NationStates Jolt Archive

The majority of the American people were in favor of war with Iraq before it started. I was against it. I thought it was a bad gamble. There was too much to lose, too little to win, and the odds were bad to boot.

Now it seems public opinion is shifting. Many people feel they were lied to, and many want to see us get out of Iraq immediately, or at least to tell the terrorists exactly when we plan to leave so that they know just how long they have to hold out. I, on the other hand, beleive that once a task like this is begun we are responsible for finishing it. We must build a strong and stable Iraqi government capable of safeguarding it's people and providing basic services for them. To do anything less would be to betray the people of Iraq and to say that our troops sacrificed and died in vain.

Why are so many of my people unable to see this tough and expensive endeavor through to the end despite their initial support for it?

People are lazy, and have no comprehension of the sacrifice that war takes.

I didn't want my country to go into Iraq. But now we are upto our necks in it there is no choice but to stay and see the job through. I still hold major reservations about what took us to war but I would never betray the armed forces efforts in Iraq to say they should get out now

People are impatient. They don't understand how long and what it takes to accomplish things like this. They are impractical and have too little perspective.

The majority of the American people were in favor of war with Iraq before it started. I was against it. I thought it was a bad gamble. There was too much to lose, too little to win, and the odds were bad to boot.

Now it seems public opinion is shifting. Many people feel they were lied to, and many want to see us get out of Iraq immediately, or at least to tell the terrorists exactly when we plan to leave so that they know just how long they have to hold out. I, on the other hand, beleive that once a task like this is begun we are responsible for finishing it. We must build a strong and stable Iraqi government capable of safeguarding it's people and providing basic services for them. To do anything less would be to betray the people of Iraq and to say that our troops sacrificed and died in vain.

Why are so many of my people unable to see this tough and expensive endeavor through to the end despite their initial support for it?

Easy 24 hour news coverage. Support for a war isn'y easily made and even harder to keep. FDR kept us in the blind for most of the battles in WW2. Now we have a couple 24 hours news networks that give an insane amount of coverage to the death toll instead of anything else in Iraq. It doesn't help when the politicians start pointing fingers for whose to blame. Not to mention that most americans are completely ignorant of foriegn affairs. It's sad but true. Way to go public school system.

Too much television? Americans are conditioned to having their "storylines" wrapped up in 60 minutes, maybe 120 minutes, with the bad guys getting theirs and the heroes moving on to the next adventure. I was for the war from the beginning, though not because of the WMD issue( we are finishing what we should have completed a decade ago, and as a consequence it's costing more). And for anyone who opposes the war, I have a simple question. What makes you think that us withdrawing is going to stop the suicide bombers/insurgents from continuing their campaign until they control the government, leaving us with a 21st century incarnation of Saddam in place, and probably a fundimentalist moslim version at that? We do it right this time or else our kids or grandkids will be cleaning up our mess a generation from now.

we have very similar opinions, drunk.

i too find it upsetting that people like my inlaws who were very gungho on the war now feel that we should just wash our hands of it and walk away

its such a bad idea. its wrong morally and even more wrong politically. the last thing we need in this world is to give the "bad guys" the impression that if you just outlast us, we'll go away and you can have whatever you want. this is what bin laden told his followers back when we left somalia, we dont want to confirm it in their minds.

i suppose its because they never thought through the implications of invading a country who never did anything to us. they were told it would be quick and easy (and that it was necessary) and now that they see it was all lies, they want to pretend it never happened. they are again not thinking through the implications of the actions they want us to take.

i just hope that it will give the administration the push it needs to actually end our occupation in a timely manner and to know that we dont want to be in iraq forever.

Why are so many of my people unable to see this tough and expensive endeavor through to the end despite their initial support for it?
Short attention span. Europe has been trying to sort out the problems in Bosnia for 15 years on many levels, the US wants a quick easy fix, move on to something else. It's the reaction of a kid - break something, then "Bo-riiing!"

we have very similar opinions, drunk.

i too find it upsetting that people like my inlaws who were very gungho on the war now feel that we should just wash our hands of it and walk away

its such a bad idea. its wrong morally and even more wrong politically. the last thing we need in this world is to give the "bad guys" the impression that if you just outlast us, we'll go away and you can have whatever you want. this is what bin laden told his followers back when we left somalia, we dont want to confirm it in their minds.

i suppose its because they never thought through the implications of invading a country who never did anything to us. they were told it would be quick and easy (and that it was necessary) and now that they see it was all lies, they want to pretend it never happened. they are again not thinking through the implications of the actions they want us to take.

i just hope that it will give the administration the push it needs to actually end our occupation in a timely manner and to know that we dont want to be in iraq forever.

