Monday, February 26, 2007
John Murtha's Proposal
I really like and admire John Murtha's proposal. He proposes requiring the Defense Department to provide proper equipment, including body armor; proper training, including combatting insurgency; and proper rotation schedules to provide rest and recuperation for veterans of the war. His proposal does not call for an end to the war. However, forcing the Republican Party and the public to think and talk about his proposal and, for pro-war Republicans to try to refute it, brings home to all of us the big "elephant in the room."
Regarding the question of "winning" in Iraq, examining the implications of Murtha's proposal shows us that we do not at present have the resources to "win." We don't have nearly enough troops that we can field and provide with proper facilities, training, and rest. Regarding President Bush's proposed "surge" of only 21,000 additional troops, no one believes that it will be enough. The best thing that can be said for it is, "give it a chance. It just might work."
Naturally, supporters of the administration's decision to escalate the scale of the war are aghast that Murtha's proposal might actually be passed. Bush would have to veto it. He would then become the target of accusations of "not supporting the troops." The truth is, the "surge" can be accomplished only by lengthening tours of duty in Iraq and shortening the rest and retraining time of the troops sent home. The surge will wear out our Army and degrade its effectiveness.
Regarding the question of "winning" in Iraq, examining the implications of Murtha's proposal shows us that we do not at present have the resources to "win." We don't have nearly enough troops that we can field and provide with proper facilities, training, and rest. Regarding President Bush's proposed "surge" of only 21,000 additional troops, no one believes that it will be enough. The best thing that can be said for it is, "give it a chance. It just might work."
Naturally, supporters of the administration's decision to escalate the scale of the war are aghast that Murtha's proposal might actually be passed. Bush would have to veto it. He would then become the target of accusations of "not supporting the troops." The truth is, the "surge" can be accomplished only by lengthening tours of duty in Iraq and shortening the rest and retraining time of the troops sent home. The surge will wear out our Army and degrade its effectiveness.
Labels: degrading the Army, expressing disapproval of "surge, John Murtha, Winning in Iraq
Monday, February 19, 2007
Should we "Win" in Iraq?
The news this morning from Iraq is that although things are still going badly in Baghdad things are looking up in Anbar Province. It is reported that tribal leaders there have switched sides and are now cooperating with American troops and are fighting against the Al Qaeda fighters. Last night on the CBS Program 60 MINUTES one segment dealt with Kurdistan. Kurdistan, a separate region of Iraq, is peaceful and prosperous. Kurds love Americans. Soon, perhaps, trans-oceanic air flights will ply between an airport in the local capital and New York.
I believe the 60 Minutes story. I like to believe the story about Anbar Province, but I know it could also be a planted story by the Bush Administration. But, assuming that all this good news is real, I began to think about the implications. What if Bush's war turns out well for us after all? Will I be happy?
One of my conservative friends, H, accuses me of having such a strong hatred of George W. Bush that I want his adventure in Iraq to fail. At first I simply dismissed such an accusation as an example of H's intemperance and extreme partisanship. Now, I have to admit that he is at least partly right. I do want the adventure in Iraq to fail because success in Iraq would teach the American people the wrong lesson. It would teach them (us, actually) that our military might makes us able to impose our will wherever we choose to impose it. It reinforces the American myth of our moral purity. We are "always right" and we are strong enough to enforce our benevolence on any part of the world that we choose. Victory in Iraq means that it is all right for us to invade Iran and impose our will there. Victory in Iraq feeds our hubris, our sense of virtue and correctness. We will have an empire but it will be a benevolent empire, not like the British, French, and Spanish empires of recent history or the Roman, Greek, and Persian empires of antiquity. We are different from all previous people; we are virtuous, generous, benevolent, brave, powerful, and good.
If, by some miracle, we "win" in Iraq and install a government there that is friendly to us and that at least seems to be democratic, it will indicate to me, at least, that the gods are preparing for our ultimate destruction. To destroy a people, according to the ancient Greeks, the gods first make them insane. Reinforcing our belief in our own invincibility as well as our virtue will make us completely lose track of reality. We will become insane and easy pickings for the gods who would destroy us.
I believe the 60 Minutes story. I like to believe the story about Anbar Province, but I know it could also be a planted story by the Bush Administration. But, assuming that all this good news is real, I began to think about the implications. What if Bush's war turns out well for us after all? Will I be happy?
One of my conservative friends, H, accuses me of having such a strong hatred of George W. Bush that I want his adventure in Iraq to fail. At first I simply dismissed such an accusation as an example of H's intemperance and extreme partisanship. Now, I have to admit that he is at least partly right. I do want the adventure in Iraq to fail because success in Iraq would teach the American people the wrong lesson. It would teach them (us, actually) that our military might makes us able to impose our will wherever we choose to impose it. It reinforces the American myth of our moral purity. We are "always right" and we are strong enough to enforce our benevolence on any part of the world that we choose. Victory in Iraq means that it is all right for us to invade Iran and impose our will there. Victory in Iraq feeds our hubris, our sense of virtue and correctness. We will have an empire but it will be a benevolent empire, not like the British, French, and Spanish empires of recent history or the Roman, Greek, and Persian empires of antiquity. We are different from all previous people; we are virtuous, generous, benevolent, brave, powerful, and good.
If, by some miracle, we "win" in Iraq and install a government there that is friendly to us and that at least seems to be democratic, it will indicate to me, at least, that the gods are preparing for our ultimate destruction. To destroy a people, according to the ancient Greeks, the gods first make them insane. Reinforcing our belief in our own invincibility as well as our virtue will make us completely lose track of reality. We will become insane and easy pickings for the gods who would destroy us.
Labels: 60 MINUTES, American hubris, Anbar Province, Kurdistan, Winning in Iraq
