Grim, grim, grim

[kz_blogorambling]

The whole Iraqi situation depresses the hell out me. It's been on my mind more than ever after the power outage.

I had a lot of negative feelings about us going over there in the first place, but I told Mark the other night that I think I would have been willing to eat some crow now if things had gone well. If we'd deposed Saddam and given Iraqis some autonomy and withdrew gradually but steadily and gracefully, I'd be happy to say "Well, maybe it was a good thing. I was wrong; my reservations were unwarranted." But god, that place is just an unholy mess. Soldiers unhappy. Iraqi people angry. Unreliable power. Terrorist attacks on pipelines and institutions. Troops murdered. Gah!

I heard a report that the State Department had been working with Middle East experts and Iraqi expats for years, developing solid game plans for the country should Saddam ever get the boot. But that after State lost the pissing match with Defense over who would "run" the place after hostilities ended, those plans were never consulted or used. Is that true? It makes me want to scream!

Comments

[scotticher.livejournal.com]

All I know is, I was opposed to the war. Then it started, and I had discussions with people I respect who have "inside" information and they gave me a different perspective on the whole thing. So then I thought maybe the war was necessary....I already knew that Saddam was slaughtering his own people for many lunatic reasons (which translates to no reason at all, except that they didn't agree with him. I know that is simplistic, but it encompasses all the various stupid
"reasons" he had for torturing and killing his countrymen) ....and I agree that he needed to be removed from power so this country could heal by working out their differences without slaughtering the opposition.

BUT...one thing I am increasingly convinced of is that Bush didn't CARE about the people of Iraq. I originally considered the thought that the war was necessary to help the people of that country, but let's face it....everything Bush has said and done from the very beginning of this situation has indicated (to me, at least) that all he cares about is his own agenda. It doesn't appear to me that he cares about Iraq, or liberating them from a murderous dictator, or even oil. I'm not even sure WHAT his reasons were for pushing this war before most of the rest of the world was convinced it was time, but in my "gut" I suspect it has something to do with the fact that his daddy got a GREAT deal more popular during/after the Gulf War. I know for SURE that he didn't care what the American public thought of the whole thing. That seems self-evident.

I get the feeling that Bush decided that (for whatever reason, and having nothing to do with liberating the citizens of Iraq OR the ludicrous "WMD" argument) that it was good for HIM to start the war. It appears to me that from then on, we got the "TALK TO THE HAND, 'CUZ THE FACE AIN'T listening" type of thing. I think that he was not only not CONSIDERING any opposing opinions, I don't think he was even LISTENING to them.

I guess I look at the world as a community. If a community sees that a person is violating community standards to a point where they need to be dealt with, then the community needs to come together and DEAL WITH IT! In this case, the world community still felt we should all explore more options before waging war. But Bush appears to feel that HE has the right to make the decision to wage war....regardless of the fact that the majority of the world community AND a large part of the US population felt that it was not yet time to DO so.

I do NOT feel that Bush was representing our country as a whole when he made this decision. Perhaps you (the collective you, not YOU, cranky...)disagree, but that is the way I see it.

I was SO not comfortable with the initial decision to go to war, then I vacillated due to input from people I respect...then after Bush declared the war "OVER" in May.....(things have IMHO gone downhill from there) and after listening to all the garbage Bush has been spewing right and left....
I am once again convinced that THE TIMING of this war had nothing to do with ANYTHING except for Bush's ego.

It makes me sick and sad that our country has to live with this decision, made by a man I no longer have even a speck of faith in. He is President of my country, and I am ashamed that this is so.

Let me make it clear, however, that I support the people fighting this fight with every breathe I have in me. This wasn't their decision, but they are over there risking their lives, some of them sacrificing their lives, for our country. Because they feel it is their duty. I respect and salute them. I am doing all I can, in a practical way, to help them.

Cranky, I am sorry to dump all this in your journal, but I was inspired to collect my myriad of disconnected feelings about this by your post. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

[crankyasanoldma.livejournal.com]

Not offended at all. It sounds like we're on the same page.

very grim

[pemberleigh.livejournal.com]

there is no question that saddam is a bad, bad man. i didn't think he should be in power anywhere, but i didn't want to go to war, either. since we did i felt i should support the troops. glad i did, since my dad was deployed (he is back home safe now).

my biggest problem is not the war itself (although i was and kind of still am fundamentally opposed), but i feared that bush wouldn't hold up the post-war end of the deal. i knew, coming from a military family, that if we went in we would win, but that it would take a tremendous post-war commitment. i mean, you can't just destroy a country's infrastructure, then hand it back to them in shambles for them to figure out. that's unrealistic and, frankly, ludicrous. it would be like taking a wrecking ball to someone's home, unasked, and saying, 'thought you could use a remodel... i'll leave the rest up to you... wouldn't want to be too intrusive, or incur the cost, you know.' no. if you're going to break something down, you have to help build it up again. anyway, it will require at least ten years, a lot of money, and a minimum of about 200,000 troops (keep in mind, for every 1 'pure soldier' there are about 3 or 4 that are support personnel... so 40,000 'soldiers' and 160,000 medical, tech, etc.) to keep order and prevent/limit utter anarchy and help iraq develop, finance, and implement a new government... all this in conjunction with the iraqi people/representatives and their wishes and input.

very involved process. we have failed at this before and i feared we would fail again. so far... my fears are being confirmed. we shall see.

anyway, i hate to rant and i prefer to not be serious. so i shut my trap forthwith.