Blogcritics Comments on Vote "NO" to Bringing the Troops Home Now

Comment by JP

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:46:56 EST

Dave, slight argument although I mostly agree. "The administration's main problem was that they thought about it as a war and not the beginning of an endless attempt to maintain the peace." Currently most of the right seems to think that if we simply keep morale pu here at home, we can "win this thing." Whatever that means, as in 'stay the course', 'don't pull out now', yadda yadda. The truth is they're putting the cart before the horse. You cannot expect people to remain content and supportive simply by telling them that they should. It's condescending to people's intelligence. The way to engender full support from the beginning is to build a convincing case for taking action and tell the people the truth about why, and to give honest assessment of our chances and the length of time the war will last. This administration did not come forward with the actual reasons, and did not even have a convincing case behind closed doors; it failed to share its honest assessments of 'how long' because they feared those assessments were not something the public would get behind. Though I disagree with the premise for the war, there was a better way to sell it: I say given the circumstances, you need to build a better case. Increase the number of troops you plan to deploy until the time estimates become as short as you'd like them, and then honestly make your case. If there's real imminent danger, the public will be supportive. BUT THERE WASN'T. I refer you to this Washington Post article that asserts the continuous positive reports from the administration, contrasted with the ongoing struggle on the ground, paints the administration as out of touch with reality. It's a serious credibility problem, and in my opinion I don't see how they can regain the public trust in their judgment after this long.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:58:42 EST

One thing I can't figure though...most wars that go on this long would have had far more casualties than the Americans have suffered so far, and indeed many wars have lasted much less time with many more casualties. Can't understand why people think the number is so high, for most wars in the past, things would have been far worse, I would say the American military are doing remarkably well, all things considered. Sharp observation, Steve. It's not a war. The actual war has been over for more than 30 months. It's an ongoing police action, and for such it has pretty typical casualties. It's not the disaster it's made out to be, it's just an ongoing inevitable clusterfuck which is what anyone sensible would have expected it to be for YEARS until Iraq finally sorts itself out. Those who want to pull out now should have known this, and the administration certianly should have. The administration's main problem was that they thought about it as a war and not the beginning of an endless attempt to maintain the peace. Whether they overstated the role of WMDs would have largely irrelevant if it had just been a simple war, but the protracted aftermath has given political opportunists a chance to capitalize on every shortcoming and undermine the effort to their own advantage. Dave

Comment by Bliffle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:08:12 EST

One might hope that by now even the most lunk-headed Bush fanatic would realize that we were systematically lied to by scoundrels in order to support this egregious invasion, but alas, it is not true. Any experienced businessman, political leader, General, or parent would know it is time to admit ones bad decision and quit sending good money after bad.

Comment by Steve

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:28:56 EST

Not sure why this is such a difficult topic for folks, seems quite obvious to me really... Yes, the US does need to get out as soon as it can because it's presence in Iraq only helps the terrorists gain more converts. However, it must also stay until enough Iraqis are trained so that they can defend themselves and have an operational government. Hopefully, this can be completed in 2006. One thing I can't figure though...most wars that go on this long would have had far more casualties than the Americans have suffered so far, and indeed many wars have lasted much less time with many more casualties. Can't understand why people think the number is so high, for most wars in the past, things would have been far worse, I would say the American military are doing remarkably well, all things considered. As to Iraqi casualties...how many Americans died in the US Civil War??? Except for the few 'bloodless coups' that have happened in the past, haven't most struggles for democracy cost alot in terms of human lives...is it that unusual that Iraq is the same???

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:49:20 EST

Good points in general, but I have to pick one nit: In addition we need to state, once and for all, that we have no intent to keep defense installations in Iraq or use their oil economy for our greedy purposes. How many times and in how many ways does this have to be stated before it sinks in? We've arleady returned more than 2/3 of the bases to the Iraqi forces and we've stated over and over and over again that the oil will be in Iraqi control AND arranged that contractually. No one except nutcases in the American left still doesn't get this. Dave