A brief rant on the Iraq disaster

[sparkindarkness]

Namely at one "counter-argument" supporting it. The "well, how would you fix it?" argument. This comes under the same category of "don't criticise unless you can do better" counter.

And it is utter bullshit.

We, the anti-war people (remember, the ones who were derided as cowards, traitors, terrorists, cheese-eating surrender monkeys and every over childish taunt that can be dredged up) told you it would be a disaster. We SAID it was a monumental mistake. You ignored us and made the hellhole anyway. Now you turn to us and say "well, how are you going to fix it?"

You do NOT screw something up utterly beyond measure of all cock ups (all the while we are there TELLING you that this will be an unmitigated disaster) then say we can't call you on it, expect accountability from you or even expect you to own up and say "damn, we screwed up" because the mess you made is so monumental that we can't clear it up.

It is NOT incumbent for the anti-war team to present a way to fix all this mess before we can criticise you and before we can demand heads to roll. Because, y'know what? IT'S NOT FIXABLE! There is just NO easy way to fix the disaster there and precious few hard ways. In fact, I'll go so far to say there's npot way to STOP IT GETTING WORSE. All we can do is hope we can find away where WE do not make it even more of a disaster than it already is - and that's a long shot.

Is withdrawing accepting defeat? Kind of yes - because we're not in a position to look for victory anymore. We're looking for damage reduction. The leg has gangrene and we're hoping to lop it off before it kills us.


And the same applies to the "history will judge" crew. Crap, we do not have to wait 20, 30 years in order to say that this is a disaster. the disaster is hear and now. We are not going to hold our tongues any longer until history officially declares it to be an utter balls up - because then all you screw ups who cheered for this disaster will be out of accountability range, won't you? We need answers now, judgement now and, yes, rolling heads NOW. Because the damage and the disaster is here now and the people who caused it still have the power and privilege and rewards they already had.

Comments

[kitsuken.livejournal.com]

Firstly, "history will judge" doesn't make sense; it suggests that the past will judge in the future. The only other way to interperet it is "we'll decide if it was a disaster once we finish, but we don't know when we'll finish so don't call it a disaster yet" Screw that, the first years of the war are history now and they were a total shitfucking disaster. All we can do now is damage control, which doesn't sound much like a success to me

Here's hoping Blair et al at least suffer in the whole "Cash for Honours" thing. At least that way they won't be in charge and thus won't be the ones writing the history making it far more accurate). Want to stop bombings? Taking the people who's decisions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would be a good start, and at least it would suggest that we don't support what's happened any more than they do.

"well how would you fix it"? fucking retards

[touchstone.livejournal.com]

I believe the intent of the phrase is: 'the full meaning and consequences of what's unfolding today will only be known years from now, looking back on it as history in hindsight'. Which is certainly true; there are some things you can't see until you're far enough away. But for whatever reason, it seems that things are usually worse in retrospect, not better. Sometimes when things look good, they turn out poorly in the final analysis...but a total cock-up is often recognizable quite early.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

yep, I also have the counter "look, if anything good DOES come out of this, it is obvious that it would be incidental and accidental rather than intent"

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

KIt's a huge delaying tactic. We can't hold them to account and blow them out of the water until 20 or 30 years have passed and it is no longer relevent. It's responsibility dodging, no more, no less.

Blair has said he will step down this year (and I suspect a claymore wielding Brown will remove him if he doesn't) but it would be appropriate for him to leave in disgrace

[baranduyn.livejournal.com]

I feel your pain even while wondering if Bush and Blair are getting their testosterone suppliments from the same, cut-rate, back alley supplier.

Because we get the 'if we withdraw from Iraq we will look weak' rhetoric over here too. Unfortunately the correlary 'if you hadn't gone charging over there, half-arse prepared like Rambo on steroids then you wouldn't look so irretrievably stupid right now' does not seem to have penetrated the minds of the elected leaders, all of whom I suspect either copied their answers from others while studying history or think, ala Eddie Izzard's stereotypical Americans (who, I'm sorry to say, do exist) that what happened thirty years ago doesn't count.

It's Vietnam all over again. Go charging in to Americanize or Westernize the sweet little foreign peoples and find out they would much rather remain themselves.

