It’s Not A War
January 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm (Politics)
It’s not a war. It’s a police action.
Terrorists are not soldiers, they are thugs, criminals. The oft-touted right wing premise that leaving Iraq is equal to “losing the war” is false. If it were a war, it would be true, but it is not a war.
Wars can be one or lost, but we can only put a dent in crime. This must be understood, because if it is not understood, we are being asked to remain in a country without a foreseeable time in the future we can leave, and people are dying.
Terrorism is crime, it is not soldiers trying to achieve some cause. Thwarting terrorism is police activity, not war activity. To say the “war can be won” is not the truth. Sure, it’s a nice sound bite, and dare anyone suggest that a war cannot be one. A war can be one, but only if it is a bona fide war.
Therefore, justifying remaining in Iraq on the basis that to do otherwise is to “lose the war”, is, in fact, causing people to die in vain based on a false premise. Putting an total end to crime is not possible, it isn’t possible anywhere on the earth, though limiting it is possible, of course, and this must be done.
The whole point is that (most) Republicans are not being honest, and not just Republicans, but anyone, such as Leiberman, and anyone else suggesting that what is going on in Iraq is a “war”. That war ended with the fall of Hussein. After that, it was a police action, and it continues to be police action.
The truth is, to leave just means that it is being recognized that police forces should be taking over the police actions necessary to thwart terrorism in the region, and that it is no longer the job of the US military. To equate this with “losing the war”, is hyperbole to sway your opinion in a dishonest fashion.
Thaddeus
underdog said,
January 16, 2008 at 1:08 pm
To the great dissapointment of the war hungry NEOCONS it is beginning to look as if Bush is starting to “get it”…. maybe?
Step One - engage the provicial intersts in taking ownership of their own security both against outside elements and internal sectarian violence
Step Two - praise the Iraqi’s for fixing the screwed up policy blunder of Paul Brhemer’s de-bathification campagin. Allow former Sunni members back into the government to be part of the dialog to salvage Iraq.
Step Three - Pragmatism. Iran is a significant regional problem best handled in context of larger issues - Thus… no blood for oil… just send smart bombs please. The Saudi’s will be tasked with “containing” Iran along with the US Navy. No bombs before November. (great sobbing in right wing circles can be heard)
————————-
Your analysis is very close - though some level of force structure in the region is likely required to maitain our Strategic Interest. The “tactical” business of the police actions will fall to each of the players in the region.
Imagine this if you will. In 50 years, likely within your lifetime, or at least that of your children and grandchildren - there will be over 3 BILLION .. yes with a ( B… BILLION ) consumers in Southeast Asia. All buying cellphones, gizmos and gadgets, and gasoline… If I am a global manufacturing company, and I have the choice to sell 300 million Americans (every man woman and child) products, or I can sell by a factor of 10 to emerging consumer markets in Asia.. do the math!!!
Petty wars for influence over oil will bring this country to it’s knees. Cheap US labor will be sought, and immagrents to buss tables in Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. will be in great demand.
We need a vision for the future that sees the progress of new technologies, new effeciencies, engergy conservation through digital communication versus fossel fuel consumption, and shared security arrangemetns for global threats.
Where are the statesmen talking about these REAL issues>?
Cheryl said,
January 16, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I have always thought that the “War on Terrorism” was equivalent to the “War on Drugs.” Something worth fighting — definitely. War on Crime, War on Litterbugs, etc. All important wars. As Thaddeus said - these are police matters - not a reason to go to war.
It is quite evident that the Bush administration lied to us all about the weapons of mass destructions. We know that. Some of us knew it was a lie to begin with — like Saddam Hussein. He knew.
We all know why we are in Iraq and it has nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.
If we have messed up Iraq to the point that they can’t fend for themselves, then we should do something to help them. But to remain there indefinitely is as crazy as going there in the first place.
Thaddeus Gadfly said,
January 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Iraq could be said to be a war only in the sense of the war on drugs.
However, conservatives are calling it a real war, not just a figurative one, which is where I am taking issue. Certainly, the US military’s resources are not being directed, not to the degree as directed into Iraq, into the war on drugs (excluding the Coast Guard, and possibly the National Guard).
Thaddeus