The view from the militaristic left
I've been busy, but I just want to weigh in: I'm an admitted liberal and military veteran, and I'm voting for Kerry.
I am opposed to both a new draft and mandatory military service. The all-volunteer force is the cornerstone of our present military configuration. Modifying that tenant has far-reaching applications. For example, the use and application of current and future technologies for individual force enhancement, in my opinion, depends on soldiers whose commitment and focus lies beyond surviving the next two years. It is also extremely difficult to build esprit de corps among drafted soldiers. The gains in manpower do not outweigh the loss of cohesion. No matter how large, I doubt a drafted military could occupy Iraq with even half the effectiveness of our current forces: they simply would not possess the willpower to stay the course.
Along that course, I am in favor of giving the UN more control of the final outcome in Iraq. I agree with many of our Maximum Leader's predictions as of the consequences of UN leadership, but I think the consequences of continued U.S.-occupation are worse. First, secular democracy (Maximum Leader's oft-repeated goal for Iraq) will never be achieved in Iraq, since a majority of the population favors a religious style theocracy modeled on Iran. Second, a U.S.-sponsored state will never achieve legitimacy in the region, particularly when the Defense Department continues to throw it's support behind individuals like Ahmed Chalabi (again look to the example of Iran, where our support for the Shah blinded us to consequences of revolution). Third, the linking of our economic, political and military interests damages our credibility elsewhere in the world, where is might be needed for future conflicts. The Bush administration seems to agree on some level, since they've already asked the UN to oversee the transition. As I've said before, we need to sacrifice our economic and political interests in Iraq and focus on what we do best: killing people. We can continue to fight the war on terrorism without enriching Halliburton. Incidentally, the United Nations IS to be credited with the success of stability in the Balkans (Yugoslavia was never a stable nation, so it's dissolution is not the fault of the UN), which is one more success than the U.S. has had in post-WWII nation-building.
This is the essence of my disagreement with most of the posters on this site. I feel that the Bush administration's goals in Iraq cannot be achieved, and what progress we do make is continually undercut by political cronyism and economic corruption. It was a bad war from day one: fought to achieve hidden objectives and justified by by threats of 'imminent danger' that were intentionally overhyped. We have a responsibility to clean up our mess, and we should keep our troops on the ground and maintain a robust level of economic aid. The Iraq War and it's consequences will be the defining event of our generation, just as Vietnam probably was for most of our parents; if we're thoughtful about what we do from here, we can prevent it from also defining the generation of our children.
I am opposed to both a new draft and mandatory military service. The all-volunteer force is the cornerstone of our present military configuration. Modifying that tenant has far-reaching applications. For example, the use and application of current and future technologies for individual force enhancement, in my opinion, depends on soldiers whose commitment and focus lies beyond surviving the next two years. It is also extremely difficult to build esprit de corps among drafted soldiers. The gains in manpower do not outweigh the loss of cohesion. No matter how large, I doubt a drafted military could occupy Iraq with even half the effectiveness of our current forces: they simply would not possess the willpower to stay the course.
Along that course, I am in favor of giving the UN more control of the final outcome in Iraq. I agree with many of our Maximum Leader's predictions as of the consequences of UN leadership, but I think the consequences of continued U.S.-occupation are worse. First, secular democracy (Maximum Leader's oft-repeated goal for Iraq) will never be achieved in Iraq, since a majority of the population favors a religious style theocracy modeled on Iran. Second, a U.S.-sponsored state will never achieve legitimacy in the region, particularly when the Defense Department continues to throw it's support behind individuals like Ahmed Chalabi (again look to the example of Iran, where our support for the Shah blinded us to consequences of revolution). Third, the linking of our economic, political and military interests damages our credibility elsewhere in the world, where is might be needed for future conflicts. The Bush administration seems to agree on some level, since they've already asked the UN to oversee the transition. As I've said before, we need to sacrifice our economic and political interests in Iraq and focus on what we do best: killing people. We can continue to fight the war on terrorism without enriching Halliburton. Incidentally, the United Nations IS to be credited with the success of stability in the Balkans (Yugoslavia was never a stable nation, so it's dissolution is not the fault of the UN), which is one more success than the U.S. has had in post-WWII nation-building.
This is the essence of my disagreement with most of the posters on this site. I feel that the Bush administration's goals in Iraq cannot be achieved, and what progress we do make is continually undercut by political cronyism and economic corruption. It was a bad war from day one: fought to achieve hidden objectives and justified by by threats of 'imminent danger' that were intentionally overhyped. We have a responsibility to clean up our mess, and we should keep our troops on the ground and maintain a robust level of economic aid. The Iraq War and it's consequences will be the defining event of our generation, just as Vietnam probably was for most of our parents; if we're thoughtful about what we do from here, we can prevent it from also defining the generation of our children.
posted by Anonymous at 4/25/2004 05:05:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home