NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
I don't necessarily agree with everything written but thought this was at least a different perspective.
Exerpt from Washington Monthly Mag:
There?s something inherently unseemly about talking about the politics of a war, even if politics infuses all war. Certainly, no amount of political benefit should substitute for considered judgment in figuring out what to do about Iraq. But nothing in the past five years has provided evidence of the war?s wisdom, nor has the surge so far contradicted the overall trend, which is that the longer we occupy Iraq, the worse things get. The escalation won't be at full strength until the last of the new brigades arrive this month, and, because one problem all along has been an insufficient number of troops, we can expect that the infusion will bring some benefit?for a while. As has been the pattern all along, however, the enemy will adapt, and sectarian fighting will rage on. The country?s descent will continue.
The uncomfortable reality is this: nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for. Democrats have made the decision?rightly, I think?that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, ?I don't want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.? This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they're doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious?which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security. More basically, it does a disservice to those who serve. For soldiers who are optimistic, being told that the war can't be won is bad enough. But to be told that politicians are doing them a favor by extricating them from a mission they believe in is downright insulting.
Democrats would do much better to speak honestly: to acknowledge that many fighting men and women want to stay in the battle and would be willing to do so for years longer. There?s nothing wrong with saying that, nor in emphasizing that this is part of what makes us so proud of our military. We wouldn't want soldiers who were unwilling to fight to the bitter end. Elected officials, however, have to judge what they believe to be in the national interest, and that means calling an end to the occupation of Iraq. Soldiers like Wellman won't agree, but if Democrats can at least signal that they acknowledge and respect his point of view, they'll have a better chance at getting Wellman to respect their own. And meeting partway is a lot better than not meeting at all.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.ackerman.html
Exerpt from Washington Monthly Mag:
There?s something inherently unseemly about talking about the politics of a war, even if politics infuses all war. Certainly, no amount of political benefit should substitute for considered judgment in figuring out what to do about Iraq. But nothing in the past five years has provided evidence of the war?s wisdom, nor has the surge so far contradicted the overall trend, which is that the longer we occupy Iraq, the worse things get. The escalation won't be at full strength until the last of the new brigades arrive this month, and, because one problem all along has been an insufficient number of troops, we can expect that the infusion will bring some benefit?for a while. As has been the pattern all along, however, the enemy will adapt, and sectarian fighting will rage on. The country?s descent will continue.
The uncomfortable reality is this: nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for. Democrats have made the decision?rightly, I think?that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, ?I don't want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.? This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they're doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious?which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security. More basically, it does a disservice to those who serve. For soldiers who are optimistic, being told that the war can't be won is bad enough. But to be told that politicians are doing them a favor by extricating them from a mission they believe in is downright insulting.
Democrats would do much better to speak honestly: to acknowledge that many fighting men and women want to stay in the battle and would be willing to do so for years longer. There?s nothing wrong with saying that, nor in emphasizing that this is part of what makes us so proud of our military. We wouldn't want soldiers who were unwilling to fight to the bitter end. Elected officials, however, have to judge what they believe to be in the national interest, and that means calling an end to the occupation of Iraq. Soldiers like Wellman won't agree, but if Democrats can at least signal that they acknowledge and respect his point of view, they'll have a better chance at getting Wellman to respect their own. And meeting partway is a lot better than not meeting at all.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.ackerman.html
![20211028_172035[1].jpg](/xf/data/xfmg/thumbnail/20/20276-f859cf846a716c4d8229b46255512bf9.jpg?1639069947)