Since I'm quoting comedians who sometimes are wiser than those who graduated from Yale with a fucking C- average I will quote Whoopi Goldberg, who pointed out there is something wrong when the allegedly incredibly superior American/Allies military and intelligence machine can't find a seven-foot tall elderly man dragging a dialysis unit.

It was bullshit anyway. They're not there to bring democracy to anyone. They're not there to find Bin Ladin. They're not there to avenge the events of September 11th. They're there because of the oil and the hopes that if they westernize that part of the world and install west-friendly leadership they'll, you know, give us some oil at a discount.

I only hope my disgust with the killing and the losses and the absolute disrespect for other cultures in the name of the war machine has some impact on our next election. I am not hopeful. You should see what we have running for office.

But the idea that we cannot look weak in the eyes of the world should be countered with the knowledge that looking like clueless bumblers is not a whole lot better as an image.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

The fear appearing weak - so they'd rather appear evil, idiotic and incompetent.

I think weakness would be preferred.

I think it's not so much a case of cheap oil so much as, in this world of dwindling resources, ensuring that they control the oil when the shortage begins to really pinch (because China and India haven't even STARTED to consume at the rate they're going to)


People say democracy represents the will of the people, but I hasve yet to vote for someone. I always vote against someone else.

[baranduyn.livejournal.com]

People say democracy represents the will of the people, but I hasve yet to vote for someone. I always vote against someone else.

There's a lot of that. I've said from time to time my vote is a desperate attempt to cancel out my father's vote. He thinks Richard Nixon is the finest president we've ever had.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

thank you

[logophilos.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way about BUsh being elected in the first place - we knew he'd be a terrible president, we knew he'd fuck America and by extension, the rest of the world, and yet non-Americans could only wring their hands and hope people would show some damn sense, while we were told to butt the hell out of American politics. Well - we told you so, we told you so, and look where you are. Iraq's the same - they can't say they weren't warned.

And it's not up to the those who tried to hold the fuckwits back to fix it. Unfortunately, fuckwits and non-fuckwits alike have to live with the mess.

[jocelyncs.livejournal.com]

Oh, believe me, there were a large number of Americans wringing our hands and hoping for sense too. I worked the Democratic campaign 2000 (in Florida, no less!) and for us, it was like watching the world end.

He was a joke even then. If it weren't for 9/11 and the rabid patriotism that the Republicans exploited, he would never have gotten support to invade Iraq or anywhere else, let alone a second term in office!

Many of us knew it would be bad--we just didn't fathom how bad.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I know his opponents were nothing to write home about, but they were the lesser of two evils at least.

It just saddens me that with poverty, people dying in pointless wars and the general evil all around, there are so many people who vote based on guns, gays and god *rolls eyes* Hell, the campaign against Kerry did talk a lot about the war - Vietnam. *double eye roll*

And on this side of the Atlantic we had a choice between Blair and Howard. It's like choosing between vampire or werewolf (apologies to all vampires and werewolves)

[touchstone.livejournal.com]

I don't entirely agree. Assigning blame is best done while in the liferafts wondering where the shark-repellent got to, rather than while the aircraft is sinking into the ocean and you're trying to unload passengers. It's not a perfect parallel, but you can minimize the damage, or you can make hold responsible those to blame. Frequently you can't do both, at least not equally well. You have to decide which is more important to you.

Sometimes, that means picking between 'more innocent people suffer' and 'the people responsible get away clean'. We can always hope this isn't one of those times, of course...

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

The problem is, if we don't assign blame they won't even admit we're sinking. The boat is going down but the crew won't release the life rafts until

Until we can say "yes it's a screw up" we can't reach for the liferafts because they're still going to try patching the huill (or pretending the water rounde their ankles isn't there). And until we can make it clear that THEY screwed up so badly, we can't stop them controlling the evactuation procedure and causing more people to drown. Until we force them to face their incompetence, we can't stop them piloting another ship into iceberg laden seas.

[jocelyncs.livejournal.com]

AHEM! *clears throat* ATTENTION, MY FELLOW AMERICANS! MY RIGHT HONORABLE FRIEND FROM ACROSS THE POND HAS MADE A STATEMENT!

*points*

What he said.

