To Lurking Conservatives -- We want progress in Iraq...But hold your fire

This is my own opinion, but I think a lot of us on the left of center feel similarly about this.

I was and am against the Invasion of Iraq. But I want as good an outcome as possible, for the US and for Iraq.

If Al-Zarqawi is dead, I am glad. He was a rotten bastid, whose actions went beyond the scope of legitimate resistance or warfare. It will be especially good if his death helps to weaken the positions of the terrorists who have been attacking Iraqi civilians.

On that basis I actually will agree with those over here who are calling this a positive development in the war and the attempt to put Iraq on some kind of solid footing.

BUT HERE"S THE RUB.

Based on past experience, the real significance of this will be twisted and distorted and misused by the administration, the GOP and the parrots in the Mainstream Media. All perspective will be lost.

We will be told endlessly that this shows that the opponents of the Iraq Invasion were wrong. We will be told this is proof that we are winning the war, and this is an important turning point. We will be told that Bush and the Neo-Cons were right all along, and that it is possible to reshape the Middle East in our own image.

We will be told that this vindicates Bush, and that he was correct all along. We will be told that this will restore his popularity with the American people. We will be told that this will weaken Democrats.

That's all a crock of Bull Manure. The same things were pounded into our heads many times over the last several years. Bush was supposedly vindicated and the "Anti-War Left" was supposed to have been shamed and proven wrong when the status of Saddam was torn down....Same thing when Bush played soldier and flew to that aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished."'...Same thing when Saddam was captured. Same thing when Iraq held elections. Same thing when we supposedly transferred sovereignty to Iraq. Same thing when they first voted on a Constitution......etc. etc. etc.

EACH of those times have suppoedly been turning points. But they were turning points that were the exact opposite of all of this spin. Bush's popularity has dropped, the majority of the public has turned against the war, Iraq becomes bigger quagmire every day, more American troops continue to die, the Middle East gets worse politically and the world becomes more anti-American. Our credibility as a real military and political power in the world has become weaker, not stronger...Etc. etc. etc.

That's why people like me get so angry whenever these "turning points" occurs. It's not because we don't want progress. It is because we object to the distortions and lies that inevitably follow such things.

So, I (we?) will join you in being glad if a horrible terrorist is dead. We will join you in hoping that this will be a positive turning point.

BUT don't get carried away and DON'T use as a bludgeon yet again say "I told you so. You were wrong to oppose this war. We really are winning."

The fact is that you have been proven wrong before. And most likely you will be proven wrong about the impact of this now. So hold your fire and keep this in perspective.

Good post.

I'm hoping other Duers agree with this

And wait for the distortions to actually come. That other poster was right, this habit of turning everything into a Bush/CIA conspiracy is really a bit insane. I doubt this is going to make any significant difference in Iraq, but you know what, if it does, well good. It will always have been a war based on a lie, but people who still feel the need for vindication on that point shouldn't put that over ending the violence even if it happens while Bush is President. Zarqawi was never a freedom fighter, he didn't have the support of Iraqis, he manipulated the occupation to his own end. It's good he's gone and I hope the Iraqi government can make good use of that fact.

When they toppled the statue of Sadaam, the distortion was that the anti-war peopel were wrong that this would become a mess.

We were told "See how easy that was? We took over the country and toppled Sadaam in a few days, with no significant US casualties. And the Iraqis all loved us and are welcoming us. You stupid peacenicks warned of dire consequences. Now you have to eat crow because you were so wrong."

Didn't turn out to be quite that easy. Same thing has happened at every "turning point" so far. Critics of the war are told how events have proven us wrong. But time has consistently shown otehrwise.

I think you're right. There were other "turning points", too. When Saddam's sons were killed, for example. Bush even claimed that we had located the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be nothing of the kind. There can't be any claim to victory made when a war is being fought by so many different factions. It's not like Bush declared war on Iraq, he didn't. He chose, instead, to declare war on "terror".

Because it's a war on terror, instead of on the country of Iraq, how would anybody ever know when it was over? Remember, we support the current government in Iraq, so there can't be any peace treaty made, since technically, Iraq isn't our enemy. Who gets to surrender, and ask for peace? The elimination of Zarqawi is good, he was a killer, but his death won't stop the civil war between Shia and Sunni factions. It will also not stop the resentment Iraqi citizens feel toward us when we kill them in cold blood, women, old men, and children included.

