Andrew,

Very good post. Accurate and precise. I wholeheartedly agree. If the left was this well reasoned, the war would be over.

Subsunk

Ouch,"if the left was this well reasoned, the war would be over." Please explain.

I would prefer a commander in chief who had a plan beyond you can't win the war if you think it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have also had, and still have, friends in Iraq. A few of them were opposed to invading Iraq for various reasons. They did their duty and as far as I know, they did it well. Do we say that their hearts are not in the battle for Iraq?

I have a Republican friend(I also have a Republican relative, but I don't talk to him) who was in the army who just came back from a rotation to Honduras and wanted to stay in, but got out because he didn't support going into Iraq. Does his choice to get out show weakness of our military personnel's resolve.

I agree that any sign of weakness emboldens our enemies. So does every missile attack by Israel in Palestinian territories. So does every time we start a battle and then pull back like in Fallujah.

If every single person in America supported the President and the war, our enemies would use nationalism to rally support against us.

I was against this war for many reasons, but now instead of debating the right and wrong of it, we should destroy and kill those that are against us. As long as one insurgent or terrorist is alive to rally support against us, we will never be safe. Anything short of that should be unacceptable to all of us.

I don't follow how you reach the conclusion that:

"I think it's just as important to note that every success for the antiwar crowd is going to lead, at least in the short run, to additional American deaths."

I am also not sure I agree with:

"When it appears the U.S. is close to losing its resolve in Iraq, that is a huge recruiting tool for our enemies."

What little evidence there is indicates that war in Iraq has been an excellent terrorist recruitment tool. It is easy to for them to cliam the U.S. is an occupier so long as remain there.

Andrew,
Commendably polite and understanding to your opponents, as always. That's probably the most courteous, respectful criticism of the antiwar movement I've heard in years, maybe ever - so, thanks, and kudos.
Having said that, it pains me to see you taking the "we must not criticize this war" line. I think I can sort of see your point - I'm not convinced you're right, but I'll concede you might be. But here's the thing: if a democracy goes to war, and the political leadership makes mistakes in the planning and conduct of that war, how are the people supposed to be able to make a change? If the opposition declines to offer a competing vision or a possible change in direction, then what options does the electorate have?
I'd really like to see you answer this question, actually - when, and to what extent, should the political opposition be free to criticize the conduct of an ongoing war? Maybe it'd be best to frame the discussion in terms of Bosnia or Kosovo, so we're not so weighed down with current political disputes and alignments. Or, just pick some [hypothetical] case in which the war really was, from your perspective, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet American troops were in the field in harm's way.

Scott,

Do we say that their hearts are not in the battle for Iraq?

I know that there are some soldiers whose hearts are not in the battle for Iraq, because I've trained them to go over there. And they do put their own lives at risk, not to mention those of their fellow soldiers, although I suspect they get much more interested in fighting the war when it becomes apparent they cannot avoid it. The President doesn't have to worry about that, and if his heart isn't in the fight, it affects a lot more than just his immediate unit.

Does his choice to get out show weakness of our military personnel's resolve.

I'd argue it shows a wise decision on his part. It can hardly be extrapolated to extend to the entire military, any more than my citation of soldiers who believe in the war can be.

I agree that any sign of weakness emboldens our enemies. So does every missile attack by Israel in Palestinian territories. So does every time we start a battle and then pull back like in Fallujah.

If every single person in America supported the President and the war, our enemies would use nationalism to rally support against us.

Incorrect. While there are some people who don't mind dying, the vast majority of the people we're fighting have no interest in dying in a losing cause. The enthusiasm of young Pakistanis to join the fight in Afghanistan waned markedly when it turned out they were dying droves. The same is true in Iraq: if we demonstrate that going to Iraq to fight against the Coalition is a one-way ticket to oblivion, the flow will decrease significantly. It won't dry up, because there are always some people who believe in the cause strongly enough not to care about the odds, but if we turn off the rest, killing the diehards becomes much easier.

reydrek,

Success by the antiwar cause encourages new attacks on American forces, because it demonstrates that such attacks work. Therefore, in the short run, the antiwar cause will cause more, not fewer American casualties.

The Navigator,

Where did I say that we must not criticize the war? I don't see it, but if I did say that, I was wrong. As I did say, if you honestly believe that withdrawal will result in fewer deaths in the long run, then protesting the war is the right thing to do. I do think that the antiwar folks ought to be honest and realize that their tactics will cause more harm in the short run, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

Furthermore, you can certainly criticize the war without calling for American withdrawal. There have been numerous examples of places where we could have (and should have) done better, and pointing those out is the right thing to do.

The bottom line for me is that I would not force the protestors to stop if I had the power, but I would like to convince them to stop. I trust you understand the difference.

"if you honestly believe that withdrawal will result in fewer deaths in the long run, then protesting the war is the right thing to do. I do think that the antiwar folks ought to be honest and realize that their tactics will cause more harm in the short run, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it."

That's more or less the principle I wanted to defend. You weren't as explicit about this in the post as you are in your comment here, but looking back, I see how this was more or less what you meant.
I guess what really got me was that you then went on to say that Kerry would lead us to surrender - despite everything that Kerry's said in this campaign about fighting to win, doing it the right way, hunting down terrorists and killing them, working to get other nations involved, etc. I guess a more sympathetic read of your post would have been that you were saying, not that Kerry's criticisms of Bush's policies were necessarily themselves emboldening the enemy, leading to more recruits, and generally getting more Americans killed, with no larger benefit to show for it, but rather that you just don't trust Kerry, don't believe what he says, and are certain he'll take actions that will have the same effects as those of the antiwar protestors.
All I can say is that if we were to assume that presidential candidates will behave in office, not as they say they'll behave, but as our most negative view of their actions thirty years ago suggests they'll behave, then we'd have to assume that Bush would spend his time getting drunk and high, skipping out on his responsibilities and getting arrested for DWIs. He didn't do any of those things in his first term, though - instead, he did more or less what he said he'd do during the 2000 campaign (at least outside of foreign policy issues). Bush changed. Kerry can change, too.

Sorry, last comment was me.

I'm not basing my assessment (solely) on Kerry's actions from 30 years ago. What has he done in the intervening years that would suggest he has changed materially from the views he held then? His actions during the Cold War? His vote against the first Gulf War? Help me out here: what has Kerry actually done, as opposed to what he's said, that would indicate he's really willing to stand up for anything but himself?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: