Thursday, November 30, 2006

War Reasons

When you think about the Revolutionary War, it's pretty clear what purpose was given for the fight, and that didn't change during its course. Freedom from the yoke of King George and his undemocratic demands. Likewise the Civil War, to save the Union by whatever means, at whatever cost. I'm pretty sure WWI and WWII didn't lose their primary tenet, stopping the Germans from taking over Europe and destroying the freedoms of our friends and allies.

Korea and Vietnam, no matter the results, the execution, the changing emphasis, still fell back on stopping the spread of those godless red commie bastards, even though our ignorance of the people and their lands guaranteed orphan results.

Going back, I'm pretty certain that Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes knew why they were sweeping up the world, as did Alexander Macedonians, the Romans, even the Crusaders knew why they were Crusading, to save Jeruselum from the infidels.

In short, most wars retain their initial justification for the people, even if management has a different idea along the way, an idea the people are certain not to hear about until many years later if at all. But Bush's Iraq war, defies that quaint notion. Which tells you right there how criminal the whole enterprise was from day one.

This comment from one of Josh Marshall's readers sums it up pretty clearly:

Only by grossly exaggerating the danger of Saddam and grossly downplaying the difficulty of the mission [that would be the whole building a nation and rebuilding the country mission-DGR]could they get the political support to do what they did.

They lied about the WMD's, or correctly, NBC's (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), then they kept lying about the reason for the war as each reason fell victim to truth and reality, and they got away with it, more or less, for 4 years. They defied all the concepts of military science, and unsurprisingly, have created a bigger bloodbath than if they had left well enough alone. And somehow, Nancy Pelosi has to fix that. Before she even gets to hold the gavel. I think I'll give her a chance first, and try to help her with that monumental task, rather than criticize her every move, 24/7. How about the rest of you readers, all 5 of you?

4 comments:

chris65203 said...

Too true.

Bush uses the most abstract, yet most idealistic (in the most positive sense) reason for invading Iraq, freedom, only after all his other reasons, WMD’s, support of Al Qaeda, Saddam’s threat to neighbors in the region, had been proven false. It's sad that such ambitious goals are used only for real politick.

P.S.- First time to the site Duckman, hope everything goes well.

iamcoyote said...

I tried to comment yesterday and thought I broke the blog with big ol' system errors!

I'm with you, Duckman; let's give the dems some time before criticizing them. They're not even sworn in yet! Everyone's just anxious for the oversight to begin, is all.

Seven of Six said...

I'm on board with giving a chance to the new Dems. If I start seeing the first eye of stonewalling after 6 months I'm raising holy hell with my congressman, Grijalva. He's a good Progressive!

Duckman GR said...

That's gotta be it Coyote, everyone has an itchy trigger finger!

Thanks chris for stopping by, and don't be a stranger!