Veterans Day on CNN

Let me go back for a moment.

On Veterans Day, on CNN, this smiley face came up with one of these sentences that seem to make sense as long as we don't stop to think too hard. It was along the lines of No matter where you stand on the Iraq War debate, you appreciate the sacrifice these soldiers are making to protect our freedom abroad.

And it's so easy to simply move on with our lives; to tell ourselves we oppose the war but support what the troops are doing for us, without ever asking what it is they are doing for us in Iraq. And who is this Us, anyway?

So allow me to make one side of this debate a bit clearer: No matter where we stand on the Iraq War debate, we all appreciate the fact that a lot of people are risking their lives for what they initially thought would help protect their country. And no matter where we stand, we all wish they come back home with no physical or mental scars. But as sad as it may be to admit this fact, we have to face reality: The soldiers in Iraq are not protecting freedom in the US, they're not making my life better and they're not making your lives better. And as long as they stay in Iraq, they sacrifice their lives in vain.

And the least we can do as we continue our struggle to end the madness is to keep them in our thoughts when they return and fight for their welfare here, so fewer of them will have to suffer over there.

Read Jon Town's story. As if it's not enough that their President and Congress betrayed them, the soldiers are now being betrayed by the military.

And let's put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

On the Israel-Lebanon War and the Possible US Escalation in Iraq (or, Just Say No)

A short while ago I wrote a post about my army service in the West Bank. This wasn't simply a redemption piece but also an attempt to reflect on the situation American soldiers face in Iraq. Like them, I was certain I was doing the right thing, and like them, I thought everything I was doing was done in the (self-)defense of my country. Similarly, the implications of the recent Israeli war in Lebanon should be considered with Iraq in mind.

Like the US, the Israeli army was undoubtedly going in with superior military force for what was supposed to be a short offensive, and like in Iraq, it was immediately shown to be a mistake. Many Israeli soldiers died, attacks on Israeli civilians increased, and radical Islamic forces legitimized their relative control. A month into the conflict, the Israeli government was forced to choose what many considered the best of two evils: a retreat or an escalation.

Now, as Americans are divided about the future in Iraq, and as Democratic hopefuls are still afraid of saying the US should leave immediately, it is important to see what happened after the Israeli army left Lebanon. First, and most importantly, the number of casualties on both sides, including civilians, was about 2000 for the one month of conflict (between mid-July and mid-August of 2006). There is no reason to think this trend would have decreased if the fighting had continued at the same pace, and an escalation would have undoubtedly only increased the number of fatalities.

Second, as one of the reasons for remaining in Iraq is a flawed domino theory that scares us into thinking a retreat would destroy American prestige and, more importantly, its power of deterrence, we can first look at the current situation, where the war has created a diminishing American military might, encouraging other nations to rise up, at least rhetorically, against US hegemony. And second, we need to look again at Israel. Retreating after one month from the Lebanon mistake did not diminish Israeli hegemony in the region. If anything, Israel has since regained the power it had lost during the war. Moreover, while the war helped legitimize the Hezbollah, its victory did not create the nightmare scenario the Israeli government was advancing before the war to convince the public this was a no-choice war. Neither Hezbollah nor Syria have any more control over the Lebanese government then they did before, and the risk of Israeli destruction or of future attacks has not grown.

When Democratic hopefuls are asked about their solution for the war, they often either avoid the question by stating the obvious (It's Bush's mess), or endorse a phased, "dignified" withdrawal. This is not enough, not anymore. When the Republican keyboard warriors come with catchy, meaningless slogans like Cut-and-Run, the answer should be Study the Israel-Lebanon War. Sure, it's not as catchy, but it happens to be the truth. When the Israeli government chose retreat over escalation, it put the safety of its citizens first and political prestige second. The future leaders of America should have the courage to do the same.

On Faith: Is the Iraq war "just"?

President Bush is preparing this week to send more troops to Baghdad. Do you believe there is such a thing as a "just war"? Is the Iraq war "just"?

Interesting that you pose a question about Bush's plans in a column about faith, because only those who think of Bush as a god believe this plan will work. Those who have faith in peace, those who have faith in justice, and those who have faith in truth never wanted this war.

As to the issue of a just war, we should only base our judgments on specific acts, not on vague words. The war on drugs turns otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and creates a lucrative but deadly underground business, but the war on poverty wishes to elevate people in accordance with humane standards.

The problem, of course, appears when we discuss WWII. But again, we must review what WWII was that the Iraq war isn't. If WWII was about saving a nation, three continents, and the conscience of the US, the war in Iraq is the exact opposite: The nation we were supposed to help is now suffering even more, the continent we were supposed to stabilize is in total chaos, and the American people who see the way events unfold in their name and with their money find it hard to stare at their collective reflection.

The Vietnamization of Iraq - On Today's Press Conference

They still call it "the liberation of Iraq" and "the defining challenge of our era."

They used to say timetable was a dirty word but now they say "Success in Iraq is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable."

They call the corrupt government "a beacon for the entire Middle East."

They use euphemisms like adapt and adjust, as well as assess and alter.

Then they tap each other's back and say, "we have continuously adapted to stay ahead of the enemy and to ensure that our service men and women have the proper tools and support they need to accomplish their missions."

They talk about 12 to 18 months.

But we all know what's really going on here, don't we?

For a moment, we can at least be content knowing we were right all along: that the Iraq war was a terrible idea and that maybe humanity has learned that wars in general cannot be won in this age. But two points need to be clear:

1. Iran is mentioned five times and Syria seven times. Our generals have learned nothing, and they seem to be eager to continue their crusade.
2. People are still dying for nothing, and will continue to die for nothing while the US is in Iraq. We can't wait 12-18 months. Like Kerry said before he became a politician and had to be more careful not to upset anyone,

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

And finally, many people are torn. Is Bush an idiot or a madman? Are we experiencing another Vietnam-era tactic resurgence, namely, the Madman Theory?

Another View From the Right

Ten soldiers were killed today in Iraq and the Right is not afraid to talk about it!

Michelle Malkin attacks Angelina Jolie while giving us the real reason behind the war:

You want to talk about wasted resources? That $10 billion Saddam Hussein siphoned off in the U.N. Oil-for-Food debacle could have fed a lot of hungry people...

Malkin brings up the Oil-for-Food scandal. I guess that makes the war worth it. Here we have the new justification for war: not WMDs, 9/11 connection, or reverse domino theory, no. We went to war in Iraq because Saddam reportedly stole $10 billion Dollars.

What else?
LGF talks about Iraq, especially about the great work the government (sorry, the anonymous Iraqi exiles' group) is doing in the war against terror, specifically targeting suicide bombers. An ad, produced by an LA company and filmed with American actors, shows the effect of suicide bombings Matrix style. That's a step in the right direction for winning hearts and minds in the Middle East. Now, if only we can rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, all while putting an end to the civil war, ridding the country of US-installed corrupt officials, ressurecting 655,000 people, and oh, getting the hell out of there.

And of course you can always count on Free Republic to bring out the irony lover in you. Discussing a speech by Rumsfeld:

You can not help but come away positive and upbeat to know that such a man is at the top of the military under a President who knows what the military is for and how well it does what its mission is...whatever that may be.

No Threat