Democrats in Congress have long used the cost of the Iraq war as a talking point. The left has always loathed the military – see Bill Clinton’s famous quote – and who can forget their wish that the Air Force would have to hold bake sales to buy its planes?
I was reminded of this looking at the comments at Townhall.com following an essay by Douglas MacKinnon entitled U.S. Military Defeats Fourth Estate.
Among the comments I found one by “jerabaub” that touched on this issue. He says in part:
…if Americans knew in March of 2003 what they now know on Iraq, they would not have supported it.
They are asking questions: "Was Iraq worth the cost?"..."What was accomplished?"..."As a result of the invasion, has the threat from Islam extremists lessened, or worsened?"
The surge may bring temporary good news, but these questions will not go away.
And the answer to these questions will determine whether the Bush presidency is viewed by history as a success or a failure.
As an amateur historian with an interest in war histories, Among the issues surrounding virtually any war, the cost of the thing is almost never discussed when the subject of whether wars should have been fought or not. I posted this reply:
… the people proposing the question: “was Iraq worth the cost” are the same members of the media joined at the hip to the Liberal leaders in Congress. Most rational people don’t look at war that way. They look at whether a war is won or lost.One of the most brutal and costly wars in our history was the Civil War. I know of almost no serious person today who does not consider that war to have been worthwhile. Yet the war was not inevitable. All President Lincoln had to do to avoid war was to allow the Southern States to secede.
In the first battle of the war, Fort Sumter, no one was killed. Had Lincoln chosen to preside over a diminished United States, all the bloodshed - 600,000 dead - of that horrible war would have been avoided. The cost to the US Treasury would have been avoided. The ruined lands would have remained fertile. The material result of the Civil War was a destroyed South which did not recover from physical devastation for a century.
But if people want to raise the issue of whether wars are worth the cost, then be honest and apply to all wars. Would you like to open that Pandora’s box? Was the Civil War worth it? World War 1 & 2? How about the Mexican War that took most of the Southwest from Mexico and made it part of the United States? Should we re-examine the presidencies of Lincoln, Polk, Wilson, and Roosevelt?
At the time, there were people of good will who opposed these wars. In fact, during the Civil War, the Democrats ran General McClellan on a peace platform.
Among the people who opposed the Mexican War were Lincoln (then a Representative) and Grant (who fought in the Mexican war).
And don’t try to tell me that those wars were forced on us. No war is ever forced. There is always the option of doing nothing or surrender.
The response from “jerabaub” was very interesting:
As far as costs of wars are concerned, WW2 contained astronomical costs, yet Americans gladly paid the price. It was seen as in our national interest, to preserve a nation(England)and continent from which over 90% of our parents and ancestors had emigrated, and from whom we had modeled our governance and society, and from whom our founders were indebted(the writings of John Locke). And with regard to the Mexican war, at least we obtained vast territories. And our civil war was about preserving OUR republic, not refereeing ancient muslim and tribal animosities.
Not one defense of the “cost” of wars based on the treasure expended or men killed. So when the argument is made, the counters of “cost” ignores costs. It is whether we win or lose after all. Even the Mexican war, arguably a vast land grab, was defended on the basis that we “obtained vast territories.” None of the old European imperial emperors could have said it better.
And the people of the Middle East, the Iraqis fed into shredders, abducted to rape rooms and gassed if they stood against the tyrant? They are dismissed; not related to us, not our European ancestors, a bunch of sub humans involved in “tribal animosities.” The fact that that culture and that region bred the 9/11 killers and their ilk that spread their death and hatred throughout the world is conveniently ignored.
And no, I’m not making the claim that Saddam is behind 9/11. What I am saying is that the problem that allowed 9/11 to happen is much bigger than Osama and his merry men. It involves the entire Middle East and the Islamofascists culture. Saddam was part of that culture and happened to be a good starting point for taking on that culture and drawing its teeth. Otherwise that culture could come back to kill us in even larger numbers that will make 9/11 look like batting practice.
The 9/11 attacks are only the second time that Americans suffered large scale casualties on American soil in the opening stages of any war. The war we are in is not limited to Osama, to Afghanistan or - surprising to some - only the Middle East. It is a global war of ideologies.
Just as the first offensive use of American troops against the Nazis was not in Germany but in Africa (and Africans did not attack us) so the initial phases of this war has been against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike World War 2, this war will be longer and more dispersed.
We have not even begun to attack the enemy's center. This is a war of ideology wrapped in religion. It is fueled by petrodollars.
This administration's major failure has been to fail to make clear to the American people what this war means. It believes that the war can be fought with the military and has not really tried to rally the nation. I believe that his is the result of Bush's personality. Despite the lurid claims of his opponents, he believes it is beneath him to appeal to our emotions. He gives us facts; other wartime leaders had no problem demonizing our enemies. As a result, "jerabaub" and millions like him do not believe we are really in a war for our very lives. They believe that all we really need is some police work. Meanwhile to West continues to fall under the shadow of Sharia.
UPDATE: from the archives, more thoughts on the "cost":
HOW THE LEFT DOESN'T GET RED STATE AMERICA [Andy McCarthy]
Regarding Iraq and the war on terror, I got this email from a patriot who describes herself as "a military wife":
... I like to see facts presented in a simple, straightforward manner. I have long been baffled as to why some people still do not understand why we are in Iraq. I am "just" a homemaker, most of my time being spent taking care of my husband and my home. But I read, and I listen, and even I have been aware of many of the Iraqi terrorist connections mentioned in your article. So it has been puzzling to me that self-sharpened pointy-headed liberals, like Reid and Gergen and those at the New York Times, so stridently deny any connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is the motive? Is it that ignoring or denying the connections frees them from the responsibility of taking or supporting action? Could it be that simple?
Things are pretty simple in my world.
You recognize the connections, you support the action (or take it, if you are able). You don't recognize the connections, you don't support the action.
Men and women rotate in and out of Iraq. We call it "The Sandbox." When they leave, we cry. When they get home, we cry some more. They go off to fight, we hold the fort. Everybody does their job.
The terrorists are bent on attacking Americans. The Americans are going to be either highly trained, heavily armed professionals over there, or happily oblivious, defenseless civilians over here. You choose.
Some say the above is only valid until we are attacked on U.S. soil again. Oh, I don't know. I've kind of enjoyed the last four years of being able to go to Wal-Mart without fear of being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber.
The media lament the influx of "insurgents" into Iraq. So…the terrorists flooding into the waiting arms of the most lethal military around is a bad thing?
Many want a "timetable" for the end of the war. Me too. As soon as the terrorists announce their timetable for implementing a "Be Sweet to Infidels" policy, we should reciprocate by announcing our timetable for ending the war.
Too many troops killed, they say. Now if the troops are the ones fighting and dying in the war (and they are), and the President enjoys overwhelming support among the troops (and he does), then there must be something the media are missing. Hmmmm…
Too much money spent, they say. There is always a price to be paid. You pay in taxes, the troops pay in blood. You choose. (Also, see above.)
So what is my point? Simply this: The politicians, the pundits and the media need to get out of the military's way and let them do their job. Reid and Gergen and their ilk don't have to worry that they'll be asked to do anything scary if they acknowledge the obvious connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. Lots of people have already recognized them and have volunteered for the scary stuff. It's 9/11, stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment