Monday, January 29, 2007

Possible Reasons

Why are many Americans so down about our situation in Iraq, and so ready to run away? I pondered different generations, and their track records with commitment:

1) Baby Boomers - A 34% divorce rate tells me that when the going gets tough, these cats just pack up and go. Couple a flight instinct with an aversion to blood, and you can see why Boomer politicians are almost universally posturing with a white flag.

2) The 'Me' generation - 'Nuff said.

3) Generation X - Discovered the Boomers' "Don't trust anyone over 30" kool-ade, and mixed it with cough syrup. Makes Barney Fife look like the model of courage and intestinal fortitude.

4) Generation Y - The culture of Hook-ups is not the model of commitment that would fan the flames of patriotism, now is it? Sated with violent video games, a culture of glorified lawlessness, and petulant marxism, who really feels like volunteering to defend this mess?

Regardless of the failings of the overall populace, the men and women that choose to defend this country rise head and shoulders above their protesting peers. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deserve every right and privelege that the snivelling masses shrilly demand.


Dad29 said...


I'm of decidedly mixed mind over the war.

First off, it was a 'peremptory strike' war, which requires a MOUNTAIN of justification under the Just War Theory of T Aquinas.

But even given justification for the war, GWB has done about as piss-poor a job of selling the thing as anyone could have.

Face it. We already WON the war that GWB asked us to win: Hussein is history, as are most of his followers.

GWB got into trouble with me when the field switched and it became Necessary for Us to Plant Democracy in Iraq.


It would be a lot easier for Bush to simply state that a US military presence in the MidEast is necessary for two reasons: 1) to prevent adventurism by Iran, Egypt, (et al) and 2) to protect the Saudi Arabian oilfields.

But we don't necessarily have to Establish Democracy In Iraq to have a military presence.

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

It seems that the, people that we tend to back, in the Middle East, tend to bite us in the hindquarters later.

I'm not convinced it was a fight worth continuing after we nailed Saddam. In a vacuum of diplomatic cognizance, the Iraqis joyfully embrace freedom, that is, the freedom to kill each other.

It's no longer a matter of whether we should have done this or not, but now a matter of fixing what we broke. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The Unseen One said...

The reason public opinion has gone against the war is because Americans can't stand to lose. They aren't tired of fighting, they don't want to pull out. They want to win.

However, with the media harping continuously about all the negatives, and practically ignoring news like the huge victory that the Iraqi forces scored yesterday with US support, most people are convinced we are losing.

I say do what needs to be done, trumpet the successes, show the American people the progress that is being made, and pound it into peoples' heads what happens if we pull out before the job is done!

Al said...

There are a couple other reasons that have to do with us of the Boomer generation:

1: There is a percentage that just hates what America stands for, freedom,capitalism, freedom OF speech, religion, etc & want us to become communism & are in denial that it failed in Russia because it won't work.

2: I suspect that a percentage of them (Democrats) know they are responsible for the failure in Vietnam, & know that if we fail in Iraq then it can be blamed on the Republicans thus absolving them of Vietnam.

Personally, I wish we could have avoided going into Iraq, but I know we probably had to. I wish President Bush had handled things better, but as happens in all wars, mistakes were made. Correct them. Even if it means allowing Iraq to split into 3 countries like Yugoslavia did after the fall ogf communism. After all, lets remember that most of those Middle East countries were artificial constructs made by Europe in the 20th Century (simplified explanation of the situation but good enough for my point).

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

The main impetus of this line of thought, commitment, is the growing willingness to just walk away from Iraq.
Was it a bad idea in the first place? Quite possibly, but it was harder to see at the time. Were mistakes made? You betcha.

An even bigger mistake would be to leave Iraq as it sits right now. We're committed, according to my moral compass, and we need to do right by the Iraqis before we leave.

Or, we could just run off with the office secretary.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Gen-Xer of a more traditional, conservative persuasion. I don't support George Bush and his glories of empire so I don't think we should have gone in from the beginning.

