Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Oh NO! Bush May Have Been Right! - Liberals Are Soul Searching Over The Iraq Election

Could the Iraq Election be the turning point for some Liberals in their constant bashing of President Bush over the Iraq conflict? Read on. To see the entire article, click on the title.

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.


Cowboy Blob said...

Howdy! I haven't tried CAS yet because the local club shoots on the same day as my Combat Match League and my best friend/shooting buddy is on a tight college student schedule (he lives up in Glendale, close to the range).

Ya know, you should do some SASS-blogging too. Describe some stages, post some pics, flesh out some of the colorful personalities that play the game. I met lotsa SASS folks on the movie set of "Ghost Rock." (We were mostly unpaid extras.) Nice folk, mostly.

Political Zen said...

(as response to your question on my blog)

If your understanding is that the war in Iraq is being waged to make America secure and fight terrorism, then I am sure that no amount of money is too much. I don't feel that much of a case has been made that Iraq or Hussein had any real connection with terrorism, so I am not sure how the war is preventing terrorist from attacking Americans on U.S. soil.

Not feeling that the war was legitimate, either by employing the criteria of Just War or any other measured ethical approach, I am quite bothered by all of the costs - human and monetary alike. Realizing, of course, that the $105 billion in "emergency" funds are not funds that would be applied to any domestic issues (poverty, health, education, etc.) because these programs are funded in the general budget. Most legislators, with a few notable exceptions (Kennedy, et al.), are unwilling to tackle this issue for fear of being branded "un-american". Most of the additional funds are slated for payroll and necessary equipment, so to oppose is viewed as opposing the troops themselves - not a good position if you want to be reelected.

To the central question, what is my solution? I field this question often and it is always puzzling why you ask someone who was against the war to suggest a solution to the intractable mess. If this was posed prior to invading, my answer would be to leave Iraq alone. Remember, they were not threatening the U.S. or it's allies and did not have the capability to do so. After the fact, I would suggest an immediate, phased pullout. Acknowledging the difficulties on the ground right now, I feel our presence is as detrimental as it is beneficial, inciting as much violence as it is preventing.

The vote this weekend was a wonderful thing, but we have not been able to fulfill our promise of restoring any of the essential services like electrical, water, oil production, etc. and most objective analysts consider these areas to be well below pre-war levels. We can lend technical support, keep some monitoring force on the ground, and encourage other Arab nations to participate - the "Beast of Baghdad" is in jail and it is now the job of the Iraqi citizens to determine their own path.

The latest poll in Iraq indicates that over 80% want the U.S. military to leave. Lets begin to listen to the people we are supposedly trying to help.

nonpcpundit said...

I see you probably didn't like my post. My only thought is, check history. The U.S. has repeatedly tried to democratize. Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Haiti, South Vietnam---all of them have blown up against us one way or the other eventually. Even ones we tried to save people from themselves without starting a new government, like Somalia......I still say, "one election don't make no democracy." Democracy is not an institution you dump on somebody. It has to start from within by the people themselves, who throw off the shackles of dictators and then set about creating the institutions that SUPPORT a CULTURE of democracy, the way the U.S. started out. I agree that we have to give due credit to the Iraqis who braved terrorists to vote. And I also agree that even though we probably should not have gone in there in the first place, we should have beat that place senseless and we wouldn't have had the problems we have had the last year and a half. (See my earlier posts on my site to get my drift). Yet, even though those people wanted Saddam Hussein out, we have no idea what they were really thinking about when they voted. Hopefully this will turn out for the better, but we shouldn't get our hopes up too high too fast. Like your site by the way.