Answer, Continued

Lest the conservative readers of my blog give me up as a traitor to the cause, or the liberal readers consider me a complete pacifist, it's important to note that my position on the war in Iraq is not as cut and dry as either of these groups might like.

Liberals, mostly Democrats, seem to believe that it's time for the U.S. troops to leave Iraq. They contend that since Iraq did not possess the alleged weapons of mass destruction as Bush claimed, our military presence from day one has been illegitimate. And the longer we stay there, the more illegitimate it becomes.

Conservatives, mostly Republicans, seem to believe all Bush has said about the Iraqi connection to the terror attacks of 11 September 2001. They claim that the war in Iraq has become tne "central front" in the war on terror and we must defeat the insurgents there if we are to prevent a blossoming of terrorism in other parts of the world. They claim that we cannot leave Iraq a "failed state" because it would be come a safe-haven for terrorists, just as Afghanistan did after the repelled Soviet invasion.

I agree that our original invasion was illegitimate since it was sold to Americans on the grounds of self-defense against Iraqi weapons of mass of destruction. Further, I do not see the original invasion as justified in light of 11 September. The Bush Administration has shown no meaningful connection to 11 September on the part of Saddam Hussein or his government.

However, it's obvious that we started something in Iraq that we must finish, whatever it is "finished" means.

While no one would argue that it was preferable to have Saddam in power, no American should argue that Iraq is clearly in a bigger mess than it was before the invasion. Since we created the mess that is in there now, we should do what we can to stabilize the country. And in terms of stabilize, I mean that we should do all in our power to shut down all combatants (call them insurgents or terrorists, whichever you liked) that oppose peaceful means to establish a new government in Iraq.

Unfortunately, shutting down all adversarial combatants means a more aggressive military campaign, something I doubt that Americans, or our political leadership, have the stomach for. Obviously a stepped-up offensive means that our troops would be put further in harms way. While I do not take likely the risks to life and limb that are leveled against our soldiers, I am sensible enough to know that such losses are part and parcel of war.

We can try to minimize the number of deaths and dismemberments, but we cannot let that be our central goal. Our central objective must be to win the war. Our military knew that all too well in the First and Second World War. Even with technology that better equips our troops to attack and survive, we should remain mindful of that we cannot place the safety of individual lives above the greater good being served through armed combat.

I agree with Michael Scheuer, in his book Imperial Hubris, who states that to defeat the insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere we must be more aggressive militarily.

Once we have the insurgency quelled, though, we should get prepared to pack up and leave. By that point, we should have helped train enough Iraqi servicepeople to handle their country's security. The local politicians could then go about their business of re-forming the new government.

While many on the right, and in the Bush Administration, hate to admit we have occupied Iraq, we should see that a better model for handling Iraq is the way we and our allies fought World War II (aggressively) and then managed the postwar (competently). That's our best chance of keeping analogies to Vietnam at bay.