I think that's well-said. Unlike you I supported the war, but that's irrelevant at this point. I fail to see how we can withdraw until forces, both political and military, are in place to provide the stability required for self-governance.

Withdrawal is capitulation to the terrorists and will do us and the Iraqi's much harm in the future.

I am concerned that a "timetable for withdrawal" will only embolden the terrorists. Creating an effective Iraqi miltary and police force will take years and the new government has a lot of learning to do. We can't leave until they are ready - and we don't know when that will be. Any timetable created now is purely artificial and has no practical bearing on when our leaving is beneficial.

Ya, you americans fucked up pretty bad, but you do have a good chance for.. redemption. Solve the problem, and all will be forgotten. Don't solve the problem, and you will be condemned in all history books.

You have your own people? Cool!

You have your own people? Cool!
Wanna buy a few million of them? I'll even sell you the delux Florida playset to keep them in.

I was anti war, still am. However if we are in, we're in for the long haul. Walk away and Iraq is shattered for good.

Wanna buy a few million of them? I'll even sell you the delux Florida playset to keep them in.
Only if it'll help reduce the debt/deficit.

Easy 24 hour news coverage. Support for a war isn'y easily made and even harder to keep. FDR kept us in the blind for most of the battles in WW2. Now we have a couple 24 hours news networks that give an insane amount of coverage to the death toll instead of anything else in Iraq. It doesn't help when the politicians start pointing fingers for whose to blame. Not to mention that most americans are completely ignorant of foriegn affairs. It's sad but true. Way to go public school system.
Public school system??

Shouldn't you be saying, "Way to go telecommunications."?

I think that's well-said. Unlike you I supported the war, but that's irrelevant at this point. I fail to see how we can withdraw until forces, both political and military, are in place to provide the stability required for self-governance.

Withdrawal is capitulation to the terrorists and will do us and the Iraqi's much harm in the future.

I am concerned that a "timetable for withdrawal" will only embolden the terrorists. Creating an effective Iraqi miltary and police force will take years and the new government has a lot of learning to do. We can't leave until they are ready - and we don't know when that will be. Any timetable created now is purely artificial and has no practical bearing on when our leaving is beneficial.
i SO agree!

a timetable just lets them know how long they need to last. we need to give them the impression that we are there longer than they can keep it up.

we need to proceed as quickly as possible but there are unforseen things that will happen that we will have to deal with before we can safely leave iraq.

its not just US, as hunterskeep said, we have to safeguard the future of the iraqis too, we cant leave them to whatever brute will fight his way to the top when we are gone.

I was against it from jump and I think we need to get out of that quagmire we've found ourselves in yet again sooner, rather than later.

I supported the war back in '91 but I thought we should have prosecuted that war until Hussein was overthrown. At least the pretense of that war was for the right reasons, even if some of the reality may not have been.

i SO agree!

a timetable just lets them know how long they need to last. we need to give them the impression that we are there longer than they can keep it up.

we need to proceed as quickly as possible but there are unforseen things that will happen that we will have to deal with before we can safely leave iraq.

its not just US, as hunterskeep said, we have to safeguard the future of the iraqis too, we cant leave them to whatever brute will fight his way to the top when we are gone.
What if they can 'keep it up' indefinately?

Easy 24 hour news coverage. Support for a war isn'y easily made and even harder to keep. FDR kept us in the blind for most of the battles in WW2. Now we have a couple 24 hours news networks that give an insane amount of coverage to the death toll instead of anything else in Iraq. It doesn't help when the politicians start pointing fingers for whose to blame. Not to mention that most americans are completely ignorant of foriegn affairs. It's sad but true. Way to go public school system.

He's right. Think about it there weren't ever that many protestors when wars went on back in the day, but ever since Vietnam when a lot more news coverege was allowed there have been way more protestors. The thing that people dont think about is that the news tends to exaggerate things to make a good story, not neccesarily lie but exaggerate. alot.

People are impatient. They don't understand how long and what it takes to accomplish things like this. They are impractical and have too little perspective.


Of course by this you mean Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush? Because they were the one's who mislead the country into believing it was going to be a cake walk. I believe the impatience you speak of is a direct result of the mis-management of this war by this administration. They could of at least been up front, but they weren't. However, I agree, we broke it and now it's our responsibility to fix it.

What if they can 'keep it up' indefinately?
Who? The insurgents? They can't. It's going to be much harder for them to operate when the Iraqi government, police, and military are at full strength. they can patrol the borders with Saudi Arabia and Syria more effectively, build better human intelligence networks because the indigenous police and military would know the culture and language well, and the ordinary people would be more motivated to turn in suspected terrorists if they support their democratically elected government.