However, since we are there...I would pull all troops to the Kurdish territory in the North, leave some to protect the oil in the South and let the Sunnis and Shities fight it out.


Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

I served in the Air Force in West Berlin in the early-mid 80s. Most people don't realize this, but following WWII, the allies divided up Germany into zones of occupation, and occupied.

The German capital, Berlin, was likewise divided up into zones of occupation.

Do you know who was President when the U.S. Army of Occupation was withdrawn from Berlin?

Bill Clinton!

The post-WWII occupation of Berlin continued for 50 years after the Germans surrendered.

I was born in 1962, but having served with the Army of Occupation of Berlin, I hold the "Army of Occupation Medal"; I am technically a WWII veteran.

I said four years ago that when we went into Iraq we should do so with overwhelming force and plan to occupy it for a full decade, during which we would see to the security of the country, the integrity of its borders, the administration of its oil, and teach the people how to live in a pluralistic democracy.

These are goals that take time, and the thought of doing it in only a year or two is absurd.

Unfortunately, Iraq's borders are no better-secured than our own, and every terrorist who could get to Iraq to fight the evil Americans (and later, the evil Shi'ites) was allowed in.

Iran & Syria have been allowed to do their pleasure in upsetting our work there.

Unseen Blogger is "correct, as usual" in all his points. As General Patton says in a recent post on his blog, "Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser."

As General MacArthur said, "there is no substitute for victory."

Were mistakes made? Yes, from the outset. It was planned as a liberation under the mistaken assumption that the Iraqi people love us. It should have been planned as a short war and a long occupation.

Was the war justified? In my mind, that turns on a single question. Is the Battle of Iraq really a part of the war on terror? Did Iraq support those who attacked us on 9/11?

I believe that the answer to these question is yes; but reasonable people can disagree.

The U.S. has not be defeated in Iraq. Our military remains strong, our troops remain resolute. We have not been defeated in battle, and our ability to make war is undminished. We have not been and will not be defeated in Iraq.

But we may be defeated here. That appears to be happening. It's what our enemies are counting on.

Dad29 said...

"Just This Guy" raises another very important point: the Rules of Engagement.

You don't have "overwhelming force" if troops have to play "Mother, May I?" before pulling the trigger on badguys.

And if this is part of the War on Terror, then let's underline the connection, making certain that the events in Afghanistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc., are also connected.

Anita Moore said...

As Paul points out, after World War II, we planted democracy in (a) the home of Hitlerism, and (b) the home of fanatical Japanese racist imperialism; today, these former enemies that we fought to the death are still democracies, and pose no military threat to their neighbors. It CAN be done.

Here we are, five years after 9/11, and it's like we've forgotten all about it. We are surrounded by Hananiahs telling us the threat is all a figment of the fevered imagination of GWB. I very much fear that we are going to be hit again.

Those of us who are not in a position to fight need to get busy on the spiritual front and pray for the utter defeat of jihad.

Anonymous said...

Not only are those of us who are not fighting need to pray for victory, but Catholics need to speak up amoung our Catholic brothers and sisters who believe that it is possible not to support the war but to support the troops. If we leave, all of those soilders will have died in vain. Liberating tens of millions of people was a good thing (some day they will be free to hear the Gospel), the soilders need to hear that.

Funny how no one ever says anything about the fact that we still have troops in Germany, England and Japan although WWII was over 60 years ago. We still have troops in South Korean even though that war was "over" 40 years ago. Keeping troops there was in our interest and helped stabilize those countries. What is wrong with keeping troops in one of the most unstable places in the world? It would be in our interest as well as in the interest of freedom.

Islam is not going away, it is spreading rapidly and soon the terrorists will have nukes and will use them. We have no choice but to remain.

If we leave those people, we will be responsible for the aftermath. Just as we were responsible for the millions of murders in Vietman and Cambodia when we abandoned those people.