Volunteers Needed: "The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq"

The BBQ Pit
81

Historically, throwing more troops into a military situation has been seen as a solution for the problem. Of course, that hasn’t worked out so well the last few times we’ve done it.

Nobody believes that this is the equivalent of World War I or II, nor should they. That statement is typical of someone trying to rally support for a cause. As for taxes, well, continuing to cut them is a mistake.

A draft is impossible. We’ve done that to death. As for enlistment, there is massive turnout. Realize that the force essentially turns over around half of their members every 6 years or so. Sure, they’re having trouble meeting the quotas, but the military is a truly massive organization. The problem lies in the way the people are being used. The military is not a peacekeeping force. That’s where the problem is.

Also, I can’t enlist, for a myriad of reasons. Foremost among them is that I’m already enlisted. So don’t even attempt to try that chickenhawk crap on me.

It’s an old argument: people who believe that we should fight should be willing to fight. We’ve also done that to death, and if I recall the consensus on that argument is that it’s fallacious.

Depending upon who you’re talking about you won’t get any argument from me.

82

Of course it’s bullshit, Doors. Bush and his supporters want to play up the threat in order to try to maintain support among the 10 to 20% of Americans and the occasional Canadian who still support his efforts vis a vis the war, so they pretend we are at risk - or at least that Matt Lauer’s family is in peril. If it weren’t bullshit, we would do everything we could to defend ourselves, our very lives being on the line and all. If Matt Lauer’s family’s lives were really in jeopardy, we would have swelling ranks of the military or we would have a draft, our national resources would be dedicated to the effort instead of to moderately politically popular tax breaks, we would be asked to sacrifice greatly…

Isn’t this obvious? Why the hell not?

So if we aren’t in grave danger, Bush and those who pound the keyboards in an effort to scare up support for his war can fuck off.

83

I’m sure claim this must be based on my past conduct on this board, otherwise an honest debater such as yourself wouldn’t be making such a charge. But could you refresh my recollection as to the details?

84

I have a lot of trouble understanding the “chickenhawk” argument. The idea that you cannot endorse a particular course of action without personally engaging in it, seems to me to inherently fallacious.

It seems to me so obvious, and simplistic, and well… stupid that I have difficulty with educated and intelligent people subscribing to it. Anger does cause people to lose their reason and I strongly suspect that the argument is nothing more than a reflection of anger in ad hominem form at people they disagree with.

But, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it makes good sense and I’m not seeing it. So, let me tell you why I think it is a stupid and false argument, and perhaps somebody will correct me in a rational and civil manner.

First, We live in a complex society and it is simply impossible for an individual to be personally involved in all aspects of that society that nevertheless affect that person. That is one of the strengths and the reasons for being of a society, the cooperative division of labor.

We are not all required to be policemen in order to have a say in what the laws we live under are, or the methodology of their enforcement.

I may support gay marriage though I am unwilling to engage in same sex practices or marry another man.

The very nature of our society as a cooperative effort in which no person needs to do all things in order to have a say is in and of itself a refutation of the chickenhawk argument.

Next up is simply a question of utility. Having worked a career for fifteen years I have become adept at it. I could not duplicate my current utility as a soldier. I am making a contribution to society right now, that in my estimation is greater than if I were to abandon what I do, and try to start over as a 40 year old recruit. Were I to leave, I would likely have to close my business which would result in hardship and loss of employment for those that work for me. Two of those, by the way, have children who are in the armed forces. One is in Iraq and the other will be shortly. The pay of a soldier is not high, and in both cases the soldier is married and has children and the two people that work for me are helping to support their children’s families.

It would also be a serious sacrifice for my family and my children if I were to quit what I was doing to fight the war. I am not willing to make that sacrifice on their behalf. Everybody has their own priorities, but I waited until later in life to have children to be sure that I could support them. When I had them, they became my number one priority. Morally, I do not feel that I am free to put that obligation aside in order to take up another one.

Back in 1990 I seriously considered enlisting, but at that time the military was downgrading in the post USSR environment and I did not feel that I would be needed or appreciated. During the Gulf War, I considered but thought it would probably be over by the time my enlistment would do any good, and it was. Now, I am probably too old to be a very good candidate, and am quite frankly not available due to my personal circumstances, and, I feel that my contribution as a soldier would amount to less to society at large then my contribution would be as a soldier. Nevertheless, if the government decides otherwise and drafts me, I will go willingly. If I feel the need and my contribution would be greater as a soldier than what it is now, than I would go willingly.

I am a contributing member of society, and I beleive that I have just as much a right to a say in what we do as anybody else does.

Next, we tried in the past to exclude people from a say in society because it was beleived that one’s contribution had to merit the say. There was a time when you couldn’t vote unless you owned land. It was perceived that women could not contribute and they were denied a vote.