Of course by this you mean Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush? Because they were the one's who mislead the country into believing it was going to be a cake walk. I believe the impatience you speak of is a direct result of the mis-management of this war by this administration. They could of at least been up front, but they weren't. However, I agree, we broke it and now it's our responsibility to fix it.

My response was a direct answer to the thread originator. Why people don't "get it".

Why won't Americans see it through? That's a good question which can't be answered in any one way. Deception of the American people by the president and other 'leaders' is certainly a part of it. If you're told it'll be a cakewalk, then that's what you expect. The media is certainly important. I'll agree wholeheartedly that constant coverage of war drives people's enthusiasm for it down. I'd also have to agree with the fact that public schools suck. Supposedly they're good in New York, but I certainly haven't learned a lot about foreign countries/relations and whatnot. Research for Model UN, a voluntary club, has taught me more about the world than my school has. There is also definately a cultural aspect involved. Americans have learned to expect speed and conveniency. We tend to expect the conflict to be resolved within the couple hours or less allowed for a movie or tv. Then you have things like fast food, the internet, and constant advertisements for comfort/conveniency items and services. Perhaps another factor is the inadequacy of the US fighting forces. Our troops simply weren't prepared or equipped for a long slog. Certainly this dims the prospects of continuing the war in the eyes of many Americans. There might be some other things that are escaping me at the moment, but those are some of the big ones.

. To do anything less would be to betray the people of Iraq and to say that our troops sacrificed and died in vain.


Thats what we did in Afghanistan and its highly likely that what we're gunna do in Iraq.

Public school system??

Shouldn't you be saying, "Way to go telecommunications."?

Both are to blame. Public School don't really emphasize the need for knowing current events. If we had a well informed populace the news network would change the way they tell stories. But instead, most americans don't feel the need to understand why and how things are in the world, which is the school systems fault.

<snip>
Perhaps another factor is the inadequacy of the US fighting forces. Our troops simply weren't prepared or equipped for a long slog.
<snip>


I don't agree with the way you phrased this, but I think it's an important point.

I don't think you'll find a more adequate force in the world for fighting and winning a war. Professionalism, training, and technology converge here. In it's entirety, it's a superpower's dream military.

But we are asking our men to fill an occupation role. They do their duty loyally against an enemy that won't stand and fight, and they do it well. It's a waste of their training and we need to re-think how we'll do this, God forbid, in the future.

The job they are doing should (and could) be done by lesser trained Iraqi troops and police. It's more of a law enforcement problem than a military one. We're using a sledgehammer to drive tacks. And it's costing us.

Easy 24 hour news coverage. Support for a war isn'y easily made and even harder to keep. FDR kept us in the blind for most of the battles in WW2.
Yeah that's funny, I was just talking to someone today about how Americans raise such a stink about 1700 deaths in Iraq today, when they tolerated the loss of 420,000 soldiers in WWII. They also said because this war is televised.

I don't agree with the way you phrased this, but I think it's an important point.

I don't think you'll find a more adequate force in the world for fighting and winning a war. Professionalism, training, and technology converge here. In it's entirety, it's a superpower's dream military.

But we are asking our men to fill an occupation role. They do their duty loyally against an enemy that won't stand and fight, and they do it well. It's a waste of their training and we need to re-think how we'll do this, God forbid, in the future.

The job they are doing should (and could) be done by lesser trained Iraqi troops and police. It's more of a law enforcement problem than a military one. We're using a sledgehammer to drive tacks. And it's costing us.
I'll work with that. My original thinking was along the lines of using poorly armored humvees to get troops around and the like. The Pentagon could do a much better job of getting armored vehicles and body armor to the troops than it is doing. This drives up the cost of war in lives which, for obvious reasons, is precisely the cost that American citizens are inclined to pay. But overall, you're absolutely right, using a sledgehammer to drive tacks is not the best way of doing things.

<snip>
The Pentagon could do a much better job of getting armored vehicles and body armor to the troops than it is doing.
<snip>


Did you happen to see any of the Armed Services Committee deal with that on C-Span?

I was so impressed with the committee and with Chairman Duncan Hunter. To make a long story short, they solved many of the problems with production/distribution in short time. It was refreshing to see Congress and the military brass work cooperatively. You can google it, but it was something that had to be seen live.

We really can work out problems when we want to.

Why do you think that this fickleness only applies to Americans.

