5 additional reasons to be against war in Iraq.

Thank you CLINCHER for your comments.

13) Destabilizing the region.
14) Undermining the security of NATO ally Turkey.
15) Emboldening Iran.
16) Weakening reform movement in Iran
17) Strengthening Islamist militants in Pakistan.

12 Reasons to be against war in Iraq.

I placed an asterisk in front of #12 because it is a little far-fetched.

1) Breeds new terrorists.
2) Undermines the U.N.
3) Undermines moderate Arabs.
4) Gives POW status to criminals. Civil authorities should handle.
5) Diverts resources away from civil authorities and puts these resources into the military. This is counterproductive.
6) No WMD. War is unjustified.
7) Undermines Civil liberties.
8) This is a Civil War. Not our fight.
9) We are creating new enemies in addition to new terrorists.
10) We took a good leader out and replaced it with anarchy. I am defining anarchy in this case as being constant warfare, chaos and civil strife.
11) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01.
*12) President Bush is a warmonger. He started the war to get back at Saddam. After all, Saddam took a shot at killing his father.

Pretty solid case. Please let me know if you have any additional that you would like me to add.

Iraq a breeding ground

In the 10/25/07 issue of the Chicago Tribune, an article was printed in the Perspective section titled: "Headquarters".
"Without doubt, our security at home is connected to Iraq's future. One can observe radicalized youth from across the region entering Iraq. This serves as an urban training ground for this generation of militants, successors of the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. These mujahedeens will most likely also plan future operations-but our prolonged presence in Iraq will not deter this."
I find this interesting for a number of reasons. Many people believe that the war in Iraq is basically an internal one. Some outside influence is helping the ‘insurgents’, but overall, they originate from within Iraq. So, many militants who what to kill Americans are going into Iraq. There, they are obtaining combat experience and skills that will enable them to go out into the rest of the world and create more problems. The conclusion is that our presence in Iraq will in no way deter this. Implied is the idea that our presence in Iraq helps them.
Some questions to ponder:
If we leave Iraq, where will these guys go? Home? And hang up the guns? The combat experience they now have will enable them to attack schools and shopping malls far more effectively than attacking our men who carry machine guns. Do you believe that they will go home and call it quits? Some undoubtedly will. What about the rest?
The war in Iraq has been going on for 4 and ½ years. This war is breeding new terrorists and building an army of enemies of the United States. I expected this new army to have shown itself by now. Why have we not been hit in other parts of the world during this time? Other countries are being hit. Why not us?
The United States has not been hit directly since 9/11/01, except in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect many reasons exist. I have studied thousands of biographies of soldiers. They site countless reasons why they risked and gave up their lives. The most common that I found was that they were fighting to protect their way of life.
Robert E Lee did not like owning slaves. He found them "difficult to motivate and manage". Yet he fought for slavery. He was a wealthy man, and a smart one. Can you think of a worse cause to risk and lose everything? This includes your life. Many southerners that fought and died in the U.S. Civil War did not own slaves. Lee claimed that he fought for Virginia. He was more loyal to the state than the Federal government.
Many southerners were as well. One contributing reason was by doing away with slavery; the social order would be upset. Poor whites could have fought because at least the slaves were below them, in the pecking order. That would be gone, they would be right in there with them. Rich ones depended upon the labor they provided. The southern way of life would be changed, radically. They fought to prevent this. The strange part about it is, the war itself sped up the entire process. Believe it or not, this is not uncommon.
Particularly in modern history, wars commonly have spread technology. Cultural contact is usually increased during wartime. Someone is generally winning, and occupation during and after wartime is common. Cultural contact cannot be avoided. Cultural contact in Iraq is on a large scale. The ex-French president himself said: "democracy is not a process. It is a culture." In other words, we are attempting to implant a foreign culture in an Arab country. The Arab community is far more loyal to the ‘tribe’ and other more local influences than the central government. No wonder a war is going on there. Talk about changing the way of life for the people who live in that part of the world. Protecting your way of life is the leading cause for becoming a soldier. The question that I am struggling with is: Where is the army that this is producing?

Stretched military in Iraq.

