|
Terance -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/27/2007 10:11:19 AM)
|
I wanted to weigh in on this real quick. Just to say that there's another point of view.
I'm no fan of the war in Iraq. At the same time I support the troops. How can I hold those two positions? Easy. The troops make a hell of a sacrifice, but they don't get to decide which wars to fight. I grew up surrounded by WWII vets from my family. WWII was a very good war, fought for very good reasons. Clear reasons. Iraq, not so clear.
I thought that the war in Afganistan made good sense. We had a right to be there. Someone attacked us, the Taliban sheltered them. We said hand him over, they said no. We kicked ass and took names. I can't argue with that. If we made their country a better place, well that's wonderful. But it's incidental. We don't fight wars to fix the world, we fight them to protect our country.
Iraq? Remind me why we're there? I have to agree that seeing a 1200 year war flare up again in the absense of a murderous dictator was predictable. No, Bush and his people didn't predict it. If they had asked a Middle Eastern person, that person might have told them. I think the Bush white house has a "don't tell us what we don't want to hear" mentality. A mentality that blocks good questions when they conflict with their goals. But having to take responsibility for your admistration's actions comes with the territory of being the most powerful man in the free world. Remember the phrase "The buck stops here?"
To be blunt, I think that to get a quick peace in a place like that you really need to BE a murderous dictator. We're sending in our guys and telling them to "play fair and nice"; that's not how you get results out there. If you want quick results you've got to be willing to be psycho, to have policies that say anyone who fights, we find your village and burn everyone in it at the stake. To think - "what would Caesar do?"
We're not willing to be like that. Therefore I have to say that we don't belong in that mess. I'm hoping that the latest efforts will work, but we have been there a while. Speaking of time, the Middle East works on a longer time frame then America. We fight wars that last four years, then we're trading and good buddies with those countries in a decade. They fight the same wars that they've been fighting since Mohammed's corpse got cold. Nothing happens quick in the Middle East.
As far as calling our troops baby killers, no. The vast majority of them are good people, doing their best under ridiculous stress. For the few, even then I've got to ask about culpability. It's about the most stressful job in the world. Carry eighty pounds of gear in 120 degree weather while you're a walking target and the ground may explode beneath your feet at any time. Send your friends home in boxes after watching them die. And unlike most jobs, you can't quit. You can't say "hey, you know guys, this stress is starting to get to me, I'm afraid that I might crack if I'm here much longer. I think it would be best if I just went home now." I'm disposed to take that into account if they go nuts and do something crazy, even though the actions are reprehensible.
So on the one hand, for the good of our countrie's reputation, we should bring these few to justice and on the other hand, given the stress, would it be justice? Should they be judged the same as a spoiled frat boy? I'm thinking less prison bars and more padded walls with soft, soothing music.
So, my sympathy is with the troops. And I think that Iraq was a really bad place to send them without a clear and realistic strategy.
And btw, yeah... I don't think that Mr. Bush is a big fan of any of us nice people here. Let's face it folks, the Republican party really isn't the party of letting people do whatever they want to do in their own bedrooms.
Terance
|
|
|
|
