Before the war started, many of the critics of the war used the argument that the U.S. didn’t have the patience to see the post-war reconstruction through. The argument was that the administration would abandon Iraq after the war was over, much like they claimed Afghanistan had been abandoned.
But now that the war is over, these same people are launching constant attacks against the Bush administration, trying to turn every attack into a political football, screaming about how badly things are going, etc.
It seems to me that if the U.S. does leave Iraq prematurely, it will be because of the constant haranguing by the very people who were saying it’s crucial that the U.S. stay the course.
So, it seems to me that in the interests of doing the right thing for both U.S. policy and for the people of Iraq, shouldn’t people be putting their partisan bickering on hold and support the administration’s efforts? After all, the Bush administration still claims to be willing to stick it out, and the removal of Garner shows that they’re willing to learn from their mistakes and adapt.
So why all the carping? Does partisan one-upsmanship override the good of the country? Or do you honestly think that these constant attacks on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and all the handwringing about a ‘quagmire’ are a good thing?
Or is this all about getting a Democrat elected next time, regardless of the consequences?
Uh, no. What made you say that? Looking for a cheap shot instead of a debate?
You know, in WWII I don’t recall the country being split about U.S. policy. Do you recall handwringing over the losses on Okinawa? Were there incessant calls for investigations after a battle went poorly? Were people demanding senate hearings into the withdrawal from the Phillippines while the war was on?
I remember TONS of very heated debate leading right up to the opening shots of the war. I remember Lindbergh testifying against the war, writing op-eds, speaking on radio, etc. There was a very active anti-war movement.
The day the shooting started, it all stopped. Lindbergh volunteered for combat. The attitude then was, “well, we were against the war, but now that it’s started we Americans have to band together and make sure we win.” The same attitude prevailed in Britain - Winston Churchill was a divisive figure until the war started. Then he was the leader of a country at war, and people backed him.
It seems to me that if the U.S. loses the war on terror, it’ll be because it fractures from within, from all the forces seeking to tear down the people who are trying to manage the fight.
All government actions, of any country or party, must be examined critically. And for God’s sake, stop trusting a leader to do the right thing simply because they happen to be in the political party you prefer.
Actually it is the exact opposite. The people who are complaining about the war going so terribly are getting the Bush administration to actually start realising that it is going to have to give democracy to the Iraqis instead of trying to ignore Iraq untill it becomes another Vietnam.
Politcal bickering never stops (as you well know). And we’re entering the presidential primary period where it’ll get much worse. Those in favor of the war will surely grow weary of listening to the moaning of the anti-war/Bush folks, but “them’s the breaks”.
There are many folks on both sides of the war debate who were genuine in their beliefs and concerned about the consequences of action or inaction. Hunker down and keep on the course that you think is best for the country. Listen to the detractors to the extent that they offer constructive criticism. Ignore them to the extent they offer partison nonsense. We’re all adults, and should be able handle whatever gets dished out.
And, as the saying goes, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Perhaps that is beacause we didn’t start WWII. In fact, if the people of the countries who did start it had questioned their leaders a bit more, it wouldn’t have happened.
I wasn’t trying to start a thread saying, “Waah! Shut up you carpers!”
I was trying to start an honest debate about the best course of action for people who disagree with an administration during a time of war. Maybe there WAS criticism like this during WWII. I don’t recall reading about it, but maybe it was there.
And I would seperate real differences about the proper course of future action from simply running around yelling, “Look what you got us into!”, which I don’t think is helpful.
At the very least, shouldn’t the people criticising keep in mind the damage the criticism might do to their own goals? If they want the U.S. to stay in Iraq and fix it, they might want to tone down the, “This is a quagmire! How do we get OUT???” rhetoric.
The excuse that the invasion of Iraq is paart of the war on terror is just nonsense. And what you say was the reason why many people were warning it was foolish to go to war with so many people inside and outside the US opposing it and it would be better to build broader support. Those who chose not to do it are the ones who caused whatever the consequences are. Nobody is obligated to support a war he finds immoral and illegal.
Why don’t you offer some specific examples of criticism that you are talking about. And I presume you mean politicians and not just the std Bush bashers of the SDMB. Give a few examples and lets hash that out.
I think it would be a very bad idea if all criticism stopped, as you seem to think happened in WWII (I wasn’t around either, but I doubt it was as bucolic as you suggest). Criticism is good. You just have to ignore the partisan BS.
Of course you’re right that the country would be better off without the partisan crap that gets slung around. But that’s just saying that the world would be a better place if people were more decent human beings most of the time.
The problem is the old saying “if you don’t learn from history you’re doomed to repeat it.” Questioning how the Bush administration is handling post-war Iraq is perfectly valid, even if some of the detractors are particularly strident. Before we went in, many people raised concerns that there was more to war than just rushing troops in and defeating the enemy; as or more important was how you handle the victory.
Judging from how well post-war Afghanistan has gone (ie, middling at best), those people concerned about how the Bush crew views occupation-management (apparently, as hands-off and as inexpensively as possible) were rightly worried. The length of time/amount of troops/cost that were given to us by Rumsfeld et al way back when now look silly.
So, yes, the constant criticism is good, because I sure as hell hope that before the next time Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld/Perle decide to throw around their military might they actually take a rational look at post-war consequences. And if everyone just rolls over and says “it doesn’t matter 'cos our Prez must be right” then said rulers have no reason to concern themselves over ‘unimportant’ things like post-war rule.
