This is a reply the arguments against us being in Iraq posted by Meagan, see her previous comment below.
IRAQ WAR DEBATED Part 1
—“Fact 1: We have waged war on a country 8,000 miles away….”
OBJECTION! RELEVENCE? (Said in true courtrooml fashion) One can only assume that the author of this statement is attempting to convince the reader that this is a significant fact. Sept 11 proved in a practical fashion why it is not relevant, but it flys in the face of logic as well.
If I am 100 yards away from you, it could be said that I pose little threat to your physical safety. Give me a rifle, and now I become a very serious threat. The question is not one of physical distance or geographical location, but one of capability, actions and intent.
—“We (America) is bombing people whose only crime was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator.”
I dont see how this can be delivered as a fact. We have most decidedly not bomb people whos only crime was living under a dictator. We launched attacks against strategic and tactical military targets in order to bring about the downfall of said regime. How would you have us conduct military operations? Unless your case is one that violence is never necessary.
—“Because of this decision we have over 155,000 troops deployed in Iraq, there have been over 3,500 US troop causalities (51% of those were under the age of 25), and over 25,000 US troops have been physically wounded with 30% of US troops developing serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home.”
What exactly constitutes serious mental health problems? Are they temporarily or permanent? Do we really expect people to go to war and experience no changes in attitude or behavior what so ever? Did not every single person who has gone to Iraq so far, volunteer to serve in the military? Did they not realize that being part of the military means the possibility of going to war? Is war being traumatic, not an obvious and established fact, understood by those who volunteer? Are we to never fight wars because of this fact?
Suppose I tell you that 30% of mothers experience post partum depression to some degree. Would your solution be to cease reproduction? I can tell you from experience that many who serve are often very frustrated by the use of mental health statistics being used to undermine what service men and women consider to be a worthwhile mission.
—“Fact 2: Polls taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense showed that 82% of Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of coalition troops; less than 1% of Iraqis believed the Coalition forces were responsible for any improvement in security; 67% of Iraqis feel that things are worse now then they were when Saddam Hussein was in power.”
If your position here is to state that a poll was taken, and that the results were as mentioned, then I submit that this is a fact.
If your position is that this is an accurate representation of the feelings of the average Iraqi, then you will need to provide more evidence then hear say. What were the questions asked in the poll? How were the questions posed? What region did the poll take place in? Were women as well as men asked the same questions? What time of day was the poll conducted? Polls conducted in the US are very different from those conducted in Iraq; what were the methods used for gathering this information?
My experience suggests to me that this poll was taken in the hopes of generating the desired response of the person taking it, rather than the actual sentiments of the average Iraqi.
—“Fact 3: On December 6, 2006 the Iraq War Study Group (IWSG) issued its 142-page final report, The Way Forward: A New Approach. IWSG urged the Bush administration to change course, in particular to begin the phased withdrawal of coalition troops and draw Iraqs neighbors, including Iran and Syria, into international consensus on the way forward. It also reported that Iraq is now on the verge of civil war. President Bushs promulgation that the U.S. will eventually win if it just sticks with the Bush plan will accelerate the descent into civil war and heighten sectarian differences.”
Ed Meese, a member of this panel, recently explained at the Hoover Institute how this study has been used by both sides of the spectrum to condemn the other. Iran and Syria have been complicit in allowing foreign fighters, as well as equipment flow into Iraq to kill US personnel. We should engage Syria and Iran, as they are state sponsors of terrorism in Iraq and the rest of the world.
Furthermore, the suggestion that a phased withdrawal and the handing over of responsibility to the Iraqis is a new idea, is ridiculous. This has been our focus from the very beginning. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Announcing a withdrawal time was NOT a suggestion of the ISG, and makes no sense from a military perspective.
—“Fact 4: According to a recent study of the Iraq effect by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror.”
Once again, the fact presented here is the OPINION of two men. We are not told their methods of how they came to this cause and effect conclusion.
When a study is conducted, it is usually comprised of data, which is factual, mixed with a conclusion which is opinion. I would have to see the data, and the thought process to determine whether or not their argument is convincing. Otherwise this whole argument is simply a dressed up form of the violence only begets more violence argument, which I think is absurd.
Let me give you an example of determining a conclusion, or cause and effect relationship from factual data.
-Since the war in Iraq has started there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil. Therefore we should continue the war indefinitely to ensure this trend continues.