I guess, one of the questions I would have for subscribers to the “chickenhawk” argument is whether or not they think would she be allowed to vote, or vocally favor the war in Iraq. Women are currently precluded from serving in combat. If I can’t have a say, because I can’t fight, why should they?

I could go on, but that’s enough for starters. As I said at the outset, I beleive the “chickenhawk” argument to be a stupid one. I think it’s a simple ad hominem attack and an attempt to shut down debate by insult. I think trying to silence opposition in this fashion is pretty slimy, and have further trouble accepting a moral argument from those willing to stoop so low as to engage in it.

But perhaps I have it wrong.

85

No, no. I’m not accusing them of cowardice - at least I don’t think I did, even in passing, and if I did I retract it - but of hypocrisy and obliviousness to the (stated) need.

The point is, sticking one’s neck out, as a reporter in Iraq, does not in any way meet the stated need, which is to win in Iraq to avoid losing the larger war on terror.

Let me state it like this: if either one of two conditions apply - (1) that we have sufficient troops, with room to spare, to win the war in Iraq, and (2) if losing the war in Iraq is, at worst, a blow to our War On Terror, but one we can recover from, then you’d be right - it would simply be something to bludgeon Republicans with.

We do not have sufficient troops with room to spare. If you’d like, I’ll dig up and re-post a complete list of tricks we’re doing to stretch the capacity of our existing troops to the limit to cover the wars we’re already fighting, and the sorts of things we’re doing in recruiting to replace them. It’s pretty extensive. We need more volunteers for the volunteer army, we really do, if we’re to continue the war in Iraq at existing troop levels.

And of course, the Administration claims that if we lose the war in Iraq, we lose the war on terror, too.

My claim, as stated in the OP, was:

And of course they don’t. No reasonable person would, though many claim to. I realize that claiming to believe something, and believing it, are two very diferent things.

Well, yeah. I don’t know what this has to do with the debate in this thread, but of course as an American I believe that civilians should be making policy decisions for the military. We civilians tell the military whether we’re going to war, with whom, and what the war goals and aims are. They decide the strategy and tactics, not policy.

Ummm, look at the preceding quote box. Then re-read your last sentence in this one. Then look in the mirror.

86

Saddam was committing genocide against his own people.

He had demonstrated a willingness to invade other countries opportunistically.

He had declared himself our enemy and was compensating the families of suicided bombers.

A stable friendly democracy in the Middle East would be in our best interests.

Regime change was already policy.

Saddam had actively sought WMDs.

He had used them on his people in the past.

He was in extreme violation of any number of UN sanctions.

He was perverting the oil for food program to his own gain.

He was in violation of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first gulg war.

We were actively engaged in a conflict with Iraq, enforcing no-fly over 60% of the country in which we were regularly firing and being fired upon.

I bet I could thing of some more, but then I’m referring to Woodward’s Plan of Attack which I keep on my desk for these kinds of debates.

87

So we should leave because the Iraqis are going to kill each other one way or another. That sounds like a mighty fine plan, right there.

Are you Pat Buchanan?

88

You need to upgrade to ‘State of Denial’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/

89

I’ve read all three.

Nevertheless, I reread that entire excerpt you linked to seeking a refutation to any of the things I listed. I saw none, which was very frustrating.

I don’t wish to dodge your arguments, but your link has nothing to do with my post. WHat is your point in reference to my list?

90

What makes you think that the ones that enlisted are any different from you? Other than the fact that they are finding out on the ground the reactions you query.

Seeing as the US is heavily trying to recruit cannon fodder in LA countries with the carrot of citizenship after their enlistment is over – if they survive – I have no reason to exempt the Stoneless, warmongering, cheerleading Canuck from such an offer. Or is recruiting limited to South of the border ‘brownies.’?

As for “ferocity,” you betcha, I am mad as hell and down to the marrow when I read the feces-filled posts of the likes of Stone and Scylla. Mind you, the later one had publicly announced his change of course and the fact that he no longer agreed with this mindless misadventure/killing spree.

Guess bullshit’s in his Republican, warmongering genes. For as long as someone else is doing the fighting anyway.

91

I’ve said publically that I couldn’t in good conscience remain Republican, and discussed reasons that had nothing to do with the war. I’ve also said that I was glad the Democrats made gains and the Republicans no longer had a majority.

I do not recall stating that I was against the war in Iraq. I’m sure it was an honest accident, but I really consider it a major issue when people attribute arguments and stances to me. Can you please show me where I said what you say I said, or retract your statement (preferably with an apology.)

Thanks.

92

And what’s your plan? We should stay because…?

