Perspective
Iraq and Iwo Jima have a lot in common. One is a metropolitan country in the heart of the Middle East. The other is small volcanic island located due south of Tokyo. One is Muslim. The other is part of Japan’s Shinto/Buddhist complex. One has vast oil wealth. The other has some fisheries and military bases. One holds a strategic position in the heart of one of the world’s most volatile regions, which is also the incubator of a new global war. The other is, well, still just a small island in the middle of almost nowhere.
The battle for Iwo was one of the toughest in the entire Pacific Campaign. 70,000 Marines invaded, 6,821 of whom never came home. An additional 19,217 were wounded, and 2,648 suffered combat fatigue. All in just five weeks of fighting.
The battle for Iraq continues, but the results aren’t nearly so bad. To date, about 1,400 killed and 10,000 wounded in just less than two years of fighting.
But Iraq and Iwo Jima still have a lot in common
Nice. I’d forgotten that Iwo Jima was pretty pointless in hindsight. I think my favorite middle school history teacher taught us about that.
But, of course, Roosevelt and Truman didn’t have most of media screeching about WMDs constantly.
Actually, Iwo Jima had a little more strategic value than that. It was a valuable forward warning station for the Japanese of incoming bombing raids.
You know THIS is why I am a loyal reader of this blog – you simply put things like no one else and common people like me – GET IT. Thanks. Sometimes we forget the history lessons and I think some people *cough*the left*cough* aren’t seeing the strategerie before their eyes. Luckily some of us get it – and luckier for us – we have you to point it out when our heads are in the clouds. THANKS.
VodkaPundit: Iraq Compared To Iwo Jima
VODKAPUNDIT writes a very interesting comparison between the returns on investment of the Second Gulf War in Iraq and the taking of Iwo Jima Island in WWII.
Interesting piece. Three points about Iwo Jima sort of weaken your premise, though:
1) before we invaded it, its airfields were being used as staging bases by the Japanese for small air raids against the B-29 bases on the Marianas. The raids weren’t very effective, but by that time the Army Air Force was getting cost-conscious, and each bomber destroyed cost half a million in 1945 dollars.
2) between March 1945 and the end of the war, more than two thousand B-29s made emergency landings on Iwo. Each B-29 had a twelve-man crew. So the capture of Iwo saved at least three times as many American lives as it cost.
3) prior to Iwo’s capture, the B-29s flew their bombing missions unescorted, and significant numbers of them were shot down because of that. After we took Iwo, P-51s and P-47s based there could escort the B-29 raids, and B-29 losses to Japanese fighters dropped sharply.
If you want a “bloody and unnecessary” operation from the Pacific war, the best example is the invasion of Peleliu in October 1944: an island half the size of Iwo, with half as many Japanese defenders, that cost the Marines more than 1100 dead and 5000 wounded. Before the invasion the Japanese had already stopped using it as an air or naval base, because it was too vulnerable to American carrier strikes. Afterward, it was never a significant American base of any kind.
Excellent post. As a fine product of our nation’s public schools my knowledge of history is soooooo lacking, you help with perspective in these type of posts.
I put up a different take on Iraq, Lebanon and why Iraq is so important over at my blog this morning. Thanks for this.
Little did I realize 13 months ago when I mobilized that I was going to be riding the crest of a wave of freedom. I came here to Afghanistan to help finish off the Taliban, HIG and Al-Qaeda. We are almost done with that, by the way. But what really was amazing was to be here for the election in October 2004. And now I see the awe inspiring events in Iraq, Lebanon (and before that, Ukraine and Georgia). Something wonderous is happening, and people like Steve and Will are helping all of us keep track of it all. What a time it is…
read it
This is one of the best posts I’ve ever read about what we are doing in Iraq. And the longer…
If Iwo was that worthless, why did the Japanese put so much effort into its defense?
Military value aside, Iwo Jima was the first actual Japanese territory the US took.
People just don’t get it, this is the hard way. And we’ve really been lucky so far. I am a pubbie, not thrilled w/W in many areas. Ronnie’s my man, and boy, did he make some mistakes cough, Cough, O’Connor, cough cough.
But the WOT, even w/the mistakes, and there will always be mistakes, I don’t give an inch.
But I will admit, and I do despise him, Bubba’s been a good former pres, unlike Peanut. He’s like I remembered growing up. Keep your mouth shut.
I had the honor to interview Charles Sweeney, commander of the Nagasaki atomic bomb mission mission, and he said Iwo Jima was important for the other (conventional) bomber groups because that was where the P-51 Mustang Escort fighters were based for the B-29 raids on Japan. Even from Iwo Jima, the Mustangs had to use drop tanks. And I think I read somewhere that something like 25,000 B-29 personnel came through the emergency landing strip. So I don’t think I would describe the operation as pointless.
