Cracks in the Wall

Remove all ads!

It's not been a great kept secret that the war in Iraq has been going poorly. With each passing month it begins to resemble the war in Vietnam - a huge foreign black hole where American blood and treasure has disappeared with no end in sight. Plus, the endless suffering of those having to live in a country that is a dangerous and unsafe for them (understatement here).

There is no real reason to revisit the causes of the war. Or if whether America should be there or not. It would seem that the best course in the ongoing dialogue is to determine how fast we can make a safe exit from a situation that is only draining America of vital manpower and resources, and inflicting terrible suffering on Iraqis.

After two years, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq "was not worth it." And a little over 40 percent still clinging to the idea that all this will someday be worth it. If it shrinks to less than 40 percent that would put it among the hardcore Bush people who would take, and believe anything, their fearful leader tells them, like lemmings casting themselves into the outer darkness, rather than admit that America should have focused on Afghanistan instead - and the admission that the war in Iraq is a bloody, horrid mess.

But after two years the cracks are starting to appear: The media that was the big, mindless cheerleader for the Bush people is finally starting to take a long hard look at the grim reality that is the "new Iraq." And it ain't pretty:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek/

This is a great article and it is a companion piece to one which ran last week. As the media begins to zero in on the reality of Iraq, the cracks in the wall of support that the media has maintained for the Bush people over the last two years may cause the walls to come tumbling down.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7774784/site/newsweek/

[ May 14, 2005, 01:45: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I did not have time to read the articles completeley now so I'll just comment your post with a few words. I'll read them at work though and post additional comments later if required.

This is pretty much stating the obvious. Did someone actually expect that an election just makes the insurgency disappear? I sure did not.
The Iraqi democracy is fragile and will remain fragile for a long time. The big question is really when US troops leave what kind of a leader will be left for Iraq? A democratic reformist or a US backed dictator?

Eventually it will all lie on the hands of one or a couple of men and their agendas. I just hope they are not of the corrupt twisted kind.

As for US troops and their exit. If you want to keep Iraq somehow in one piece you have to train an army and that takes time especially when you disband the old one completely. And training an army from 0 takes time, probably a few years. Of course US could try and get more international support but that would require swallowing a lot of pride and I doubt the US would do that very easily, and of course I doubt their pleas would be listened to anyway.

 

I think that the military should be trained on how to respect Iraqi culture, as a lot of things hapened because of misunderstandings or blatent arrogance eg at the start of the war, soldiers had huge posters of scantily clad women, and this naturally angered Iraqis. I know Bush made an apology for the prison abuses (though it was half hearted) but the light sentences were just a slap in the face to the victims and families involved. Things like that could make a huge difference in swaying Iraqi opinions of US military.

From what I have read, Japans military are only one of the only respected units in Iraq (Britian lost its credibility with their own abuses).

 

Hmm.. IIRC Japan doesn't really have a military. It was in their new constitution after WWII. They aren't allowed to have a military. Probably just support personnel. Back to topic...

 

My point was that everyone can learn from the Japanese, its not too late to turn things around.

Most Iraqis wanted rid of Sadam anyway, so why all the hostilities? Well I think it was 90% due to the arrogance of foreign military (I am talking about everyone, not just US forces).

People are not going to be greatful for foreigners comitting abuses, destorying their Korans, kicking people out of their homes, stealing their possesions and acting like they own their country. But like I said, this can easily be turned around...

 

They don't have a military, they have a "defense force" *wink wink*

 

Right. Would anyone here direct me to a site which can tell me their actual strength? I've always been curious and let's stop posting off-topic stuff. Chandos might start freaking out.

 

Charlie,
Japans military expenditures (2004): $45.841 billion (1% of GDP) from the CIA factbook . According tho the CIA Japan has the third highest military expenditures in the world, after the US and China. It's an interesting site, they don't have any troop numbers though.

 

Chandos, you have forgotten that nation building is "hard work". It is "long and difficult, really really hard work that we are doing over there. In summary, we are doing "good work there, but it is hard work". (sorry couldn't resist picking on Bush; even I have to admit he looked stupid in that debate ).

Seriously, these things do take time, and in a republic such as ours, war weariness sets in quickly, especially with some of the other news that has put us in a bad light. There seems to have been a marked increase in the military/insurgent activity in the last week (at least on the news). I am not sure if that is really just a false perception, the US stepping up its activity, the insurgents stepping up their activity, or a little of all the above. This could be a good thing, indicating that everything is reaching its peak, a bad thing in that it indicates that things are slipping away, or it could mean nothing at all.

Speaking with the few military personnel I run accross, they do not paint as dark a picture as the press about the situation. I am not sure if this is because they do not see the big picture, I have only run into "patriotic" soldiers who are unwilling to talk down about what they are working on, or if the press has some agenda.

Statistically, Iraq and Vietnam have little, if anything in common. The likelihood of a "Tet Offensive" occurring and pushing us out is unlikely, although admittedly it was thought unlikely in 1967 that the NVA could pull off such an attack, and the casualties are not anywhere near as high.

Regardless, I think it is a little early to jump on the Ted Kennedy bandwagon and start claiming that this is another Vietnam.

 

It could not possibly become another Vietnam. The Iraqi insurgents may be effective when hiding within buildings but in the open they are as good as dead. That means that they must rely on individual terrorist stirkes which can only cause limited chaos as long as nobody screws up and they get to hijack a tank or something similar.

The question is will Bush be able to handle the Iraq situatation under his second presidental term. If not Americans will only become more and more weary of the war and it might lead to a immidiate withdrawal of troops after Bush's term is done. Then Iraq will be left to deal with its problems by itself. By that time there should be some kind of an army up, but if it's unified and loyal enough to the democratic government is another thing.

 

It's the WMD's!

No! It's Saddam!

No! It's Liberation and Democracy!

(So much oil, and never mentioned: proof of our altruism.)

This wall, like the people who constructed it, has been cracked from the beginning. Let the innocent dead--and the guilty dead also, of course-- take solace from these specious excuses, if the dead can feel solace. I agree with Chandos: there are bitter weeds in this field, and we'll have our fill of them before we leave it.