war thoughts

[alonewiththemoon]

I never approved of going into Iraq, but once we were there, I thought we ought to stay until the country was back on its feet and we'd fixed all the stuff we'd broken--kind of a you break it, you buy it approach.  I still think that would have been the right thing to do, if we had been willing to treat Iraqis as equal or greater partners in the process, thereby employing people and getting the economy going.  But obviously the coalition of the willing was not willing to let Iraqis really join the coalition.  At this point, after reading news reports and Iraqi blogs and interviews with all sorts of involved parties, I honestly think the best thing would be for us to get the troops out and be supportive from a distance.  I think at this point the US presence is provocative and is detrimental to creating a stable Iraq.  In my ideal dream world, we would withdraw the majority of our troops, keeping a well-guarded embassy open, and provide consultants to the industries, utilities and businesses of Iraq to help them get the electricity running, the schools open and safe, the buildings rebuilt, the general populace employed,  etc.  And, of course, we could use all the money we'd be saving by not supporting troops over there to help those industries, utilities, etc get started. 

I am dreaming, because in my little dream world all the Iraqis would band together out of civic pride, and it's probably too late for that now.  But still, I read of 300 Iraqis killed in a single weekend, 300 human beings characterized as thugs and talked about as though they were rabid dogs put down for the safety of everyone else, and it's hard to see how things could be a lot worse. 

Comments

[silas7.livejournal.com]

I was going to post on list about something similar...

In a sense the damage is done. Al-Sadr is convince that the government of Iraq is just a puppet for the Americans, one and the same entity. He and the other (foreign) insurgents are doing everything they can to help keep the country in chaos. Now they hole up in possibly the holiest place in Iraq, and dare the US to attack them, knowing the rest of the Arab world would call for our heads if we desecreated their temple.

What about the militants hiding in the temple? Don't they desecreate it by their very violent presence? Doesn't using it as a shield cheapen the shrine and turn it into a "hostage?" I wouldn't want someone moving into St. Peter's Basilica and using it as a base for military action.

I agree totally that the US doesn't treat the Iraqi's as equals. Things are certainly not stable with our presence there. A big part of that blame has to fall on the insurgents too. They would hate America just as fiercely if we weren't in the country.

I could be horribly idealistic, but now that the war is over, we are trying to get the country stable, and functional. The insurgents are trying to pull it back down into chaos. I have sympathy for the man whose children were killed in the war, but I have no sympathy for those who bring about more killing and violence.

[alonewiththemoon]

A big part of that blame has to fall on the insurgents too. They would hate America just as fiercely if we weren't in the country.

yeah, but they wouldn't bother to do anything about it, because we wouldn't be in their faces interfering in their lives. I think that many Iraqis agree that the militants are holding the shrines hostage, but the militants won't be the ones held responsible if the shrines are damaged in the fighting. Even if local Iraqis accepted that the militants brought the destruction on through their own actions, the rest of the Arab world would just see Americans blowing up mosques. That might not be fair, but that's the way it is, and it's another reason we should leave.

I have sympathy for the man whose children were killed in the war, but I have no sympathy for those who bring about more killing and violence.

but if you were that man, and the people responsible for killing your children were patrolling your street everyday and making you go through checkpoints in your own country and randomly arresting people you know and you feel sure that the people leading your country are just puppets, and then you hear about the whole Abu Ghraib thing, you might come to the conclusion that the only way to get the occupiers out of your country is to stand up for yourself and try to bully right back. I'm not excusing that behavior, but I think that we are perpetuating it just by being there and by continually doing things to reinforce the Iraqi-on-the-street perception of the Americans as the Roman Empire, part II.

I also think we are trying to get Iraq stable and functional on our terms, not theirs--it might well be a more stable society with an ayatollah as leader, but we won't let that happen because we don't like that kind of society, hence continuing the instability.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

You're totally right. America would be the biggest villain ever if we blew up or damaged the shrines. It's a good tactical strategy to hole up in the shrines. When protesters point at the damaged mosques and say how terrible the Coalition for "shelling their cultural heritage", I just feel like saying "Hey, if you sit in a chuch and shoot rockets at me..." At this stage, the Iraqi government has to be the one to figure out how to deal with clerics lik Al-Sadr.

It's tough. I truly believe that we aren't going to turn Iraq into an Americal colony, but our presence there could be inciting more violence. If we were doing things differently, maybe the reaction would be different. They lived all this time under Saddam, you think they'd have a little more patience.

Man, I totally feel like a white educated liberal writing that. :(

I still feel like we have to be there, but we really need to start doing things differently. Like say, getting a new Commander in Chief.

[alonewiththemoon]

I still feel like we have to be there, but we really need to start doing things differently. Like say, getting a new Commander in Chief.

so seriouslah!!