Chekhov's Mistress

The War in Iraq: A Response and a Reply

by Bud Parr

The following comment, by SB was made to an earlier post “Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy” (April 11, 2004). Both because that post was sufficiently long ago and I love good debate, I thought I would post the comment and my subsequent reply:



SB says…



Hello Bud,



Geez, I can remember when you claimed to be a Republican.



Speaking with more than ample knowledge of the current military situation in Iraq and selected other hot spots around the world, I feel I am more than qualified to respectfully disagree with Senator Kerrey.

The situation in Iraq (and this comes from someone who was recently there) is not nearly as grim as portrayed in most U.S. media outlets. A prime example is the “wedding” that was attacked. The U.S. attack took place at 3:00 AM. I don’t know about you but most the weddings that I attend don’t go quite that late. Then we have the wedding video. Which, strangely enough, was shot during daylight hours. Curiously odd that a wedding would go from mid afternoon until 3:00 AM. Weapons, drugs, and several different forms of currency were uncovered by the U.S. military. Wedding gifts no doubt.



Terrorists left unengaged usually find something destructive to do. 9/11, USS Cole and U.S. Embassies come to mind. If Iraq is the battlefield then so be it. I would rather have a well trained, highly motivated U.S. Marine engaging these cowards than leaving them to plan their next attack on innocents unchecked.



The flight suit crack has no political value other than to take a cheap shot at Bush. At least while wearing the suit Bush managed to keep his zipper up. Something that previous Presidents seem to have trouble with.



P.S. The UN is being engaged, let’s see if France and Germany will step up.



My reply:



Glad to see your comments and I always love a little opposition. So many issues, so little time and space to address them all. I am no longer a Republican, but I am not a Democrat either. I am, a partyless man!



But in reality, nothing much has changed. I’ve always come down on the side of the liberals on the environment, roewade, education, and free trade (traditionally a liberal cause, but now, both sides have free trade wrong, but understandably so, given their constituents), and on the side of the conservatives in terms of fiscal responsibility (now a joke), free markets (now a joke) and welfare (BC was the actually the biggest welfare conservative I’ve seen). That sums it up – my abandonment of the Reps ironically comes from the fact that I am in awe of the success of GBush.



If I were truly conservative, I would be quite happy with this potus, notwithstanding public opinion (but that only matters on one day every four years and on midterms). His in-your-face success in withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court were astonishingly bold, but then he went on and passed his education bill, cut taxes, and then seized 9/11 induced fear to push through a long simmering agenda in the mid-east.



I believe that Iraq has little to do with terrorism. In my view it has everything to do with our exercising control in the mid-east (arguably a good idea, but I don’t agree) and the eventual reneging on our reciprocation agreements in Asia. Our invasion of Iraq was the first test of the “Doctrine of First Strike.” [Through the Foreign Policy Association, a non-partisan organization, I went to a couple of conferences that dealt with this issue historically and analytically – one was a debate between US State Dept. officials and some academic and NGO types on the other side.] My opinion is that it makes the world a more dangerous place. I’m by no means a pacifist, but this doctrine sets a legal precedent for what preemptive strike actually means, a definition that has deteriorated since WWII. It will, in affect, make it okay for one country to attack another on the flimsiest of pretexts – even Kissinger says this. What makes me hate Bush is that fact that he used terrorism to dupe the American people into believing that we had to do this in the name of freedom. How could anyone ever believe that he ever wanted to liberate the Iraqi people? And how could anyone believe that eliminating wmds in a little belligerent country 6000 miles away would do anything to help our battle against Saudi terrorists?



I also think that the $48 billion (probably will be much more) we are spending annually in Iraq is unconscionable being that, in my opinion, that this is not about the war on terrorism. These media reports about Iraq mean little to me. The wedding you mentioned is the first I’ve heard of it. There is real progress being made on the financial front though: In my opinion, we are probably safer than we ever have been from terrorists (this is relatively speaking, of course) because we now have a concerted effort around the world to cut off financing of these guys – everyone is a part of that. The business with France and Germany is merely political (everyone has their constituents and every decision is a political gamble) it appears that Tony Blair came down on the wrong side of that bet and will lose his nice townhouse on Downing Street because of it (even though, like our democrats, their conservatives, the Tories, are in complete disarray).



I’m sure I’m boring you by now. This only scratches the surface though. Lastly, though, I’m sorry, but I don’t think Bush is his own man. The flight suit crack comes from the fact that Bush skirted fighting in war because he was rich, yet sends men and women to their deaths for a specious fight. No, it is not a cheap shot – he didn’t earn the uniform. Do you think he gets any respect, as a man, from world leaders behind closed doors? If there were no Iraq, I would perhaps have a difficult time voting for Kerry – he does not meet my criteria with his Concord Coalition ratings. But, I would absolutely vote for Kerry/McCain. Both of these men have sacrificed for their country, and know what that means. Incidentally, I’m not one of those people that thinks we should pull out of Iraq – it’s too late for that now. We will be paying for this mistake for a long time, and ironically, if Bush is voted out in November, the long-term plan that his backers had in mind may never be executed. But that’s a whole other story and I guess I should stop going on and on. I might add though, that your mention of “Terrorists left unengaged usually find something destructive to do.” and that “If Iraq is the battlefield then so be it.” is factually incorrect: Madrid comes to mind as an one example among others.

posted May 31, 2004

comments

No Comments
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

This site employs rank-denial and other anti-spam measures.
Your link here will do nothing for your rankings or traffic. Off-topic comments will be deleted.




Next entry: Annual Literary Magazine Fair: New York City
Previous entry: “Were we to choose our leaders on the basis of their reading experience…”

« Back to main

About this Post




Barack Obama Logo