LTE: Sometimes, war is the answer

Sometimes, war is the answer
Letter to the editor
Web posted March 25, 2005

So war protesters are out waving their signs and displaying their faux-coffin. Good for them; for unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, dissent against our government is not a death sentence. I take particular offense, though, at two of their signs. One says "Support our troops: bring them home" while the other reads that "War is not the answer."

I suppose those rescued from concentration camps at the end of World War II might disagree with the latter, but perhaps they wouldn't have welcomed the war which liberated them. Perhaps the over 800,000 Rwandans who were massacred in 1994 because the U.N. and the United States refused to step in could have benefited from American war actions. But war was not the answer for Bill Clinton nor the United Nations, and so those poor people died. Or the women who were raped by Saddam's sons and the thousands of Iraqis who were killed on the orders of Saddam might not have thought war was the answer; but they're dead so we'll never know. War is a terrible action, but sometimes, it is indeed the answer.

Now let's talk about supporting our troops. The United States has an all-volunteer force, we who have served, or are serving now, are aware of the obligations and the hardships that even a reservist might face. I am a U.S. Navy and Alaska National Guard veteran. You cannot support our troops by devaluing the very mission in which they are engaged. It is impossible to say that "I hate the commander in chief. I detest the mission. I abhor how the military acts in Iraq, but I still support the troops." That is an intellectually weak argument, and our troops deserve better.

If you oppose the war, just say it that simply. That's more honest then disguising an agenda as concern for our sailors and soldiers.

Graham G. Storey

Juneau

http://juneauempire.com/stories/032505/let_20050325028.shtml

THIS WAR was not the answer?

I was one of the Troops once. I didn't used to feel that ALL wars were unjustified...but the more I see the real reasons behind almost every war...and behind the wars that the US seems to advance for political and economic reasons, the more I'm less and less sure about the validity of MOST of our military actions. In the case of Iraq, I'm sure that what we did (and continue to do) was NOT the answer.

So in that sense, I'm with you. For some problems, rare though they may be, I can envision war being a great answer.



The current war is supposedly the best possible answer to a current problem. Yet that problem had several shifting definitions throughout the pre-war preparations.

So is it the answer in this case? I don't see the logic that led to "yes". If anyone can flowchart it for me, in a manner consistent with Shrub's speeches, I'd be happy to concur.





As for supporting troops (or anyone you feel like supporting), we can probably agree that support can take many forms. If you are a carpenter, and I decide to offer you some support, I might do any or all of the following:

- Send you a nice card.
- Send you a fruit basket from Harry & David (http://www.harryanddavid.com)
- Bring lunch to your family, since you can't while you're at work building houses.
- Tell your boss to send you home, since the construction site has been land-mined, you have only half the tools you need, and the current occupant is a feeble addict who has imprisoned the farmer who owns the land for the past 20 years.
- Etc.

If you'd prefer the nice card over #4, that's a wonderful preference.

But there's all kinds of support, both conceivable and receivable.

I'm pretty sure I still don't require any permission from people like Graham.

As always, I wonder if Graham has acted on his rock-solid convictions and enlisted to serve in Iraq, or any other war.

I used to ask about the two so-called "world wars" that had occurred earlier in the century. Eventually I would come to a country that either wasn't involved at all (neutral) or was so far away from the main "theaters" as to be uninvolved for all practical purposes.

So then I would point out that it wasn't a "world war" because a significant number of countries of the world weren't involved in it. Then I would read of the devastation of the countries involved and think, hey, the smart countries were the ones who weren't in it. To them, there was no war. What world war?

Ever since World War II, with the lionization of the "Greatest Generation" (and there is little doubt that they were and are because they keep telling us so), there has been a media bias toward war and the default position is that war is perhaps evil, but a necessary evil whenever our commander-in-chief points us to a distant battlefield. And just think of the glorious "war stories" you can tell your descendants afterwards.

Vietnam was botched so badly that it took a few decades to get back to that default position, but we are definitely there again. Remember this was the goal of Poppy. He exulted after his Gulf War, "We finally kicked that Vietnam Syndrome!"