You seem to be of the opinion that our presence there is preventing something horrible that our withdrawl would facilitate. My opinion is you’re wrong. And Der Tries seems to agree - from what I read, his post is saying that our presence is raising the death toll higher than it would be without us there, not merely that “people are dying anyway, so why bother”. It’s not even that subtle a difference; I don’t see what you’re having such trouble understanding. But I guess if you were able to argue substantively, your entire posting history wouldn’t consist of lame drive-bys.

93

That Bush deceived the public on Iraq. (the title of the article) while it is true that it refers to the state of affairs right after the invasion, one can not ignore that many of your points were magnified by the same faulty intelligence demonstrated after the invasion.

As for other points like genocide, invade other countries, WMD… I don’t think **Frank ** was referring to items even the left had acknowledged were correct, since Saddam was already contained for those reasons then an invasion was not justified. The other items that were added mislead the country to go for it. I think that **Frank ** was referring to the “grave immediate threat” items.

94

You’re arguing a point which is uncontested by me, and which bears no relation to what I wrote… Frank said “I cannot think of one single reason the American people were given for the invasion that turned out to be true.” I gave him a list that fit both criteria. You’ve posted an excerpt from a book I’ve already read that contests none of my points and supports a couple. From your context, I feel that I’m supposed to take this as some kind of refutation. I’m not seeing it.

I don’t see any of my points as hyperbolous. Perhaps you could be specific rather than general so I can understand.

Well, perhaps you read Frank’s mind. Personally, I have to go by what he actually says and take him at his word. I would think that if he wished to add caveats to his statement he would have done so, and would not rely on you to place them after the fact.

When he says he “cannot think of one single reason,” that seems to me to be pretty specifically inclusive and devoid of the caveats you imply. Maybe he’ll show up and speak for himself.

95

Oh, the grave* immediate* threats! You mean, the kinds of threats that simply must be resolved by pre-emptive action. Which would be absolutely necessary if one were to avoid being …(borrow that phrase, Scylla? Fits so nicely, there’s a good fellow…) " in extreme violation of any number of UN sanctions."

Well, lets review. There was the nuclear threat, Saddam was hot on the trail of the nukes, any month now. Buying uranium for his nukes. Buying super-special aluminum tubes for his nukes. And the “vast stockpiles” chemical and biological weapons.

Which, of course, he didn’t have but even if he did have, couldn’t have delvered, and if he had, we would have killed him. He gets first strike, he bloodys our nose, then we tear off his balls with a pair of pliers, stuff them up his ass and seal his rectum with a blow torch.

If he was that fucking crazy, why hadn’t he already done it? What was he supposed to be waiting for, the Death Wish Festival?

But! He was gonnna give them to Osama! And Osama would deliver them. Never mind they hated each other guts, never ask why a secular cynic would trust a religious fanatic, why Stalin would give Rasputin an armored division…

Now Scylla’s list is very informative, even after reading the same empty crap for the hundredth time, yes indeed, Saddam was Not A Nice Man. Big Bird would knife him. But we didn’t just go down the left side of the Naughty/Nice list and pick one, we attacked Saddam because he was a direct and immediate threat, it was him or us. That’s what they told us.

“He was going for his gun!” is a perfectly valid defense. Long as he’s got one. Not so good when he doesn’t. Really a crucial point, that. Funny thing is, GeeDub is still spouting that line, with modifications. Now he says that the threat would be Saddam racing with Teheran to acquire nukes! He didn’t expand on that, which I found disappointing.

The man is nothing if not flexible, especially when it comes to facts and history.

96

Because 22,000 more troops on the ground will heighten security in Iraq, i.e. less people getting killed. But people like you won’t even consider it, because BUSHSUX. Whatever.

97

Carol, cooing dove, please consider: we have previously had 22,000 more people there, and it didn’t do squat.

The difference, according to The Leader, is that this time…unlike last time…the Iraqi troops are going to stand foursquare, side by side, house to house. This is because al Maliki is going to defy the power of the exact same people who carry his balls in their pocket.

Can you point out to us what you find, in this scenario, plausible?

98

Where in this thread (or any, for that matter) did I say I wouldn’t consider putting more troops on the ground because “BUSHSUX”? In fact, where did I use that as a reason for any position I put forward? Actually, in my last post I pretty explicitly stated why I (using Der Tries’s quote as an example) am against more troops and for withdrawl. But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everyone who disagrees with you does so because they’re blind partisan ideologues, I guess the twain shall never meet for you and “people like me”. Which is fine, because ever since reading your first posts here, I’ve been pretty sure you’re a dumb cunt anyway.

99

Dumb pricks need someone to love, too, you know.

100

True, but as Of Mice and Men taught us, it’s often better for humanity if they just stick to mice.