving up immediately, throngs of cheering citizens.
Yes, there’s been some cheers, some surrenders etc, but we’re already seeing the “Yankee go home” demonstrations.
My take at this point is that we are not in a position to know how the average Iraqi citizen feels about the situation, nor are we in a position to assess how their lot in life will be in the future. Yea, they won’t have to fear SH, however, they’re vulnerable to attack from IRan, TUrkey etc, w/o food, water, infrastructure, damage to much of their capital city etc.
But I would never have agreed w/a stance that included “I hope many die”.
I never thought Bush established sufficient justification for invading Iraq, and I still don’t think that. I always hoped the war would be over as soon as possible, and that as few Americans and Iraqis died as a result of it as possible. I’m glad so few did die. In a moral sense, one death is too many, but from an historic standpoint we did a great job of not killing people or getting killed. To date, anyway.
That said, if I had hoped that every last American soldier were captured and tortured to death by the Iraqis, just to spite President Dumya, I don’t think I would have flet half the bitterness and anger that most conservatives did toward Clinton.
This point of view I can see. As a Buffalo expatriat, I will cheer against the Dolphins with my dying breath. However, I do not wish to see them beaten due to a horrific injury, which is more along the lines that the OP is bringing to the table. I would chastise anyone in my living room cheering injury, and that is far less of a Bad Thing ™ than Mr. Gary Kamiya’s POV.
What, you’re all ready to accept The Washington Times excerpt as representative of the whole? Have you learned nothing from your time on this board? Cliquez-vous ici, s’il vous plait. Don’t worry, you can read for free by sitting through only 1 ad per day.
More:
It’s worth reading - the issue is not as black/white as the liberal-bashers at the WT would like it to be. We have to look beyond tomorrow morning’s headlines to decide for ourselves what is right for our countries and the world.
It was my position I was so angry by this war that for a couple of days I was unable to think. I thought that the only way to stop Bush was with lots of dead american soldiers, in that way american public opinion would change and force Bush to change his policy.
Thank god for the SDMB, many dopers forced me to think and now I am ashamed of myself. A so called pacifist can’t wish for dead people. If I weren’t lazy I would provide the links.
I disagree. The reasons behind a person’s thoughts and actions aren’t B&W, but this guy out-and-out said that he wished Iraq had put up a better fight. That’s pretty damned clear-cut, as far as I can interpret.
I think the way I put it was along the lines of “If someone can figure out how to coherently and concisely express the wish that the invasion of Iraq would fall flat on its face and the US get its butt handed to it on short order, so that there is no incentive to try for an encore next year, while at the same time hoping that military personnel – ours and theirs , btw-- do not get killed in large numbers, please let me know how to say it well.”
Did I wish for the war to go badly? Yeah, sometimes. I tried not to think of casualties one way or the other. To be honest, once the war started I tried not to think of any aspect of the damn fiasco one way or the other. I didn’t attend any rallies or events once the shooting started. Can’t honestly say I feel good about that but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t feel particularly good about it if I had, either.
What a totally fucked up situation. Kind of like discovering your child is a drug dealer – do you hope he gets arrested and sent to prison, or do you hope he doesn’t?
My greatest concern is not whether Bush is re-elected. It is for the forces and the citizens who died or are maimed for life. And it is for what our actions may have done to destablize the Middle East.The man who wrote the article is not typical of Pacifists at all.
I am aware that what I am about to say is a generalization and does not apply to all of those who have supported the war. Their goals seem to have been accomplished. Those who have been against the war (again, a generalization) believe we have yet to see answers to some of our concerns.
Meanwhile, Halliburton Oil has been awarded a huge contract and only certain bidders were “invited” to bid on the reconstruction of Iraq. All of them have been extremely financially supportive of the Bush Administration. The firm that “won the bid” was one of the firms that demonstrators tried to block access to. No surprise there. Even Congress is pissed. (It’s about time.)
Granted, it is a very disturbing thing to wish that more American troops would be wounded during the Iraq conflict. (At least I think so). What confuses me is, what good does this wish do? Why would some protestors wish for this sort of thing? It’s not as if the government will say “Wait a second, American troops are dying! Pull them out of Iraq, ASAP!” I don’t see what good, if any, that line of thinking is doing.