I for one welcome our new medieval overlords.
They took a job that required them to kill or be willing to kill other human beings. And so far they’ve succeeded to the tune of tens of thousands of civilians. I don’t wish death on them, I just wish they weren’t willing to wish death on others. To that end, get them out of there.
For now, they may not let him. If the situation dramatically improves, then he might feel the temptation. Or even worse, another neocon takes the White House and in a few years creates an excuse to invade somewhere else. If failure (and it’s debatable how different failure and success might actually be) leads to the end of the neocon movement, that might be a bargain in the long term.
Given that the question does not define “success”, it is hard to draw any conclusions from it.
Does “makes Iraq a tiny bit more stable, leading us to continue our current strategy for years to come, and the troops never come home” count as success?
Does “stabilizes Iraq, but only while we maintain our full forces there, and whenever we leave Iraq goes into civil war” count as success?
In either of those cases, I can see how some would prefer we just send the troops home now rather than achieve success.
Just wanted to point out that most of the people who are “wishing death” on soldiers at this point opposed the initial invasion. As such, they are 3,000 soldiers’ lives and counting up on the administration.
As others have observed, it is nigh impossible to wish for “success” or “failure” if those 2 terms are not specifically defined. I want to bring our troops home as soon as possible, turning of the gushing tap of American dollars and blood. If a little more blood at this point will bring about that result sooner, it may be worth it in the long run. Unfortunately, I foresee years of additional lives and lucre being spilt on the sand before this situation reaches anything approaching a resloution.
Again, it is the administration who considered troops to be disposable assets in initiating this unneccessary and avoidable course of imperialistic opportunism.
Personally if I was asked that question, I’d give a “no response”. First, while undoubtedly many supporters of the Iraq war honestly believed that the goal was to establish a functioning democratic government in Iraq, I’ve doubt that Bush and the other decision-makers in his administration thought that. I think they started the Iraq war in order to expand American power abroad and enrich certain corporations. Hence, since Bush’s goal isn’t for the surge to “succeed” as most people understand success in Iraq, it’s an empty question.
Second, it’s impossible for the surge to succeed at establishing peace and democracy in Iraq. The surge depends on Maliki’s government working with U.S. troops to shut down Shi’ite militias, but those militias make up a large part of the government. They’re not going to work to shut themselves down. (Further discussion of that point here.)
Thirdly, it doesn’t matter whether I want the surge to fail because the surge is intended to fail. Bush’s big idea is that we set certain guidelines that the Iraqi government must meet by November or else we pull out U.S. troops. But those guidelines are designed to be impossible for the government to meet. When the guidleines aren’t met, then Bush has an excuse for pulling out and blaming the Iraqi government for the failure. (Hmmm, maybe those 22% who want the surge to fail are Bush supporters. After all, his approval ratings are getting close to that number.)
But if some Americans do “prefer a US defeat than a victory that could be credited to Bush”, I can certainly understand why. The Declaration of Independence says that all human beings are entitled to certain rights, and that when a government becomes destructive of those rights the people may overthrow it and establish a different government that they like better. Certainly many Iraqis dislike being occupied by American troops. Certainly many Iraqis dislike the government that those American troops are trying to force on them. Certainly the American troops and the nascent Iraqi government have not respected human rights. (Just ask a survivor of the Abu Ghraib prison.) Hence, if the Declaration of Independence is correct, the Iraqi people are right to oppose their foreign occupiers.
This argument may seem odd, but only because we rarely see anyone who truly believes in the idea of universal rights. Few, even among those who quote the Declaration, actually believe that “all men” also includes Iraqis. But the strength of the words only holds if they’re actually applied to the entire human race, rather than to select parts of it. Thomas Jefferson didn’t start out by saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that some men were created equal; that in certain situations they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that in special circumstances these include life, liberty, …”
(I anticipate one objection to this line of reasoning. Some will say that with regards to human rights abuse, the Iraqi insurgents are worse than the occupying army and the current Iraqi government. That’s a toss up. No one can read alternate futures and determine which side is worse, but certainly both sides are bad. However, if we decide to tolerate one abusive government because the results of overthrowing that government might be even worse, then the promise in the Declaration of Independence becomes meaningless.)