We, as human beings, are very very good at jumping up and down and rable rousing and persuading people to act on the spur of the moment. We are also very very easy to be rable roused. Promise us the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and off we charge. It has happened over and over again in history. The only time when we stick to the planned course of action though is when not doing so would be worse for us. Add to that our inability to plan for the long term, and you get fickleness.

How many kids drop out of medical or law school as soon as it gets tough? 60%? Probably more. How many people tell themselves that they are going to train and run in the London, São Paulo, Tokyo wherever marathon next year, but never do more than a couple of miles jogging and then go back to the couch potato life?

We want results, and we want them quickly and painlessly. Nothing less will satisfy us. Diet pills, anti smoking treatments, perfect bodies in just five minutes a day. Now why should a war in a far of country be any different.

What you mean winning requires determination and staying power, it means suffering physical and emotional losses? Forget it then. Pass me a beer.

My take on this is we should never have gone in in the first place, and now the Iraqis are screwed either way. The US leaves, one of two things happen 1) The people of Iraq are able tp rebuild their own country (a massive task with all the damage the US did, and the fact that we they have not devoted as much to rebuilding as we should have) and fair-minded and reasonable people (the majority) are able to get the country orgabized and together, or 2) A petty dictator takes power and further fucks up the people for his own gain. If we stay, I don't see anything in Iraqs future aside from 3rd world US colony, much like most of South America.

I was recently honored at an AHEPA Awards dinner, and one of the speakers was the Ambassiter to Quatar, who has also been ambassitor to nearly every nation in the Middle East (he was a Greek man, which is why he was at the AHEPA dinner). He summed up the Mid East situation quite well: education. 4 centuries of Turkish rule and another cemtury of British rule left the Mid East education system and infastrcture in shambles, so while they are sitting on huge deposites of potential wealth, that wealth is exploited by forgioners, for forgieners, with the rewards going to forgioners and a few elite within the regimes. This is what I see in Iraq's future, colonization by US business.

A perfict example is when, instead of giving contracts to perfictly able Iraqi firms, the contracts for what rebuilding went on went to US firms. Instead of stimulating the local economy and helping fix what we broke, the US helped only it's self.

Also, the word "insurgent" is not correct. First off, you must be forgien to be an insurgent. Also, the "insurgentcy" predates any Iraqi gov, so what were they insuring against? An insugency is a forgien force against an established gov. What we have here is one group of Iraqis, and the US training another group to fight them. That is civil war, not insurgency.

The majority of the American people were in favor of war with Iraq before it started. I was against it. I thought it was a bad gamble. There was too much to lose, too little to win, and the odds were bad to boot.

Now it seems public opinion is shifting. Many people feel they were lied to, and many want to see us get out of Iraq immediately, or at least to tell the terrorists exactly when we plan to leave so that they know just how long they have to hold out. I, on the other hand, beleive that once a task like this is begun we are responsible for finishing it. We must build a strong and stable Iraqi government capable of safeguarding it's people and providing basic services for them. To do anything less would be to betray the people of Iraq and to say that our troops sacrificed and died in vain.

Why are so many of my people unable to see this tough and expensive endeavor through to the end despite their initial support for it?

That is exactly why I like to have you around! Straight to the point and a good question. My answer at the moment is "I don't know" but I'm thinking about it, thanks DC!

Yeah that's funny, I was just talking to someone today about how Americans raise such a stink about 1700 deaths in Iraq today, when they tolerated the loss of 420,000 soldiers in WWII. They also said because this war is televised.
WW II was probably the only war which had virtually no protesters (except from people who think war is wrong under any circumstance). You don't think about them like this, but a lot of 19th century American wars had strong pockets of protesters. Most notabely the civil war, during which violent riots occurred in New York to protest the draft.

WW II was the first time since the war of 1812 the US was attacked, and we are a country which does not like to be attacked. People knew what was happening, and many believed it was for a good cause. Some people here are under the impression that Germany and Russia would have wiped each other out, but I believe it was as close to necessary as a war gets.

-edit- I share a pretty much identical view with the first protester. I was agaisnt the war, but now that we've started to pull out would be disaster. We have to finish what we start.

The majority of the American people were in favor of war with Iraq before it started. I was against it. I thought it was a bad gamble. There was too much to lose, too little to win, and the odds were bad to boot.

Now it seems public opinion is shifting. Many people feel they were lied to, and many want to see us get out of Iraq immediately, or at least to tell the terrorists exactly when we plan to leave so that they know just how long they have to hold out. I, on the other hand, beleive that once a task like this is begun we are responsible for finishing it. We must build a strong and stable Iraqi government capable of safeguarding it's people and providing basic services for them. To do anything less would be to betray the people of Iraq and to say that our troops sacrificed and died in vain.