I am seeing constant reference to how our military is ‘stretched’ almost to the breaking point. This would lead me to believe that we are losing the war. This implies that our military is barely able to handle the war and our commitments. This would seem to indicate that we would be unable to escalate the war any further in order to win it. The side that can keep escalating wins wars. If our capacity is reached, we would be unable to match any further escalating and would by default, lose the war. The logical step is to lower the pressure on our military and reduce our commitments. We would then be able to ‘rebuild’ our military.
During wartime, the armed forces are constantly being stretched. The system is designed to function in this type of environment. The idea in warfare is to push so hard that the enemy cannot push back hard enough to beat you. If the two sides are anywhere near equal in strength and abilities, then the war must last long enough for one of them to get so tired that they either surrender or quit. Are we really that tired? Is our enemy really that strong?
Even if you do not agree that we should have our army in Iraq, you have to admit, this is a war. Standard guerrilla warfare. Compared to other wars in our history, this one is small. Our military has handled far worst disasters than what we are seeing in Iraq. We have lost more than 4000 men in a day. We have sustained far greater losses and loss of equipment that had gone on for years. And we are at the end of our tether?
No. We can sustain a much greater effort if we wish to. The problem is not how our military is ‘stretched’ to the breaking point. The problem is that we believe that the war is not worth it. The war is not worth the losses already sustained. Any additional effort to win is wasted effort and pointless. In this case, we really are tired of the war. Psychologically tired, not physically. I do not buy the hypothesis that our armed forces are ‘stretched’ to the limit. As with all guerrilla wars, we have a stronger military, better training, better weapons, and greater numbers. (Combatants) We may not win the war, but it will not be because our enemy is militarily stronger than we are.

U.S. resolution on Turkish genocide

The U.S. Congress voted in favor of a resolution acknowledging as genocide the Turkish slaughter of Armenians in the period 1915-1918. The timing of this resolution can be for many reasons. One influencing factor is the war in Iraq. If you are dead set against the war, and believe it to be best to leave as soon as possible, placing pressure on Turkey is a good solution. One influential way that the U.S. congress helped end the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was to cut off funding. A substantial amount of the logistical support for the U.S. effort in Iraq is going through Turkey. If we get Turkey to prohibit this, it can help the process of ending our involvement in Iraq. Seems like a good move.

Turkey is an Islamic country. The Islamic world seems to have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging that the Holocaust took place at all. And Muslims had nothing to do with it, other than to be pro-Axis neutrals. Now we are asking them to acknowledge something that one of their own perpetrated. I would expect this to be very difficult, at best. It is certainly worth doing in the long run. On the other side, this event occurred almost a hundred years ago. The Ottoman Empire does not exist anymore. It was broken up after that war. Is anyone still alive that was involved and can be held responsible? I thought that I cannot be held accountable for something my grandfather did.

Yes, Turkey has to eventually come to terms with this. However, by doing this now, we can seriously damage our war effort. We need allies in the Middle East. Apparently, the U.S. Congress does not think that we need Turkish help. Do you agree?

Difference #2 between Iraq and Vietnam

I would like to clarify point #2 in the differences between Iraq and Vietnam:

The government of Iraq had been hostile to the United States for more than 10 years before the U.S. toppled its government. President Clinton went out of his way to avoid war. The U.S. bombings in Iraq during his administration were the result of radar locks on U.S. aircraft by Iraqi forces. The peace treaty signed in 1991 specified this as an act of war. This is thought of as being the same thing as shooting a missile at an airplane.

Vietnam in contrast, involved the United States armed forces to support its government, not topple it. The U.S. had been involved in South Vietnamese domestic activity well before the escalation in 1965. In Iraq, the U.S. did not become involved in domestic activity until after Saddam had been toppled from power. Then it became a matter of establishing a different government.

Many people believe that the war in Iraq is a domestic issue. This is undoubtedly true, although many other factors are of major impact as well.

Vietnam vrs. Iraq

Iraq and Vietnam are similar in some ways:

1) In both cases, we (The U.S.) are fighting a guerrilla war with conventional forces.

2) The enemy has an opposite ideology.

3) In both wars, the enemy is obtaining material support from outside the country.

4) The population of the U.S. is tiring of the war. We are seen as losing the war. Vietnam took 7 years of major commitment before withdrawal. It remains to be seen how long it will take in Iraq.

5) An increase in violence was and is being seen as signs of losing the war.

6) Politically, the wars are disasters for the political party who engaged in fighting in the first place.

I am certain that I have missed many. Please feel free to comment.

Iraq and Vietnam are different in other ways:

1) Opposite overall situation. In Vietnam, the U.S. controlled the cities and villages. The VC and NVA controlled the countryside. In Iraq, the desert is ideal for our army. The fighting is in the cities.

2) The beginning of Vietnam was a gradual escalation. A major escalation was in 1965, but the U.S. had been involved for close to 10 years by then. Iraq was an invasion in 2003 that has gone on since.

3) Vietnam did not see repeated suicide attack. I will cover this subject in future posts.

4) War in Iraq much lower intensity conflict. Much more fighting in Vietnam. Losses in U.S. forces for 7 years in Vietnam were 58,000 dead and 304,000 wounded. Losses in 4 and ½ years in Iraq are 3,800 dead and 28,000. At this rate, it will take Iraq more than 40 years to equal Vietnam’s U.S. losses. (As with any stat, this must be taken with a grain of salt. However, it does give us an idea of how much fighting is taking place.)

I am certain that I have missed some here as well. The overall point is that NO two wars are the same. Significant differences ALWAYS exist.