-The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to the killing or capturing of over 15,000 enemy combatants. Before these wars the United States had only been able to kill or capture terrorists and their supporters in small numbers.
-The Normandy invasion was a failure due to the fact that it was launched in an attempt to help end the war, but directly led to an increase of US casualties, and a 100,000 fold increase of violence against US personnel in France.
-The Normandy invasion was a complete success due to the fact that it provided a foot hold in an area which was needed to bring about the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime.
The facts I presented you, represented by the events, numbers and data, are accurate. The conclusion I came too changed. Therefore to present opinions as fact, because they are supported by data, is simply not enough. You must impartially look at the data presented and determine if the conclusion is a fair one.
—“Fact 5: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Terror is violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. A Reign of Terror is a state or a period of time marked by violence often committed by those in power that produces wide spread terror.”
Or”Terrorism is premeditated; perpetrated by a sub national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target.”
I must tell you Meagan that you are confusing the act of instilling terror with our common understanding of terrorism. Every army form the dawn of time has sought to instill terror in the opposing army. This is not the same as an enemy targeting non-combatants in order to bring about a result they cannot hope to achieve by engaging the opposing force. To try and compare the two, I think is disingenuous, and forgive me, but a bit insulting.
You cannot honestly believe that there is no difference between the terror a combatant feels in the course of battle, and the act of terrorism which is directed against non combatants in order to get ones way.
Make no mistake Meagan, the only people really confused about the morals and culture of our military reside solely in America and those countries to which we do not fight. Our enemies in Iraq recognize our benign nature towards non-combatants and exploit it every chance they get. They do so with the full complicity of western media which is more than willing to ignore statements from the military at the same time that they report the statements of terrorist organization.
—“My Opinion: These are not facts, these are my truths. Americas actions in Iraq flirt dangerously with the definition of terrorism. Our actions in Iraq are facilitating a backlash that we never could have imagined from the terrorist community. Instead of waging war on terrorism, we have instigated a drastic response. And become more like the terrorists we condemn then the world saviors we view ourselves as. Continued military force in Iraq is only going to continue this trend. We are fighting an un-win-able war. I do not feel that troops should be completely pulled out of Iraq, because we have created such a tumultuous situation – we would be condemning those people to more hurt and death. But their focus should be changed from the aggressor to the supporter, and we should begin to enable the Iraqi people to take care of themselves. America invaded their country under false pretenses, and many innocent civilians have been killed in a war they had nothing to do with. I ask myself, how would Americans respond in this situation? And how can we justify our actions?”
–But their focus should be changed from the aggressor to the supporter, and we should begin to enable the Iraqi people to take care of themselves.
What would you have us do different Meagan? Almost every time I conducted a mission in Iraq, it was with the assistance of the Iraqis, or it was THEIR mission, to which I came along as an adviser.
And how do you define supporter vs. aggressor? Do you believe that aggressive action is not support? If that is the case, then I propose to you the following scenario.
You are in your front yard mowing your lawn, when all of a sudden you here gun shots coming form down the street. You look up to see 2 men with masks jump out of a car and run into your neighbors house. You quickly call the police.
When the police arrive, do you want them to,
a. Run in the house, and kill or capture the perpetrators who have apparently ambushed your neighbor with the intent to kill her,
or
b. Help you mow the rest of your lawn.
Which action by the police would constitute support in your mind? Well, they both would. Which form of support would you prefer in this given instance?
From my experience, it is when we are the most aggressive in Iraq that we receive the most support from the local populace. They want to know that we are going to provide stability by, through and with Iraqi forces.
—America invaded their country under false pretenses and many innocent civilians have been killed in a war they had nothing to do with. I ask myself, how would Americans respond in this situation? And how can we justify our actions?
One can argue that some of our pretenses were mistaken, but how can one accurately claim they were false? What was false about our intent to remove Saddam from power? What was false about our desire to prevent Iraq from continuing to be a state sponsor of terrorism? What was false about our desire to bring about the end of his human rights violations? What was false about our desire to see that he had in fact destroyed any illegal weapons stocks he had? None of these were false pretenses.
Saddam Husseins desire to become involved in greater support for terrorist organizations was absolutely unacceptable. We could not allow it. Therefore I think it is very easy to justify our actions. Especially when one considers the enormous amount of pain we go to in an attempt to ensure minimal civilian casualties and collateral damage.