Why are so many of my people unable to see this tough and expensive endeavor through to the end despite their initial support for it?
Agree.

#1 When we decided to not finish Saddam'sgovernment in GW1, we lost credibility for tryingto do so later.

#2 The War on Terrorisim is only tangentally about Iraq. It is REALLY about Radical Sunni/Wahabbi Islam and the support it recieves from Saudi Arabia. IMO the only people we should be fighting right now are Saudis (Osama & the El Saud family) and the stateless terrorists who cling to their ideology & money.

BUT, the minute we committed to Iraq, my backing went to the Troops in combat and the Civil Affairs Effort to "win the peace".

Leaving now would make the situation even worse.

If you ultimately intend to flex your military muscles in Iran or Syria or Arabia, wouldn't you settle in for awhile in Iraq? No sense redeploying when you are already set up next door. Any thoughts?

I think that's well-said. Unlike you I supported the war, but that's irrelevant at this point. I fail to see how we can withdraw until forces, both political and military, are in place to provide the stability required for self-governance.

Withdrawal is capitulation to the terrorists and will do us and the Iraqi's much harm in the future.

I am concerned that a "timetable for withdrawal" will only embolden the terrorists. Creating an effective Iraqi miltary and police force will take years and the new government has a lot of learning to do. We can't leave until they are ready - and we don't know when that will be. Any timetable created now is purely artificial and has no practical bearing on when our leaving is beneficial.


You're right. I'm afraid people expect to be satisfied too quickly. And when they sit watching hour upon hour of footage, and arent immediately satisfied with the progress-or lack of it, they get disgruntled and start to look for things to blame.
People that support our action need to be patient and continue to support it.

People that didnt, need to support our troops now-because they are there-we are committed. And being critical is alright, though it should be more constructive, rather than bitter and petty.
"I told you so" doesnt help anyone. Even if we disagree, we are on the same side. Stop trying to kick the other side-it doesnt help them any and makes you look like an idiot.

(My comments are not aimed at Sabbatis. After reading my post, I didnt want people to misunderstand)

First off, you don't *have* to "support our troops." I didn't used to. I used to see it as their job is to kill, most of the time for things not worth killing for, and they should have seen through it.

Not anymore. I now see that view as immature and assholish. They are just people doing what they think is right, they are willing to make the ultamid scrifice to defend people they have never even met, and what makes my world view anymore valid then theirs anyway? (incidently, I take to same view on other troops, Iraqi "insurgents," and anyone in a similar situation, regardless of what country they are on).

I just don't like it anytimes someone acts like everyone *has* to think a certain way, because maby they just see things differently than you.

I didn't support it. A lot of people didn't, and in fact there was a huge coordinated protest on the day Bush went in, which my family would have attended if my sister hadn't gotten sick.

Once we were in, I didn't really know whether to say "get out, we shouldn't have been here in the first place" or "okay, we have to mend the damage before we leave". Now we've done so much damage that I don't even know if we're capable of fixing it, and in any case it seems to me like we're taking any excuse to stay and exert imperial rule, which just pisses them off which gives us more excuse to stay from the administration's point of view. So I've kind of just gotten disgusted with it all. I was in 7th grade on the first day of the war. Supposedly the war only lasted a few months. Then why I am I now going into 10th grade and it's still an issue and we still have troops over there? "Conflict" is just a euphemism.

If the US leaves, they're fucked by some new petty dictator/trying to live with a shattered country, if the US stays, they're fucked by the US and western corperations.

No win for them.

I think the US should pay them massive reperations, stay and rebuild the country, and get the hell out. But that will never happen.

Many of the individuals posting on this thread have forgotten why most of the insurgents are in Iraq in the first place. The presence of our military has been the fuel for the insurgency since we first invaded. Therefore, the Iraqi government and military may very well be capable of defending their country before it may otherwise seem to be the case. That said, I do not believe it is wise for us to set a timetable for the withdrawl of our troops. If we do, then the insurgents merely need to hold out longer than that timetable in order to declare a moral victory. We've won this war if we just hold out long enough for the Iraqi government and armed forces to gain experience and stability. When we feel that this has happened we must then withdraw our troops in the proper manner. First, when we feel that the government of Iraq is prepared to take on the responsibilities inherent in government, we should give them temporary control of our troops until they feel that the Iraqi armed forces are prepared to defend the country from its enemies. Then, we will have established a safe and democratic Iraqi nation and the insurgents cannot begin to claim either that they have won a moral victory or that what America did in Iraq was not entirely beneficial to the Iraqi people.