The Search for a Definition...

2007-05-07T02:08:00.000-07:00

Unlike most of the candidates in the running for presidential election in 2008, Barack Obama has been opposed to the War in Iraq since before it began. Obama said at an Anti-War Rally in Chicago in 2002 “I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war”. And now Barack has made his plan to end the war a part of his campaign. His ideas for ending the war coincide well with my definition of what being “anti-war” means to me. While Hillary Clinton’s ideas coincide best with my definition of “pro-troops”, she has not explicitly stated where she stands on the war. In this article, Obama spoke out against Rudy Guiliani’s (R) “politics of fear” while in the same article, Clinton was cited as saying that this war “shouldn’t be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight”. In fact this article made it seem as if Giuliani was acting in one of the problematic manners I mentioned before; by making grand generalizations about the Democratic party. Propagation of such behavior is only detrimental to the process of defining the “anti-war, pro-troops” standpoint.

Since this is the last entry, I suppose I should end this with the obligatory conclusion. A statement such as “I do not support this war, but I support our troops” is not at all self explanatory and the purpose of this blog was to come to understand the conflict that results from the lack of definition and explanation surrounding the “anti-war/pro-troops” viewpoint. I do not think I really achieved what I originally set out to do with this blog, but I think I brought up some pretty relevant points that hopefully could spark some discussion. Defining the “anti-war, pro-troops” viewpoint has proven to be an impossible task, but I hope that I have illuminated my own personal definition of what it means to me. It would be great to hear from other people about what their thoughts and viewpoints are. Perhaps this will lead to further exploration of your own personal views on this war. Or not. And for that I would not blame you, as this blog is very amateurish. At this point all I can say is I hope this blog served some purpose outside of it being my final for my class.

How does the rhetoric of the 08 candidates compare...?

2007-05-06T23:38:00.000-07:00

I did not originally intend for this blog to get all that preachy, but as it turns out, that’s precisely what has happened. So, what I’m going to do for the next two entries is analyze the rhetoric concerning the Iraq War for several candidates that are running in the upcoming 08 election. I will also compare and contrast their views (as proven by their voting records…in most cases) to my definition of what it means to be “anti-war, pro-troops”.

According to this article, Americans overall find it more comforting that their president have military experience so they would be able “to handle the role of commander in chief”. However, not many war vets have announced their candidacy for the presidency. So far the only “big name” candidate that is a veteran is John McCain (R). He spent 20 years in the Navy, 5 of which he were spent in a Vietnamese War camp. Lesser known candidates with military experience are Senator Chris Dodd (D) (he was in the Army Reserve for 6 years) and Republican hopeful Duncan Hunter who was an Army paratrooper and Ranger. This presidential race is dominated by candidates with no war experience. What this means for our country is that our next president will most likely not have any war experience or even any military experience.

One candidate in particular that has been making some pretty strong statements about the war is Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). He claims that George W. Bush is ignoring advice concerning the situation in Iraq from everyone except for Dick Cheney who is “dead wrong about the war”. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) agrees with Biden.

I like that Hillary Clinton (D) has put forth a great deal of effort towards devising and introducing a new legislation which will help soldiers and vets of the Iraq War and their families. Clinton says “These bills will help our soldiers and their families if they suffer or are wounded, they will help to ensure that wounded soldiers receive the disability benefits they need and deserve”. This is exactly what I would define as being in support of the troops.

John Edwards (D) says on his website that the world’s view of America has been “tarnished” and that America is no longer “respected around the world”. He suggests that the way to restore respect and leadership worldwide is by withdrawing American troops and thus ending the war within 12-18 months (after his election).

Making sense of my own viewpoints...

2007-05-06T21:52:00.000-07:00

This entry will continue to explore some of the reasons why there is so much conflict in defining the “anti-war, pro-troops” standpoint.

A lot of politicians on the right claim that even though democratic bigwigs such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and others voted to go to war in Iraq in 2002 they have now set blame on George W. Bush for going to war. This article states: “So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.” This is where I and most of America disagrees with what this article is saying. The “largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq” as I have mentioned before have cost over $420 billion dollars. This is too high of a cost in most American people’s views. Also the civil war in Iraq has already broken out so the cost of leaving is not as high as the right would like to make us think it is. Whether we leave or not, there will be a civil war.

This entry not only assumes that if we leave, the situation in Iraq will escalate to a level beyond what it already is but it also suggests that all anti-war, pro-troops activists are also human rights activists. This is another issue that is part of the problem when it comes to defining the “anti-war, pro-troops” standpoint. Insinuating that all “anti-war, pro-troops” activists do not realize that the human rights of Iraqi citizens are being violated in Iraq is another grand generalization. While it is true that some “anti-war, pro-troops” activists might “[style] themselves to be human rights activists…[who are] pro-human rights, yet anti-action” and are in a sense being a little hypocritical, it is not true of all of them. This entry also claims that the left is “self-indulgent” and “self-affirming”, again throwing around grand generalizations that are for the most part untrue and only meant to be jabs at the democratic party than an actual legitimate argument.

