Duty, Honor, Country

Well, it's been awhile. But, earlier today while doing some research/reading on a totally unrelated topic I came across a website that made my blood boil. Basically it was an anti-war site and while that in and of itself wasn't all that disturbing, one of the posts I read sent me over the top. It was from a retired Air-Force officer and the gist of his article was that Bush/Cheney are war criminals and it is the duty of all active duty soldiers to refuse to obey any orders of the administration. He went on to say that the military should arrest and hold the President and VP. Again, being against the war doesn't bother me. That's the right of every citizen...to have and express an opinion. But this guy's article, and some of the comments that followed in support of his position pushed my buttons and I had to respond. Lastly, I cannot believe that anyone would really support the position that America's military should conduct a coup and take over the country. Of course, the author says he'd expect the military to turn power over to the Constitutional successor and not stay in office. And he's serious. Yikes. Anyway, here's what I wrote in response. A bit long and perhaps unorganized but I was fired up and in a hurry.
----------------------------------------------

Let’s see if I have this straight: Bush/Cheney are war criminals and serving military should stand up, refuse to obey their orders, and hold them as war criminals? Hold that thought for a moment (and your nose as well for it stinks).

First, Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. This is undisputable by the very definition from the Geneva Conventions put forth above to damn the current administration. He met far more of the criteria and to a far greater degree than anyone in any U.S. administration. From his earliest days he openly idolized the former Soviet premier Joseph Stalin who also qualifies as a war criminal for his paranoia-induced execution sprees. So, let’s see, if proponents of the Bush/Cheney-are-war-criminals-and-serving-military-should-arrest-them school of thought are correct, then since Stalin was also a war criminal as defined above then that would make his U.S. Presidential counterparts war criminals for not going after him, and that would mean that all the U.S. military who served during that time failed to do their duty by standing up and demanding that we take action against Stalin. And the list could go on. Spare me.

But back to what we know about Saddam Hussein:
Ethnic Cleansing: Hussein long viewed ethnic Kurds as a long-term threat to Iraq’s survival, and the oppression and extermination of the Kurds was one of his administration’s highest priorities.
Religious Persecution: Throughout Hussein’s tenure he viewed the elimination of Shiism as a necessary goal, one that when achieved would purge Iraq of all perceived Iranian influence.
The Iraq-Iran War – 80 thru 88 (he started it)
The Dujail Massacre of 1982.
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983.
The al-Anfal Campaign.
The Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs. (a human AND ecological tragedy)
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait – 1990 (he started it again)
The Post-Uprising Massacres of 1991.

So, get down off your soap boxes, deflate your egos, cool your rhetoric, and take a chill-pill. Saddam Hussein was no misunderstood despotic “madman.” He was a monster, a tyrant, and a genocidal racist to name just a few. He was without a doubt one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. The world is better off without him.

But let’s get back to the Bush/Cheney war criminals for a moment. Those who would condemn them prattle on endlessly about being led to war on false pretenses, lies, and otherwise inflict various other calumnies upon the administration. Please. What war was ever started any other way? Grow up. As vonClausewitz said war is simply an extension of politics. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. As we condemn the current political leadership in a pathetic attempt to rationalize our own beliefs we had better be ready to condemn every administration. Saddam Hussein’s atrocities were committed in full view of not only our government but those of the world as well. Every indictment, every epithet, every moral condemnation we issue against Bush/Cheney also indicts us as American citizens as well as those around the world who watched and did nothing. So, who are the war criminals?

Make no mistake: The ouster of Saddam Hussein was an absolute victory for human rights. But again I say grow up. Wake up and smell the coffee. There is no certainty in warfare. Intelligence is routinely wrong, the enemy either has something you didn’t know about, is in a different place or does something completely out of character. It’s the nature of warfare. It has not changed since the Athenians fought the Peloponnesians. Every military man and woman worth their salt knows it.

Of course this debate is not new. I daresay that during every war our nation has engaged in we have heard the same or similar arguments. Were mistakes made in World War I? World War II? The American Revolution? The answer is absolutely yes. But would we now say it was a mistake to enter those conflicts in the first place? I think not. Collectively we must have the strength to combat what then Vice-President Spiro Agnew so famously termed the “nattering nabobs of negativity.” (Interestingly he uttered those words on September 11, 1970 – 31 years to the day before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon).