I’m OK with most of the criticism, even though I supported the war. I think it’s good to hold the administration’s feet to the fire, as Sterra said. I accept that the burden of proof that this whole war was a good idea falls upon the administration and war supporters in general.
I think the administration - as well as the nation - ought to approach this entire endeavor from the perspective of having something to prove to people in that region. There are many ugly ideas floating around over there - some of which are completely ridiculous, others of which, when viewed from an objective lens, are quite understandable.
America needs to start telling its side of the story, and more important, we need to show Iraqis (and reasonable Arabs and Muslims who view the U.S. with skepticism) that this time, we will live up to our words.**
Too often, we haven’t lived up to our lofty ideals in the region. We’ve supported scoundrels. We’ve fomented rebellion. We’ve ignored politically “inconvenient” human rights abuses. The criticism drives us to do better - whether it’s the administration trying to improve Iraq or whether it’s hawks having to defend their positions to doves on a message board.
This is the best chance we’ve ever had to do the actual people in this region some good. We simply can’t fail.
**To that end, I took Collounsbury’s advice and wrote my Representative a letter urging more government money to Iraq.
The critics of the war didn’t want us to go to war AT ALL. Virtually nobody said, “We don’t want you to attack Iraq because we’re afraid you won’t finish the job”. It was more like, “Don’t attack Iraq - PERIOD.”
To the extent that the “quagmire” argument was used, it was more like one of many arguments against going to war in the first place. It wasn’t like people were saying, “Go ahead and attack as long as you stay and finish the job.”
So now you’re suggesting that the anti-war folks shouldn’t point out that they were right? That’s pretty hypocritical, considering that the pro-war folks were already trying to rub people’s nose in it before the combat was even over. Of course, they were WAY premature on that, but it didn’t stop them anyway.
WWII couldn’t be more different than this war. There was a direct attack on a U.S. military base. (And please don’t bring up 9/11 because you know perfectly well that Iraq had nothing to do with that.)
Do you have any actual examples of the same person saying that we shouldn’t abandon Iraq, and then flip-flopping and saying we should abandon Iraq? If not, then you don’t really have a point.
Though I’m not an expert, or even an amateur student of war history and domestic affairs, the WWII comparison strikes me as being wrong. I cannot really conceive of a non-political war, and politicians will always use - albeit not always openly - anything to their advantage. Didn’t FDR himself use the war during election time with the “You don’t change horses midstream” slogan?
But even ignoring politicians, the public itself and the newspapers could hardly be considered monolithic in their support of the war and America’s generals. Patton’s infamous slapping of a soldier, for example, proved pretty divisive to the public. And wasn’t there endless wrangling about Pearl Harbor, at the time and even to this day, regarding whether or not Roosevelt “knew” the attack would take place and therefore “positioned most of the fleet there on purpose” in order to “bring America into the war.”
This war is much more like Vietnam than WWII in that it is intervening in another country which has not attacked the USA and that it does not have widespread support at home or abroad.
Let us not put the cart before the horse. Yes, wars which do not have popular support are more likely to be lost but the consequence of that is that governments should not start wars which are not widely supported; the consequence cannot be that the government should start any war it likes and the people should support it against their own better judgment. Those who believe the was was and is wrong are doing the right thing by speaking up.
I agree with JohnM
What is now being hotly criticized, at the media level, is the shameless misleading that took place to sell this friggin “pre-emtive” war.
I don’t think many politicians are pointing their fingers at the quagmire aspect. (at least yet)
Of course, here at the SDMB we have the right to bitch about ANYthing we don’t like, including the ONGOING loss of US and Iraqi lives. We can even scream “I TOLD’YA IT WOULD HAPPEN ! I TOLD’YA DIDN’T I?” and this cetainly will have no effect, positive or otherwise, on the “quagmire” in Iraq.
But by the OP, I get that you mean the media, or real politicians. So…
Cite?
This seems to me to be a faulty assessment. I’m not sure of who is calling for the removal of troops prematurely from Iraq, (besides some of the troops themselves, and then mostly just in reference to themselves personally, not to the US as a whole, God bless 'em), but if it is only the anti-invasion element, I don’t see why they’d anymore influential in this than they were in preventing the invasion in the first place.
Is there really any signifigant number of Americans who’re calling for immediate withdrawal of troops?
Actually, some people consider earnest debate over who, what , how ,when , where and why to be healthy and helpful to a country that is a representative democracy. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed a number of Slackers who’ve suddenly discovered politics. This is a good thing. Political involovement in a liberal democracy is always a good thing. The more heated the discussion, the better, ( as long as it meaningful discussion of course).
As I noted before, I haven’t see the potential for criticism of Us policies to be a bad thing. Discouraging criticism instead of engaging criticism is a bad thing.
Of course some of what’s going on is related to the elections. In a representative democracy, politicains action are focussed on election and re-election a good deal. But, i don’t think that the concern over the welfare of the troops in Iraq and other foreign nations, not the general welfare of the US are necessarily partisan issues. I find it dissappointing that so often the charge of partisan ship is assigned to those who have legitimate issues w/ policies. Personally, I am a Republican. I don’t approve of a number of the current admin’s policies, particularly some of the foreign policies. I can’t count the number of times that i’ve been accused of being either liberal and/or a Democrat because i take issue w/ elements of US foreign policy. It just ain’t so. It actually is possible to be a REpub and disagree w/ the Bush admin. I don’t particularly want a Democratic pres in the White House. I’d like to see a Repub pres whose policies I agree with more. Sadly, that ain’t gonna happen for a few more years at least.