The Christian Science Monitor runs THIS article, in which American service-people in Iraq voice their perplexity at the gloom-and-doom coverage of the war.
While hardly a unique piece, it should be read by everyone with an interest in the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The current national debate is not actually about the Iraq war in particular, so much as it is about whether America has the stomach to really finish anything she starts. It is far more a test of our national attention span than a debate over the merits of the current conflict. We are the ADHD nation, the MTV nation. The truth is, many of us are just tired of hearing about the war.
There seems to be a new understanding about what constitutes a Good War, if not a just one. Many, seemingly, will support a war in theory, but only if it meets the following requirements:
- Victory must be assured (victory being understood as universal approval from our both our allies and our enemies).
- There must be guarantees that no civilians will be harmed. Failure to achieve this makes the U.S. guilty of war crimes.
- There must be no U.S. troop casualties. Any loss of U.S. personnel will be taken as a sign that Things are Going Badly. Only bad guys should be harmed.
- We must know exactly how long the conflict will take. We are a busy people.
- There should be a clearly set spending limit. Any overage will deducted from the next war.
- We reserve the right to Change our Mind in the middle of any conflict. We consider that the above rules are binding, just not on us.
I am thinking of printing the following bumper sticker, a real morale-booster from the far left:
To Our Troops: We Support You!… even though we believe your mission is pointless and possibly evil. We hope you are home soon, you poor saps!
BIG RED DISCLAIMER: This post was NOT written by Jimmy Akin, but by me, Tim Jones, a guest poster. Combox flames should be directed solely at me, Tim Jones. Thank You.
Much has been written about the morality of this war under just war theory, and much of the realted dialogue has been both edifying and in good faith. That said, make no mistake: Tim Jones’ description of both popular and national media sentiment is spot on.
Only bad guys should be harmed.
Addendum: The people we are fighting are not to be considered the bad guys. No value judgements are to be allowed.
While this is a wee bit off topic (at least relative to what Jimmy Akin (er..Tim Jones:) posted), I found this a while back and thought it was interesting: Click Here
And here’s where to get the report itself (from what I saw, its in several pdf files..)
This might help you Tim and others. Over the past 6-12 months support for the war has gone from about 60% to 30-40%. Now your post may have entertainment value for the 30-40% who still support the war, among the 20-30% whose view has changed, you are coming across as arrogant and condescending. Instead of repeating 2-year-old cliches, you and others may wish to come up with new arguments to recognize the changed situation which is now apparrent to so many other Americans.
M.Z. Forrest,
Even the soldiers who are there need new arguments right?
Only bad guys should be harmed, it should come in under budget… sounds like a hollywood flick, doesn’t it?
Exactly, Tammy. In fact, I heard one critic today state that the American people will never believe the war is going well until thay see it portrayed that way in the media.
Hey, if it’s on TV, it must be true.
And, M.Z., why change arguments now, when the old ones are so true?
I have just grown tired of people wailing about the “changed situation” and how we are screwing everything up, when they offer no alternative that is not rank fantasy.
Like when John Kerry intones that he is NOT asking for an artificial date for withdrawal, only an “estimated timetable for success”, as if there were any difference between the two.
If being more-or-less certain I am right makes me sound more-or-less condescending and arrogant, then I will just have to accept that.
M. Z.–
If your numbers are correct, then that large group are believing outright lies. Not unusual.
However: we HAVE found things to make bombs in Iraq– and more importantly, we’ve found the stuff _isn’t there_ to make bombs. Hm. Poorly phrased.
The UN inspectors saw a lot of stuff. Lots of it is gone. It’s been found as far away as Germany, with the inspection seals still on it.
And the Left _does_ say something to the effect of “Hey, we support the soldiers! Now we demand things that will get them killed!”
Sailorette,
Let me just concede everything you’ve said. What value do we get for keeping our troops there a single day longer? That is the question that will need to be addressed at some point if President Bush wants to stop losing support for this war.
Tim,
And, M.Z., why change arguments now, when the old ones are so true?
The primary reason is that those goals for which the arguments were made have been accomplished. If you look at the deck of 52, there is hardly a soul left. Any chemical weapons are long gone. (I happen to believe they were there to being with BTW.) Our interests now are primarily humanitarian.
What are we looking to accomplish at this point? As far as I can tell, the remaining goals are largely utopian such as wanting to establish a pluralistic society. Certainly one of the goals is preventing civil war, but even that is not a positively objective goal in the affirmative. In other words, the only way to determine success is not to have failed.
The primary reason is that those goals for which the arguments were made have been accomplished. Our interests now are primarily humanitarian.
I’m wondering from whence this bizarre claim emanates. Not that I’m accusing you of anything, but is this seriously the argument of the left these days? So, lemmee get this straight: this “administration” has been utterly incompetent in waging this war and “winning the hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people… but nonetheless, we’ve managed to accomplish every goal we set for ourselves, so it’s time to bug out? Why should I take this seriously?
Prudence is generally a reason to take it seriously. I don’t believe this is an argument of the left or else the democrats’ approval numbers wouldn’t be lower than the President’s. As best as I can deduce from your argument, you believe that we should keep soldiers in harm’s way, because America isn’t loved enough. If that is what you and the President want to continue preaching, don’t let me stop you. I am perfectly content to declare victory and leave as are more and more Americans, because we have won, and what hasn’t been accomplished is trivial or not worth achieving.
To M.Z.: Huh?
Oh, MZ Forrest, if America ran war the way you described, the Americans would liberate Asia from the Japanese, leave Imperial Japan untouched, declare “victory” (after all, the goal is to drive the Japanese away), then leave, leaving Asians to fend for themselves themselves, free to be preyed upon by the Imperial Army.
That strategy doesn’t work even against cockroaches.
(No offense to any Japanese reading this).
Actually, M.Z. I think the Democrats’ numbers ARE lower than the prez’s. And his are up a bit, and the %age of peeps who think things are going well in the war is up too.
How could you call leaving now a “just withdrawl”? I mean, if there is just war, then there should be corollaries along the lines of “and by the way, don’t leave when it’s convenient for you, if it means the locals get rat-f****d, excuse my french!”
>There should be a clearly set spending limit. Any overage will deducted from the next war.< Actually, there was a time when Republicans believed in balancing the budget...unfortunately that time has passed.
Not during wartime, Con. No government runs a balanced budget during wartime.
The present crop of Republicans does disappoint in the area of fiscal restraint, but the problem is pork, not defense spending.
Oh,sure, Tim! You probably even think that incredibly important Bridge To Nowhere in Alaska is pork!
Well, the Patriot Act is an unwarranted expansion of federal power.
To the 354,000 American troops based in 142 countries around the world, who cannot be with their families, I say If Pat Buchanan were President you would ALL be home in this country. Not one child, son, daughter, mother, or Father would need to worry about a loved one
getting killed by a insugent who wants the occupation forces out of their homeland.
This is not what Geroge Washington would have done. It was not what the Founding Fathers would have allowed. Because it has nothing to do with the America they founded. We have lost our republic, and been transformed into a empire, and the Neo-Cons did it without most of America even realizing it.
Exactly as it was scripted more than 80 years ago.
Today, redstate.org posted a letter from the mayor of an Iraqi city to American troop thanking them for driving out the terrorists.