Michael, Anchorage, AK
"I applaud Justin Leblanc responding to the ongoing discussion of his first letter and doing so after much thought and in a more rational manner than before. I believe his views represent a good chunk of the populace and, having myself served, I think it represents the feelings of those in the service who truly still believe in the cause of the war in Iraq. But I think his argument, and too many of the current discussions surrounding the decision to go to war, misses the point of the debate that took place in late 2002-early 2003 on the rationale for going to war, the objections to it, and what the debate should focus on today and as we proceed into the future. It IS our duty as soldiers to fight for those who cannot stand for themselves, but that must be put into perspective with our first duty, which is to act in the best interest of this country's security.
In 1998, when we took down Milosevic's regime, we hadn't just lost 3,000 of our fellow citizens to a major attack on the U.S. homeland nor were we already committed to numerous military operations elsewhere. Bin Laden was looming on the horizon and his network was committing scattered attacks, but he wouldn't be recognized as a terror mastermind until later in that year. We saw ongoing genocide, and we had no time to wait to act.
Iraq, however, was another matter. In Iraq, we had sanctions in place for 12 years, we were closely monitoring him, and his regime was growing weaker by the day. He was still doing despicable things, but not on a scale to justify an invasion at that time. We argued doing so would take valuable resources away from the war effort against Al Qa'eda, had the potential to bog us down and cost us too much money, ran the risk of destabilizing the region, and could become a key recruiting tool for bin Laden and his terror network, and finally, that maybe it would serve to spread democracy throughout the region. As a response to these concerns, we were generally shouted down as being unpatriotic or living in a pre-911 world, but specifically we received a few answers from administration officials.
As it turns out, most of the objections have come to pass (with the exception of regional destabilization, but unless we get really lucky from here on out that could still very easily happen if either the Kurds or the Sunnis decide they don't like the way Iraq is progressing), but that doesn't matter to the hawks out there. They continue to spin the justification for the cause of the war, label all naysayers as unpatriotic and anti-military, and cloud the issue surrounding what happened from August of 2002 thru May of 2003, hoping that all will either be forgotten or dismissed merely as rehashing "old news." But, the record of what happened is pretty clear. President Bush, on the reasons for the war resolution, here.
On the prospect of conflict to follow the removal of Saddam Hussein, Tim Russert received these responses from Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003:
VP Cheney: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.
Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VP Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House.
...
The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
On the U.S. Commitment:
It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -Sec Donald Rumsfeld, 7 Feb 2003
On the budget:
The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid. - Budget director Mitch Daniels, 28 March 2003
The official line, refusing to answer direct questions about the problems with the invasion, fell back on how Hussein was a threat, how he was working to acquire WMD, how he could pass them to terrorists who could use them against the U.S. and therefore we couldn't wait. At the same time, they downplayed the real questions surrounding our strategy and reasons for going to war, dismissed those who questioned the intelligence as not being privy to all the relevant information. (We should trust Bush and our leaders to make these decisions, we don't need to exercise oversight.)
As the insurgency rages on, and we learn more about how inaccurate the case for war was and how poorly the planning was for sustaining the conflict, the justification continues to shift. Neocons now claim the goal was regime change to spread democracy, as was in fact the goal of PNAC and other think tanks, but that was always only a minor part of the official justification. Many Neocons even freely admit that, were that the true justification presented to the American people, they would have rejected it. The truth is the administration used the fears of Americans after 9-11 as the means to go after someone that President Bush wanted to take out since well before his inauguration and well before 9-11 and thus, 9-11 became an excuse and not the cause of the war, and therein lays the problem. Even if suddenly everything goes right in Iraq, if tomorrow a strong democracy emerges in Iraq, the insurgents disappear, and we can pull out of Iraq, that would not justify the means for this war.
First off, if we succeed given this strategy, it will be due more to dumb luck than to the strategy we went into the war with. This is likely why so many Americans don't want to celebrate when we are successful, they are terrified that it will be used to justify the means by which we entered this war, and may be used for justification for a future war on as flimsy of circumstances against another nation such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or whatever other threats might emerge in the near future, not because they aren't proud of our soldiers or aren't patriotic Americans. The war has thusfar resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein, but at a high cost. We are budgeted to spend close to $400 billion by next year on the war, we have lost 1,700 service men and women, thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the insurgency, we have not notably damaged the Al Qa'eda network (arguably we have allowed it to become stronger), and our deterrent against other nations such as Iran and North Korea has been diminished both by a weakened and overstretched military and by the global perception that America couldn't stomach another war right now.
You think the removal of Hussein was worth it? Fine. Personally, I think we could have waited five years, finished the job in Afghanistan, built a real democracy there (not just anoint Karzai mayor of Kabul and leave the warlords running most of the show), captured bin Laden and Zawahiri, and then, laid the foundation to fight the right war against Saddam Hussein after a reasonable period of time. Unfortunately, the timing and planning for this war have compounded our problems, and we are stuck in essentially a no-win situation. If you're happy with that, that's your call. Frankly, America and our Armed Forces deserve better."
While I don't think going into Afghanistan really solved anything ... Regarding the rest? Couldn't have said it better ...