This illuminates a major issue when it comes to conflicts that arise when defining this, according to Patrick Ishmael, “dissonant” standpoint of being “anti-war, pro-troops”. I for one, do not believe that it is dissonant if you know all of your facts on the war and still do not have any views that contradict each other.

Start listening to Iraq War veterans...

2007-05-06T21:45:00.000-07:00

In response to this particular blog I have to respond first by saying that there is a grand generalization made in this entry that is not only untrue, but unfair to make. “The anti-war people who go around priding themselves on supporting the troops and not the war, have hated the US military even before 9/11 even happened”. This statement is a good example of one of the types of accusations I mentioned in my first entry. Throwing accusations around like that is one way of starting problems in the process of defining the “anti-war, pro-troops” viewpoint. This blog entry refers to the anti-war left as the “anti-military left” because apparently you are unable to support the troops if you are not supporting the war.

You can be against the war, while being pro-troops. I can proudly say that I support the men in uniform but do not support the war that they have been sent to fight. I believe that there should be money spent to keep the troops safe while in Iraq and safe when they come home as vets. I do not think that more money should be spent trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. There. Anti-war, pro-troops.

This article from the University of Delaware, says about the Iraq War “Americans, including veterans, are deeply divided on the issues of why we became involved and how long we should stay there”. Vietnam veteran, Larry Colburn urges that “War should be used as a last resort, not the first resort. We need to listen to our returning vets and not make the same mistakes of not listening to them when they came home from Vietnam”. While I do not believe that the Vietnam War is exactly like the Iraq War, Colburn has a point. Anyone who says they are “pro-troops” should at least listen what the troops themselves have to say about the war. Hypocricy and complications can result from this as the “pro-troops, pro-war” activists might turn a deaf ear to Iraq vets like Jimmy Massey when they say “…[one of the] hardest parts of war is that you visually see the effects it has on the civilian population. It feels like your heart is being ripped out of your chest every time you see an innocent person die because of the war machine”. I believe that one can respect and support the troops and what they are doing without supporting the war itself.

Our troops and vets need and deserve our support...

2007-05-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

What do I mean when I say that I support the troops? Unlike my explanation for why I am anti-war, this is fairly self explanatory. However, there are a few gray areas which do require a bit of clarification. But I’ll get to that part later.

The most prevalent form of troops support was via the internet. There are a myriad of pro-troops websites. Some are created by and run by Iraq War vets themselves. Sites such as this one have links to anti-war soldiers and vets’ blogs and other anti-war, pro-troops websites. This site also has interviews with soldiers and vets of this war and links to upcoming events which encourage participation. This website is another example of a veteran created and run website that is against the war. This site has a very useful and informative front page with recent news concerning the war that is relevant to the websites cause. This website gives a comprehensive list of reasons why the vets who run and support this site do not support the war.

Sites such as AdoptaPlatoon and AnySoldier depend on citizens participation in order for their various supportive operations to work. These types of sites do precisely what I believe should be and needs to be done: provide moral support for the troops while they are over in Iraq.

However, the veterans need support when they return from the war. Many of them come home injured and/or mentally unstable and need our help. Some come back and have no place to stay and have trouble finding jobs (either due to the lack of availability or their own physical or mental ailments) with which to support themselves. This was and to a certain extent still is a huge problem for vets of the Vietnam War. This is why I am in support of special disability benefits for Veterans (and any funding that can further the inception and growth of such an idea). Also, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans is one organization in particular that I think is doing a great job of taking care of our veterans. Their mission statement: “NCHV will end homelessness among veterans by shaping public policy, promoting collaboration, and building the capacity of service providers”. Its organizations such as this one that need more funding from the government to continue to run and expand their operations so that no veteran is left without a place to hang their helmet when they return.

My next entry will focus on the gray areas of being supporter of the troops while being against the war.

Why I don't support the War in Iraq Part II...

2007-05-02T01:52:00.000-07:00

There are those who say that Iraq is currently facing the “potential” of a civil war and if we pull out now, this “impending” civil war will erupt and devastate the country. Some say that, as Americans we have the “responsibility” to stay and keep the civil war from breaking out. But the way retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey sees it, the civil war in Iraq has already begun. General McCaffrey went to Iraq and wrote a report issued on March 26, 2007 detailing his analysis of the current situation there. He says: “Iraq is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens murdered per month. The population is in despair” (pg. 3). I agree with General McCaffrey, and believe that the situation in Iraq has already declined into a civil war. American occupation has certainly proven to be no panacea for this civil war, so why stay when things just aren’t getting better and the result is an ever increasing cost of was and a rising body count of American soldiers?