Those who would call Bush/Cheney war criminals are perpetrating a fallacy and it’s time for some inconvenient truths about the war. Opponents of the war suffer from bad reasoning.. We can agree that mistakes have been made in the preparation for and prosecution of the war in Iraq. The error lies in the follow-on argument that since mistakes were made then the war was a mistake in the first place. The premises of this argument simply do not support that conclusion. Supporters of this negative position are engaged in an argument of emotion over reason.

First, to re-cap: President Bush basically got it right at the outset. Some key points that are irrefutable:
• Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal, despicable tyrants in recent history. He was responsible for egregious human rights abuses, having sought weapons of mass destruction and even using them on his own people. He was a threat to the entire region, having consistently menaced and attacked his neighbors. He flagrantly defied the UN and ignored the will of the international community.
• The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was a desirable objective, championed by several administrations – Democratic and Republican alike.
• If Saddam Hussein was left in power there was no doubt that he could be more dangerous in the future than he was at the start of the war.
• Doing nothing was not an option (because we weren’t already doing “nothing”). Whether we invaded or not the U.S. and international community were committed to trying to contain Saddam Hussein through the no-fly zone, troop deployments, and other activities that were costing billions of dollars a year.

Second, the Democratic Party and all those who would agree with their positions are playing politics with the lives of all those who have died in Iraq – military and civilian alike. They hope to gain at the ballot box by fanning the fires of disillusionment and are relying on an emotional response. It’s politics. Period. End of discussion. Their argument is a simple emotional appeal, devoid of reason and unsupported by facts. They are absolutely desperate to regain power in Washington and will do anything, say anything, and take any position that they feel will give them political advantage. Then, once in power, they will use or not use soldiers in whatever way they see fit and in whatever way best serves as an “extension” of their peculiar brand of politics.

I’m sure many of you are thinking, “How can you be so sure of yourself?” Well, that’s easy: history is on my side. Wars are never simple and generally don’t go according to the original plan. Wars are always costly. Most importantly, wars are always problematic in that they generally produce mixed results. So, whether war is successful or not the toll is high and always leads people to ask whether or not it was worth it. The current crop of critics are descended from a long line and are simply making emotional arguments and hoping they lead to a desired political outcome, no matter their previous positions. Consider what some have said in the past:
• Congresswoman Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
• President Clinton: “What if he [Hussein] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.”

Perhaps most damaging of all is the propensity of critics of the current war to launch ad hominem attacks on the President, members of the administration, and others who they disagree with. Michael Moore and others like him spew mean-spirited rhetoric that is not only hurtful but dangerous. These simple appeals to emotion are poisoning our political arena and undermine the conduct of civil discourse and useful debate.

The simple truth is that we will never know what hasn’t happened as a result of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Sure, we all know what has gone wrong, where the assumptions and plans were flawed, and we are painfully aware of the cost in human lives lost or forever changed. But having said that, we must also demand of the critics an assessment of where we would be had we not gone to war. That assessment, sadly, is lacking.

Let me conclude by saying that my thoughts are not simply an attack on the “left” or those otherwise doubtful of current efforts. WE ALL HAVE FAILED. We have failed to learn from the past, our own American past, as well as the past of other nations and peoples. Osama bin Laden himself has been quoted as saying America would be easy to defeat because we’re too fat, lazy, and don’t have the attention span required for success. We are attempting to do something we have not trained to accomplish. Our culture today in particular, but generally throughout history, is ignorant of the costs, sacrifices, and requirements of war. None of our leadership in uniform, in government, or in civilian society has the experience to make perfect decisions although that’s what we seem to expect.

As Popeye so famously exclaimed, “I’ve had all I can stands, I can’t stands no more.” I am a moderate Republican, I support President Bush, and I support the decision to go to war in Iraq. As a retired Army officer, however, I also believe bad assumptions were made in the planning of the war, and mistakes have been made since in execution of those plans. These errors and mistakes have slowed our progress and cost us more in terms of precious lives lost and national treasure expended. The voices of negativity want you to believe that saying mistakes were made is the same as saying it was a mistake to begin in the first place. That is patently false and it is vital to understand the difference.

This is about how we win. Rather than carping endlessly about the “war criminals” in the administration and exhorting the serving military to rise-up in protest (something I sincerely hope they will not do), we need to be about figuring out the way to demonstrate that we are not the bad guys and that we are determined to be engaged against evil and un-democratic forces around the world. I have lived overseas and travelled around the world. We are not perfect but I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. Our ideology is correct at its core. As Americans we have the freedom to choose – we can stand together and work to fix problems, or we can stand separately, tearing each other apart and, along with it, the fabric of civil society. I, for one, choose to discard the partisan propaganda and work for victory.