Toward the end of the Vietnam War, there was genuine media analysis and reflection over whether the imperial adventures (which LBJ had, in classic Orwell style, kept calling North Vietnam's "war of aggression" against South Vietnam and us) were not self-defeating. That lasted all of five years. Even that would never have happened had there not been a draft. That's why they are so desperate not to bring the draft back.

I doubt he would be singing the same tune if a Democratic president had lied his way into a war

America is behind wars that stem aggression which threaten the US or close historical allies. Americans are NOT supportive of fake preemptive attacks, goals of occupation to steal another nation's natural resources, and I don't believe they would support a war in defense of Israel, IF Israel is the initiator of the conflict.

In other words, America is generally not supportive of wars in which America (or it's proxies) is(are) the aggressor.

Gyre

Halaburton's for the money they made in no bid contracts Bush's for his reelection. This war was not fro any legitimate reason. Iraq did not threaten us, either rhetorical or through their actions, nor were they threatening in their ability to make war. This was a war of choice, that the American public was sold on through false stories, with a compliant press. It needs to end and it needs to end now.

A soldier needs to believe in his mission and in his commanders, or his ability to accomplish that mission will be compromised. His duty is to be the best cog in the military machine that he can be.

The duty of a citizen is to be informed and engaged, and to hold our government officials accountable. Our obligation to the soldier is to ensure that his life is not sacrificed needlessly or under false pretenses.

This war ws begun under false pretenses. Iraq posed no military threat to the United States, and was not allied with the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. If the rationale was to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam and his sons, the Bush administration should have presented that case rather than misleading the American people. One cannot credibly claim to promote democracy abroad while subverting it at home. The continuing cost of this war -- in lives, money, and our national reputation -- demands that every responsible citizen make their voice heard.

Our soldiers are also citizens, and have every right to express their opinions as Mr Storey has done. However, I take issue with his assertion that I cannot oppose this war and this administration and also support the troops. More than 1500 of them have died for an agenda that has more to do with oil and empire than with weapons of mass destruction or the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Letting another 1500 troops die without demanding accountability and a change in our foreign policy would be withholding support from our men and women in uniform who voluntarily lay their lives on the line for us.

from the letter:
It is impossible to say that "I hate the commander in chief. I detest the mission. I abhor how the military acts in Iraq, but I still support the troops."

Why is that impossible, Mr. Storey ??

:shrug:

Saddam is Hitler. Everything is just like 1939 again in the world. Bush is FDR. Blair is Churchill. The Democrats are Neville Chamberlin and the appeasers. Internerment of Muslims has to be done because it was done against the Japanese.

WWII was the last war in which this country fought where the mission was unambiguously the right thing to do and national survival was truly at stake. That war had moral authority in ways subsequent American wars did not. You would think the Iraq war's justification should be able to stand on its own if it were such a just cause, yet neoconservatives resort to borrowing moral authority from WWII to justify the Iraq war instead. That is the sign of a weak argument.

Would the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed by the invading forces agree that War Is The Answer?

Would the families and friends of the 100,000 Iraqi civilians agree that it was necessary for george bush* to invade Iraq?

Would the families and friends of the 7,000 US causalities agree that removing one tin pot dictator in a 3rd World country that didn't and couldn't threaten the USA agree that it was worth the cost to invade Iraq?

Would the thousands of innocent Iraqis imprisoned and tortured by the US agree that the bush* Invasion of Iraq was a good thing?


I didn't think so.

is intellectually challenged.

"It is impossible to say that "I hate the commander in chief. I detest the mission. I abhor how the military acts in Iraq, but I still support the troops." That is an intellectually weak argument, and our troops deserve better."

Sometimes it is necessary to draft young men and possibly young women to fight in a war when your brave and valiant leadership did not sufficiently plan ahead. It is very likely that if Mr. Bush decides to "liberate" any more countries, the draft will return. I wonder if Mr. Storey will still support the current leadership if a loved one is drafted to fight in the new "free" Iraq or some other nation.