This war has cost America too much money and too many lives. 2003 estimates of the monetary cost of war with Iraq were pegged at $50 - $60 billion. As of today, the cost has exceeded $422 billion. This war will leave our country’s economy in debt for decades to come. As of 2:33 a.m. today, the death toll of American soldiers in this war is 3352. The death toll for April 2007 was 104 U.S. soldiers. In 49 months of war, there were 6 months where the monthly U.S. death toll rose above 100. This marks last month as one of the worst for the U.S. military. As hard as it is to say this, thousands of Iraqis will die every month anyway, whether we are there or not. So why stay and risk the lives of our own when we can't even save the lives we're fighting for?

It is a challenge to be diplomatic with regards to the current situation in Iraq while also keeping the best interest of our own country in mind but, I believe we have reached the unfortunate point where we need to step back and leave Iraq up to its own devices. My viewpoints on this matter may derive from the fact that my (admittedly selfish) concerns lie with the welfare of America and its citizens and soldiers. Also I do not believe that our safety on our home soil will be compromised if we leave Iraq so, to me pulling out seems to be the best option for Americans at this point.

Why I don't support the War in Iraq Part I...

2007-05-02T01:27:00.000-07:00

March 2007 marked the beginning of the fifth year of a war that Bush said was over in May of 2003. When this war began, we as Americans were led to believe that this war would not last very long or result in many American casualties. I believe that this was due at least in part to the under-estimation of the situation in Iraq by former U.S. officials who were key planners of the Iraq occupation. If the U.S. government believed that the situation was not that bad, it only makes sense that the American people would come to believe that as well.

According to the above link, deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz said: “[I]n postwar planning, [U.S.] defense officials made three assumptions that ‘turned out to underestimate the problem,’ beginning with the belief that removing Saddam Hussein from power would also remove the threat posed by his Baath Party. In addition, they erred in assuming that significant numbers of Iraqi army units, and large numbers of Iraqi police, would quickly join the U.S. military and its civilian partners in rebuilding Iraq”. While this was good to know at the time, it most certainly did not fix the problem that we had just not anticipated a war of this scale and thus did not send out enough troops. The resulting situation in Iraq has only worsened in the past four years.

The basis of the rationale for going to war with Iraq formed around the belief that Saddam had an arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) at his disposal and that he was linked to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and thus he posed a significant threat to the countries surrounding Iraq and to the world. The WMDs were never found and the links between Saddam and Al Quaeda have since been disproved. Two of the main reasons this war was started were based on information that later was found to be untrue. This leaves more to be desired from the Bush Administration with regards to rationale for the war.

It’s also important to mention that we went to war without approval from the United Nations and the Iraq War is considered by the UN to be “illegal”. The primary ally of the U.S. throughout this war has been the UK, but with the announcement made in February of 2007 that the UK will be pulling all of its troops out of Iraq by the end of this year, its looking like the only major military presence in Iraq will be the U.S. This stacks the odds of achieving democracy in Iraq further and further against us. Fighting without others supporting us is pointless.

Let's see if we can get this show on the road without starting a flame war...

2007-04-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

Many Americans claim to take the “anti-war/pro-troops” stance on the Iraq War. This has caused a lot of dispute and debate between individuals on all sides of the argument (anti-war/anti-troops, pro-war/pro-troops, and anti-war/pro-troops) because there is not a singular, definitive definition of what it means to be “anti- war but pro-troops”. There never will be, which is problematic for the individuals who make this argument because half the time they are arguing amongst themselves about what their viewpoints actually are and what they “should be”. While this is problematic, it is also realistic.

A statement such as “I do not support this war, but I support our troops” is not at all self explanatory. Individuals who make that statement need to realize this and be prepared to provide a clearer description of their views. By the same token, people who oppose that viewpoint should not take this statement at face value and fling accusations without waiting for further explanation. This is a significant problem with all political issues, but the purpose of this blog is to come to understand the conflict that results from the lack of definition surrounding the “anti-war/pro-troops” viewpoint.

Take a moment to think about what it means to you when someone says that they support the troops, but they are against the war.

Okay, now that you’ve done that, I have this to say to you: I support our troops. I do not support the war. Here is what the above statements mean to me:

I support our troops: The troops are fighting for democracy, freedom and safety. I have nothing but respect for them because I know that I would never have the courage to put my life on the line for any of those reasons. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up and I am aware of that. While they are there, serving our country they should have the best means of protection possible. Also, when they return as veterans from the war they should have healthcare benefits that are flexible and cater to their specific injuries. Job opportunities should also be made available to them on their return.

I do not support the war: I have never been for this war, even when in its earliest stages, when the American public was under the impression that the war would last months at best. The fact that I knew my country, my home was at war, made me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. My discomfort evolved into fear upon hearing that the UN had not approved of the war. Fighting a war with little support logically infers that the odds are stacked against us. This war will leave this country in economic debt for decades to come. We have lost thousands of Americans soldiers in this war.

My next blog entry will place a focus on citing and supporting my arguments.