Make your argument. The Bushies are already saying this doesn't mean much, they don't want this to be the reason for a call to bring the troops home now. I think it's sad that the left is so set on being right about endless war in Iraq that they'd actually pass by this opportunity to call Bush's bluff on "fightin' them over there"; Saddam is gone, Zarqawi is caught, bring the troops home. No can't do that, more important to be right about full civil war and the US coming home in defeat. It's sick, frankly.

My view (as with many otehrs) has been consistent. I would rather have been wrong about the worst case scenerios, but that doesn't alter the reality that they have consistentlt come true.

I was against the invasion. We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. There is no legitimate reason that Iraq suddenly became a "crisis." Rattling our sabers was stupid squandering of the support America had after 9-11. It was a needless distraction of resources that were needed to contain the real sources of terrorism against the US. It was also obvious Iraq was a complicated place, and trying to invade it would bog us down in a no-win quagmire -- as was Vietnam....It was also a war of suspicious motivation.

I would rather have been wrong about the aftermath. But after the invasion and during the occupation, all of the worst case scenerios have been borne out. Once the invasion was a "done deal" the best we could hope for was to minimize the damage we had caused to Iraq and to our own position. The longer we are there, the more we are trapped in a no-win situation.

I hate that fact. But that's what has happened.

If you think that is being so determined to be right that I want us to lose, then you just don't get it.

Let's put it like this. Suppose you knew there was a wildfire, your training told you that there was a chance the fire would head off in a particular direction but all the experts said something else. Your friends didn't listen to you and got themselves caught in the middle of a blow-up. It wouldn't matter how or why they were there, the goal would be to save them, not let them burn up to prove the experts wrong. What would you think of someone who was so focused on discrediting those experts that they forgot that they're the only ones who have the authority to make the calls to get your friends out. There is a certain element here at DU that tends to be like that, singularly focused on discrediting Bush at the expense of everything else, including ending this war. They may not believe they're doing that, they may not realize that's the way they come off, but sometimes it is. Some people are doing that with Zarqawi, spending more time trying to figure out how to use this to discredit Bush than to recognize the killer of a lot of Iraqi people is out of the picture and that, in itself, is a good thing. It doesn't need spinning, what happens 2 weeks from now will be clear enough when it happens.

My OP was the opposite of rooting for a bad end in Iraq, or denigrating the death of a bad man. My point was that it is possible to be lad about that, while also resisting the drumbeat from the Neo-Cons and the Media that this is a turning point that will make everything okay.

And, as I said above, I only want one thing. An end to this damn mistake in Iraq that is as positive as possible. IMO that means getting out as soon as possible as an occupying power, and give the country back to the Iraqis. If the death of Zarkawi hastens that, so much the better.

Your analogy is off base in terms of what any of us can do about this war. It is not like having the power to rescue friends trapped in a forest fire. Short of volunteering to enlist and go over there myself, I can't influence the course of the war.

I -- along with millions of people around the world -- tried to stop it from happening. But that did no good. I -- along with millions of otehr Americans -- tried to get the perpetrator of it out of office in 2004. But that too did no good.

So I == along with millions of otehr people around the world -- am in no position to create a "good" end to this war now, except to express our opinions and ideas, which is to cut our losses and try to minimize the ongoing damage to Iraq and our own country.

That is not the same as rooting for things to go wrong just to prove a point or to discredit Bush. He is doing that by himself, without our help.

I don't expect anybody to say "oh yeah, I'm all about using every event against Bush any way I can". It would be nice if some people would see how their words come off though, like it all being a CIA operation or Zarqawi being kept dead to plant now or the rather arrogant absoluteness that the violence will continue. Whether our troops are there or not, if the violence does continue there will still need to be a diplomatic effort to end that violence. If there is some way to use Zarqawi's death to jump-start some kind of talks in Iraq, we should support that and push for that. We shouldn't be so stuck on the belief that this war can only be endless death that we pass over any opportunity to leave Iraq in peace. And yes, the voice of the opposition to Bush does matter and it matters a lot. When people choose to abandon Bush, they want to know they have a rational place to go to and CIA conspiracies doesn't sound very rational to most people.

:kick:

While I believe that Zarqawi being dead is a good thing, it's meaning will be misconstrued. As mentioned earlier today in a post, insurgency is lead by nationalism and sectarianism - Zarqawi was a leader in that, but now that he is gone it will still continue - perhaps less, perhaps more - but attacks on our troops and innocent iraqis won't just stop immediately. So other than the fact that a big name is dead, this doesn't mean too much really...