Wednesday, September 14, 2005

SUFFICE TO SAY, WE HAVEN'T EXECUTED THE WAR IN IRAQ IN AN IMPRESSIVE FASHION

But it's still quite important that we don't leave. It's a reasonable position to think that the war was wrong at the time and that the idjits in charge didn't and don't know what they're doing, but still we must soldier towards greater security and safety for the country of Iraq and hope that our military is up to the task. Don't make the mistake, my lib'ral friends, of thinking that acquiescence is morally right. There is a choice to be made - on the one hand, we stay and there is a glimmer of hope that, through time, stability comes to Iraq and violence, however slowly, subsides. The other choice is that we leave and civil war erupts. Civilians die at a rate much faster than the current one, Iran and Syria fill the power vaccumm, and the Turks protect their border by bombing the Kurds. Whatever remains is left for al-Qaeda and Baathists. I don't get it. Why would we leave? Surely the repercussions would be much worse. I suspect that some people - not most or even many, just some - who want our military to leave wish it mainly for the reason that it would shame Bush. Perhaps the silliest reason to wish anything. For my money, I'll go with the glimmer of hope.

Bitches.

4 comments:

Trevor Jackson said...

Agreed: We've got ourselves into a big, big mess. But, the more I look at what we're capable of accomplishing there, all sorts of metaphors spring to mind, Masto. Band-aids, gaping wounds; paper towels, New Orleans; one gram of coke, an LES hipster bash.

But, because I'm twelve, I've got to go with the finger in the dyke. Nothing we do now is going to stop civil war, a fundamentalist authority, or the further inflammation of anti-US sentiment. The only difference is how many more American dead are worth delivering this inevitability.

Mathis said...

Well, I disagree. I think that there is a measure of progress being made. At the same time, violence is increasing, so there you go. One step forward, two back. Who will relent first? I don't know, I hope we don't. I just think that what we need is not leave, but rather a plan.

Trevor Jackson said...

You say "a measure of progress" and I just don't know how you're defining that. The repressive and religion-enshrining constitution? I haven't actually read it in comparison to other Middle East constitutions, so I'll admit that I don't know if it's better than say Lebanon's or not. I do know women are getting the shaft, so to speak, that they weren't getting even under Saddam.

I'm willing to agree with you on the "broke it, bought it" position and the need to avoid showing weakness by "relent(ing)," but I want this administration to tell me what success is. If we're not going to set down a timetable for withdrawal, tell me when we will set down a timetable. Right now, they're telling me endless occupation. That's unacceptable. Because we simply don't have endless resources. Now more than ever, as Karl Rove sets out to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Mathis said...

You know what? I was wrong, and I've changed my mind. I think that my wishful thinking is too wishful. I think that the idea I have America being able to bend things to its will its simplistic and misinformed. We've messed things up too poorly. We should begin finding a way to leave.