Unless one believes in magical thinking, I am not sure what people are or are not wishing for is very relevant. I am not saying it is without interest. However, I have noticed a tendency by “conservatives” to try to accuse “liberals” of wishing ill for Bush and his policies. To me, this just seems to be a way to deflect attention from the fact that the policies suck. If we are arguing about who is thinking “bad thoughts”, we are avoiding the real issue, which is who is actually implementing bad policies…a very transparent way to deflect blame. (Okay, I admit that an even better question is what a better policy would be.)
Or, worse yet, into Iran.
Lastly, I’ll add that I’m personally much more concerned about the many prominent Republicans who have said that they want to see American civilians massacred by terrorists. Bill O’Reilly, for instance:
Easy, killer, I think you’re totally misinterpreting the question.
The question is:
“Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to
succeed?”
I read that as success in getting his extra 22,000 troops or not.
11% of Republicans didn’t want the plan to succeed and 19% of Republicans said they would vote against the plan if they were members of Congress. I think what this number is showing is regarding the success of Bush’s politicking, not the United State’s success in Iraq or not.
It’s not George Bush’s war, it’s our war as Americans.
Just so. The question is ambiguous, hence, devoid of substantial meaning.
Typical, bullshit Fox News manipulation of the question. Defining Bush getting his way in terms of “success” or “failure” for the US is already a lie, so the poll means nothing. This is like when they scream “Do you want the US to win?” at critics of the Iraqmire. There is no definition for “winning.” The only correct answer to a poll like this is “Go fuck yourself.”
I *want * it to succeed, in the sense that I *want * a pony. But yes, the question is not reality-based. Bush has already failed, the war is already irrecoverably lost, and I too would be in that 22%. The only possible result is *more * names on this war’s Wall.
Nazi Germany was unquestionably one of the most evil governments in history. It was still a tragedy that so many Germans had to be killed to stop it. Not everyone in the uniform of a corrupt government deserves the same fate as the leaders of that government. That’s not justice. That’s barely even up to the level of revenge. It’s mostly simple-minded hatred and bloodthirst.
It wasn’t that much of a tragedy; they put Hitler and the Nazis in power, they fought and killed and enslaved for him. While I do feel sorry for the civilians ( however many there were ) who opposed him from the beginning, I feel no sympathy for any German soldier, as they were members of an army engaged in aggression and conquest. If I was around at the time, and I had a magic button that would kill every last German soldier, I’d push it without hesitation or regret.
I’m as anti-Nazi as anyone, but let’s remember that there were a lot of draftees in that army, apolitical types that just wanted to get home to the farm or the university or the pub or whatever. Some of them as young as 15. But thanks for help clarifying the mindset that wishes for US defeat.
If I’d been around at that time I would’ve wished for a magic button that would have changed every German and Japanese (and Soviet while we’re at it) into a lifelong pacifist.
No, that would be mind control. By my ethical standards, doing that would be worse than killing them.
So turning people into pacifists is less ethical than killing them? How about we just agree to disagree from now on?
What’s worse ? Enslaving people or killing them ? I think enslaving is worse, and mind control is the worst sort of slavery; you aren’t even free in your own head.
That would kind of negate the point of this forum, if you think about it.
As ever Der Trihs understates the case that can be made. No less than 4 reasons are here in an instant.
Be the Justice and condemn the US soldier. The suffering and loss there should rightly fall on the party in the wrong and those who wear her uniform. There are they deserving.
Be the General and dismiss the lost American GI, a unit of force to expend in your strategies.
Be the Auditor and count dead American soliders amongst those who paid their debt, freely entered into. Each similar debt is not soundly collected from Iraqis, who entered no such bond willingly.
Be the Teacher and nod at tuition well-served. The lesson was learnt fastest by those who apprehended early lies, then the US entered other peoples homes without consent, there were no WMD and the second rank of minds matriculated to sense. The slow moving and inattentive bulk were not moved by massacres and each day’s atrocity. Dull minds, like cattle, were best guided by pain. Bring sorrow’s hurt to them and then they learnt.
In these are fatalities deserved. Such a pack of curses lights upon their backs.