| It's not exactly a realistic depiction of positions.
Some people who say they are "against the war" want US troops removed, although they know this could easily intensify the war. That's not "against the war", that's "against our participation in it." Others who support our participation do so not because they want "a war" but because they know that there are positive feedbacks created by our participation. Very few of the "Against the war" types, well, none, actually, promote any kind of strategy that would actually end the war.
It's like describing yourself as "against poverty" when your actions are only self interested.
And no one "pro-war" would be pro-war in the absence of any positive result. All the pro-war positions are actually positions in favor of positive outcomes we can achieve.
Or, equally important: negative outcomes we might prevent.
Note well here: At this stage in the game, denying a positive result to Al-Queda is in fact a positive result for us. It's all gone zero-sum; like a balance scale, anything added to one is taken away from another.
Anti-war folks beware: there is not a single American soldier in Darfur. American casualties there have been zero. And we have killed no enemy there. Therefor, you have succeeded in preventing war there, right? Good work!
So let's go for some honesty here. There's only one actual anti-war movement, which has people going door to door in the nastiest areas trying to get the locals not to fight. Those anti-war activists wear camoflauge. It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world.
Bush is not the only one who must beware of Unintended Consequences.
I think it's time the "anti-American participation in the Iraqi war" movement gave us some answers to questions:
1) How would each of the principal parties in Iraq react in the short term?
2) How would Iraqis who were supporting Americans or working for Americans be perceived and treated in the aftermath?
3) How would that influence people in the future who might be asked to support an American military operation?
4) How would this be viewed and exploited by theocratically leaning radicals such as Al Queda and Iran?
5) What is their historical, traditional reaction to a perception of weakness in an enemy?
6) Would Al Queda and associated groups promote this as a "defeat" for America? And how would they exploit that?
7) No longer forced to contest American power in Iraq, where would Al Queda focus its efforts and resources next? Would they go for easy pickings in weaker states or seek to capitalize on the moment by direct attacks on the US?
8) The worst possible case is of course this: Sunni/Shi'ia violence ramps up. Without American stability, Iran is unconstrained and openly supports their local favorites, Sadr et al. The Saudis feel obligated to do likewise in the face of shi'ia terror unleashed at Sunni civilians. With religious fundamentalists calling the shots on both sides, the Sunni/Shi'ia war devastates the region, Saudis and Iranians take pot shots at each others' economy, oil exports slow, there is a world wide recession, and as the standards of living drop around the world, infant mortality climbs, death rates soar, we get more poverty, and all the death and misery associated with poverty. Have you considered this? If so, is this an acceptable outcome? Or do you think that despite their behavior, Iran's leadership will prove benevolent and docile, and would have no designs on Iraq once the dreaded Americans are gone?
9) Can you honestly tell me that you have thought through the consequences with a logical, rational mindframe and still believe that the consequences of a withdrawal are less than the consequences of persevering? Or is your position motivated more by a desire to see those you despise be humbled? Let them all die, let the havoc be unleashed, so long as Bush and Cheney are held accountable?
10) So then can we be honest and go forth with an understanding that you do in fact support the war, it's just that the present war is way, way too small for your more apocalylptic tastes?
SGTObvious |
