Is Bush's Approach in Iraq Immoral?

[Gary H]

Please... we are in Iraq.. Let’s avoid discussing going into Iraq, or not.. This is a done deal.

1. U.S. military wasn't allowed to fight in Vietnam .. Abandoned Cambodia .. 2+ million dead.

2. Daddy Bush stops short of displacing Saddam .. Result .. years of Iraqi tyrant.. second war.

3. We fight recent war and declare end of major hostilities without defeating Bathist and terrorist. Result .. We must now face them. So, what do we do? We do a little fighting and then try to negotiate. Result, we are seen as weak. We will suffer more deaths because of this perception. We demoralize our troops who are NOT ALLOWED TO WIN.

Victory ended WWII. Since then we haven't seemed to figure out that without total victory we do not end the killing. We are masters of PC war and as a result more people die than would be necessary. We demoralize our troops. We keep citizen soldiers at war for longer periods of time and ruin their lives, so they will refuse to re-enlist. This means that we will be forced to consider other methods of supplying troops. Draft?? More U.S. Army TV ads? I think that our way of fighting in Iraq is immoral. We are not fighting to win, we are fighting to appease the left. I'm not suggesting that we should level cities, or go out of our way to kill non-combatants.. so let's keep this civil. .. no turning sand into glass..

 

[TaurusCIA]

It's the age of immediate gratification and 24 hour news television. War seemed so much cleaner when the average Joe didn't know much about it until it was over.

People want safety and security but don't want it to cost anything...and definitely don't want to see the costs on TV.

IMO It seems that a lot of the current problems are left overs from the cold war. We were fighting against communism and our strategy reflected that. That strategy also caused a lot of friction with third party countries who were often caught in the middle. The terrorists have taken advantage of the instability of the neglected third party countries to gain a foothold.

This mess won't go away just because we don't like dealing with it.

 

[ThreadKiller]

Precisely!

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

Right by conquest. Where's the problem?

 

[fix]

So, what do we do?

Be patient and let the troops do their job.

 

[AJ Dual]

TaurusCIA is on to something...

Things we think of now as "History", like WWII, hardly looked so clean, short, or simple when they were actually happening. If you think about it, our largest ally, at least in size and battle, if not "friendliness", the Soviet Union, was in many ways worse than the Nazis. Stalin is widely attributed to having killed as many as 20 million Soviets and neighboring peoples through purges, the gulag system, and intentional famine through implementing a collective communist farming system. If “body count†and genocide was the only moral compass used to determine who to fight and how in WWII, we were on the wrong side, at least in the European theater.

But in hindsight, if you look at who was the most expansionist, had the most virulent and reprehensible political beliefs at the time, and had the technology edge, (i.e. V2 rocket, first deployed jet fighters, better tanks etc.), and how the cold war eventually did de-escalate in the early 90's, 60 years later, it looks as though we made the right choices after all.

Even if Iraq turns into a gigantic quagmire, it was still "worth it" IMO. It's of the highest importance that we teach terrorists and Islamo-Fascists that if they strike at us, we will do the exact opposite of what they want each and every time, and with overwhelming force to boot. "You want to promote an Islamo-Fascist world by blowing up skyscrapers? We will remove an entire Islamo-Fascist nation or two from the playing field entirely.†Sending that message alone is more important for our long-term peace and security than anything else we could do.

Also, taking out Iraq was arguably the best possible move in bringing pressure to bear against the entire Middle East, in a broader foreign policy strategy that doesn’t get very much coverage in the mainstream press. Things that have happened like Libya opening up for WMD inspections etc. are signs of that strategy having some impact. There is certainly a lot of room for debate as to whether or not the Iraq war was the right way to go about this particular phase in the war on terror, but at least this administration is trying to fight it.

 

[rich2u]

Yeah well I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any positive story's from the DNC spin machine errrrr I mean the mainstream media.

 

[greyhound]

While Gulf War I is credited with erasing "Vietnam Syndrome" ( in that we were willing to risk large amounts of casulaties [even though we only suffered 147 deaths]), I feel that war has colored this one.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that this would be long and hard, I think a lot of people expected a repeat of 1991, and Saddam's statue being pulled down in 21 days helped this perception. Bush didn't help with that stupid "end of major combat" statement. To most Americans, any soldier's death is "major combat".

After 9/11, I vowed to support ANY effort in the Middle East to make sure it didn't happen again. Sure, I think we've made mistakes both in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in both cases I think the virtually flawless campaign of Gulf War I (and its limited goals of just kicking Hussein out of Kuwait, not ending his reign) is a big part of the 50/50 split on Gulf II.

 

[Gary H]

Back to the topic..

Ted Kennedy brings up Vietnam and we rightly tell him to take a swim, but perhaps Iraq has started to move in this direction. The commonality is that we are fighting to be liked. We are trying to win hearts by not killing the bad guys. We are putting our soldiers in harms way to make others like us. I think that this is the commonality and it is immoral. The folks that we fight will only respect strength. I agree that allowing Iraqi council members to negotiate helps their stature.. which might be useful in the future, but we need to beat them down first. Otherwise we allow them to live to fight another day. This strategy puts our folks at greater risk. We can't win this war fighting a gentlemen's war.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Fighting land wars in Asia is a stupid idea.

We should have taken care of the war in Iraq the same way we settled the one with Japan.

 

[spartacus2002]

Define "Victory" in Iraq.

 

[Michigander]

Victory in Iraq?

To me it would be a democratic republic with a constitution very much like our own, only followed more closely than we do ours without all the misinterpretaions and bastardizations.

So, to acheive this end, while I do not agree with the pretense of why we are there, but with full consideration that we are, we must defeat the enemy outright! Anyone who opposes the US or coalition forces there should be pounded into submission by any means necessary. Those who will not comply must be arrested and detained or killed. No negotiations! Our way, or indefinite occupation!

Of course, the constitution we propose doesn't even acknowledge an individual's right to arms, so my definition of victory is apparently not the same as those who write such documents nowadays.

But even so, as long as our troops are in harms way, we must take off the gloves! If killing 15 enemy combatants and 4 innocent women and 2 innocent children means saving the life of one soldier, then so be it! If killing 5,000 enemy combatants and 1,500 innocent women and 500 innocent children means saving the life of one Marine, then so be it!

I've been accused of hating and despising the US. And there are some things the US Government does that I do hate and despise. But our troops do not decide which wars are just. They only decide to risk their lives for us. We can all argue about whether or not what our troops are doing in Iraq really helps us or protects us, but as far as our troops are concerned, that is exactly what their presence in Iraq means.

 

[Gary H]

Michigander:

You do have an interesting set of views. It is a credit to you that you can't be stereotyped. I don't know what my acceptable kill ratio is, but I don't believe that it is Bush's job to win a P.R. campaign at the expense of our troops. I believe that fear is a greater motivation in the Middle East than is friendship, but Bush constantly makes the mistake of thinking that he can make friends of his enemies. That is why he will recklessly spend money in California during the coming campaign and (different topic) promote Mexican interests in the U.S. My father spent a couple of years in North Africa and has influenced my fear vs. friendship point of view. I don't have any first hand experience.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

The problem is, we are not dealing with a country. We are dealing with three distinct groups, that, thank you very little, the British dumped on the world's lap after WWI and WWII.

Trouble is, there lies under those sands some of the cheapest oil on the planet to extract.

Saddam, hate him if you will, ruled with an iron fist. That fist is gone. We Americans try to rule with reason and compassion. These people do not understand that.

I would split Iraq, again, which is not a real country, into three countries. A Kurdish republic to the North, a Sunni state, and a Shi'ite state.

Then I would do business with them. Oil business that is.

Those states would kick out the current terrorist problem in deference to profit.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Glass 'em strategy

StandingWolf is correct. Iraq is like Japan, in that the people cannot be bent to our way of thinking. They must be broken. If we were to reduce Fallujah to very small stones, they wouldn't love us less than they do now, but they would respect it. They understand strength. They understand avenging honor. And they understand the maxim, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".

It is America that no longer understands these things.

 

[Destructo6]

The problem is, we are not dealing with a country. We are dealing with three distinct groups, that, thank you very little, the British dumped on the world's lap after WWI and WWII.

Not Britain's doing. Sassanids through the Ottomans all combined that region into a single district. That's well over a thousand years.

So, what do we do? We do a little fighting and then try to negotiate. Result, we are seen as weak.

The situation seems closer to "after getting their butts kicked, they dropped their demands and just want us to stop shooting them." Whether they want some breathing room in order to try a new tactic or are sincere is another matter.

 

[HBK]

The only thing those people understand is mean, ugly, painful death. If you are nice or show mercy, they consider it weakness. I have to agree with Standing Wolf. A couple of nukes would speed things up a bit.

 

[Iain]

Not Britain's doing. Sassanids through the Ottomans all combined that region into a single district. That's well over a thousand years.

Thank you Destructo6. I'm sure 'The Empire' is not blameless but not totally to blame either.

Nukes?

Right of conquest?

I think the phrase I am looking for fails the 'grammaw' test.

Yeah, 'speed it up' - nukes for the attention deficit generation.

World War Three for their kids.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I would not blame the failure to finish off Saddam the first time on "Daddy Bush".

The first Gulf War was a UN action just like the left says Bush II should have done. The UN would not allow going after Saddam and negotiated the ceaase fire agreement with him to save his skin. For much of its history the UN has always coddled tyrants and spread propaganda against the USA through its "educational organizations like UNESCO. My opinion is that terrorism is on the rise because the UN does not hold countries that harbor and support terrorists accountable. The UN supports Arafat and hates Israel too. The UN is just not doing its job. What do you expect from the Marxist leadership and from all the member countries run by tyrants and whose votes count the same as ours. Yes, I place most of the blame on the UN.

 

[Gary H]

mountainclmbr:

Daddy could have taken the war another 24 -48 hours and demolished the Republican Guard and Saddam would have been in a bit of a bind. Also, he could have played a larger role in subsequent uprisings, either discouraging them, or helping them.