broter's Journal: A Minority of One?

With the recent bipolar coverage of American opinion, I find myself in an ever decreasing minority. One one side, says the media, we have people who support the president and think this war is a great idea. On the other side we're presented with people that this the shooting should be stopped immediately and the troops brought home; leaving Iraq in whatever shape it's currently in.

I'm a mix of the two. Before 9/11, I though Bush was a buffoon. I still do. Rumsfeld was never on my list of camera friendly faces, but I never thought about him until I learned more about the neo-conservitives. Now, from everything I can see, I think they are practicing a losing strategy of global domination.

My opposition to the war had nothing to do with American lives, Iraqi lives, or morality. They would be lost and damaged, but my argument didn't even get to where that mattered. My argument was one of effectiveness.

First, I couldn't see a way where America would accomplish any of its people's interests would be saved. No matter how good we do, the treat of terrorism increases. Leaving Saddam with NBC weaponry while disrupting their further developement with coerrsive inpections (PDF) didn't threaten the US or any of its interests. I didn't believe then, nor do I believe now that secular Saddam had or will have any connection with fundamentalist Isalmic groups.

Second, by pushing through to this war the way he did, Bush damaged both the UN and NATO. There is a school of thought that internatinoal bodies simply get in the way of American protecting its global interests. But, just like American elections and a congressional rubber stamp on the current conflict (undeclared war), international organizations give a sense of ligitimacy to actions that can't otherwise be supported by constituent opinion. Historical alliances have been damaged as well.France and Germany, who could have need coersed into the coallition by the public revelation of WMD by the weapons inspectors, were sidelined.

What troubles me most is that, once again, my fellow Americans seem more intent on crushing freedoms at home than spreading freedom overseas. If we can't protect freedom at home, how can we export it? Some people say the first amendment needs to be curtailed while there's aterrorist threat. These are, presumably, the people who also believe that there will be a terrorist threat forever more.

Nice JE

[AB3A]

Can't say I agree with everything you've posted, but it is quite thoughtful and reasoned. As such I'd say it's better than 90% of the journals I've seen on this subject.

Personally, I think Bush 43 (AKA "Shrub") has done a reasonable job managing the threat from Iraq, but a poor job on anti-terrorism measures domestically. Read my journals for details.

That said, I agree that winning the peace is difficult, but not impossible. It will be ugly, dirty, and disgusting, but it will be do-able. The Arab worl

Re:Nice JE

[broter]

Iraq is probably the best candidate for this sort of thing. They also need a clear seperation of Mosque and State.

That's a brilliant argument when taken together. I'd like to suggest it's because the Iraqi regime is (er..WAS) so secular that makes democracy a possibility in Iraq. Hey, you said that too!

It's amaizing how complex this situation is even at a very shallow level. One of the key points that made the arab neighbors of Iraq hate it so much was that it wasn't an Islamic state (anyone who has evi