You have articulated beautifully what many numbers of Americans are feeling and saying at this moment. Unfortunately, our voices aren't being heard. I've noticed a marked decrease in reporting about the war and the public's feelings about the war--it's gone from front page news to third-page news, and some very important stories that are carried by BBC and the London Times aren't carried at all in the country that is the subject.

It's a bitter, cold, scary time. This fiasco got more press coverage when the Republicans held Congress, which is what I don't understand--and fear. Our press may be obnoxious and sensationalist, but they're usually not timid. That scares me. There's a definite sense of pressure coming from somewhere, pushing public awareness away from the war, the "surge," and the political struggles over it.

It was obvious in November that the Democrats had the backing of the public to put a stop to Bush's unfettered war power. Our public may have a short attention span, but it's not THAT short.

Something else is at work here. It sounds like a cheap conspiracy thriller, I know, but I'm starting to wonder. How far will this administration REALLY GO to hold onto power?

When we withdraw from Iraq, it will be admitting defeat, and that the idea was a fundamental disaster from the beginning, and when that happens, Bush's power is gone for good. He's staked his entire Presidency--and history--on this war, and the end of it will be the end of him. I think he and his puppet-masters know that, and it scares me to wonder now what lengths they will go to to prevent the loss of that power.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

What he said.

The times I have prayed for teh judges of the House of Lords to say that, but no, they have to write books in order to say "I agree."


The problem with the war is that poeople's attention spans are short, so the media has moved on. Thousands are dying in iraq - but WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE LATE ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S BABY!?And the war becomes... background noise.

The timid press are looking to consolidate remember - biogger and bigger owners and the republicans control teh FCC. You want more money? Play nice. There is definitely an increasing "towing the line" nature to the press - and besides, so many people just don't seem to care. they literaly ARE more interested in Anna Nicole Smith.

The problem I find is that so many limits have already been crossed that I am leery of what might happen next - people say "they wouldn't do that" well, yeah, but wouldn't we all have said the same abvout torture, detention without trial, outing an intelligence agent to punish their husband?

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Bush never had any intention of winning this.

He identified an easy target for our rage and prosecuted a not-quite-war on it.

What he has done is a distraction and while you are upset at it you would not want the real horrors in charge.

No, I do not credit him with some master plan or any great intellect. He fumbled up way to appease an angry mob. Be glad that angry mob is not in charge.

Because at the time glassing the middle east sounded like an excellent idea.

Bush isn't a monster, not at all, compared to that angry mob he's quite rational. He still looks funny though.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

The mob wanted blood - and that is why we charged into Afghanistan.

I don't see that being ane excuse for Iraq - Iraq wasn't even considered a target until the regime put it there. I do not believe for a second it was necessary to invade Iraq rto prevent America "glassing" the entire middle east

[thisdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

I love the idea of leaving, but one detail gives me pause - we have destroyed a country. A whole country is now fucked up beyond all recognition. Because of us. It's our fault, and I think we have the responsibility of fixing it as best we can. Maybe that is leaving. I don't know. At the very least, I think we should focus on things like fixing roads and connecting lights, rather than trying to run what little government is left.

Halliburton should be kicked out immediately. They have been a failure of astounding proportions and they should probably be facing charges for their amazing incompetence and corruption.

George W. Bush?

I had best not put into writing what we should do with him.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Part of my instinct does say "you broke it, you fix it"

But that then rebels when I think "can we fix it? Do we even have the people in charge who WANT to fix it?"

The whole disaster is not made any better than the shocking profiteering going on - and no accountabilioty being demanded. It makes a bad thing even more shameful

[thisdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

Yes, the right people need to be in charge. That congress is in new hands may help, although the movement now seems to be towards just pulling out. I think that is giving up the responsibility the administration has saddled us with but, as you have pointed out, that might be better for Iraq.

I think maybe we are all looking for a simple solution that doesn't exist. Goddess bless the country of Iraq; they need it badly.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

aye, I thinkl that is the only certainty - whaetever happens, Iraq is screwed

[msbrewski.livejournal.com]

and, do the people we destroyed even want US to fix it to begin with? they seem to want us gone...

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I think they want the US gone from there because they don't think US can/will/wants to fix it