Another interesting reference point. I am reading (actually listening to) Stephen Ambrose’s book The Wild Blue, about the WWII B-24s and their pilots. We trained something like 200,000 pilots, engineers and navigators to fly these planes, which were instrumental in winning the war in Europe and the Pacific. (The bomber was nicknamed “The Liberator”)
Inside of the first 18 months of training on these planes, there were close to 3000 deaths from flight mishaps. 3000. One plane, 18 months. This is not counting subsequent combat deaths. This sounds incredible, but remember, these were, in the beginning, inexperienced pilots, and these planes had crews of 10, so with thousands of planes, hundreds of thousands of servicemen, and likely millions of hours of flight, the numbers start to make more sense.
3000 WWII B24 training deaths is tragic, like 6000 deaths at Iwo Jima, and every single one in Iraq and Afghanistan, but perspective (especially very recent historical perspective) is important.
Interesting comparison, Steven, but I think you’re pretty far off-base here. Iwo should teach us some lessons about Iraq, but not the ones you’re drawing. Iwo should teach us that an apparently entrenched and honor-driven enemy can be beaten by American persistence and ingenuity; Iraq and the larger MidEast war teaches us much the same thing. Iwo should also teach us that honor codes only go so far in the face of superior firepower; the MidEast will teach us that too. And Iwo should teach us that taking strategic preserves of the enemy helps us defeat him, even if winning the individual battle didn’t win the total war. Iraq is definitely teaching us that one.
An excellent book I recently read makes the same points (among many, many other things) that Wolfwalker makes. It’s called “Flags of our Fathers,” and it’s written by James Bradley, the son of John Bradley, one of the men in the flag raising photo.
Talk about eye-opening books – this is one of the best I’ve ever read.
I would add to my earlier comments about Iwo Jima’s value that the Guadalcanal campaign is probably a better Pacific War comparison to put the Iraq War in perspective:
1. Both Guadalcanal and Iraq had come on the heels of earlier US victories (Midway and Afghanistan), but when the enemy still had significant resources and the ability to take the initiative.
2. Both Guadalcanal and Iraq became more violent and costly as they progressed from “easy” early progress.
3. Guadalcanal became a strategic diversion for Japan, which previously had more interested in securing New Guinea and fortifying New Britain. Iraq has become a strategic diversion for Islamists who are looking for a front to “get at” the Americans.
4. Contemporary media questioned the wisdom of pouring US resources into Guadalcanal. The behavior of our own media over Iraq is well documented.
5. That the US prevailed in what was by Pacific War standards a long campaign (six months) demonstrated that the US was not so easily driven off. This marked the start of a long strategic defensive by Japan that would end with Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the destruction of the Japanese homeland.
This is not to say that Steven’s premise of putting the sacrifice of Iraq into perspective is not a worthy one. But I think that we are probably closer to the Guadalcanal stage of the War on Terror than the Iwo Jima stage.
Rip & Read Blogger Podcast for 2005-03-01
Here’s what I ripped and read in my Podcast today:
Perspective on Iwo Jima and Iraq
Steven Green writes essays at VodkaPundit, and this is one of his best:
Perspective
Iraq and Iwo Jima have a lot in common. One is a metropolitan co…
I like the Guadalcanal analogy, too, but it does not invalidate Stephen’s original parallels.
It is easy to forget, in hindsight, that wars are not fought to any schedule and those involved in them never know how long they will last. MacArthur, in 1945, was readying a years-long assault on the Japanese mainland. Foch, in 1917, was rushing reinforcements to the collapsing Italian front. Sherman, in 1864, was preparing for years of guerrilla resistance.
This is not to say that today’s Middle East is like Eastern Europe in 1989, just to point out that we do not know how strong the enemy’s will is, nor how long the road ahead.
Thank you for your perspective. I like the metaphore you used
“…Today’s atom bomb is democracy in the Middle East
Great post Steven, thanks for sharing.
As Victor Davis Hanson often reminds us, historical perspective is invaluable.
Not so sure about the kamikaze/suicide bomber comparison. The former, after all, were going after legitimate military targets in a declared war (and, iirc were pretty ineffective in any grand sense).
Interesting reading. After going through the comments, I see that Steven den Beste’s bane occurs here, too. No matter what the subject, there’s always someone to ding you for your 1: Accuracy 2: Relevance 3: Oversights
Regards
World altering events
Stephen Green over at Vodkapundit has an excell……
Historical Parallels
Stephen Green offers a useful bit of perspective on Iraq: Iwo Jima helped teach us how to deal with kamikazes….
bb (and others interested), FYI Bradley’s book, Flags of our Fathers, is to be made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood, with production scheduled for Fall 2005. Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418689/
Iwo Jima vs. Iraq
Stephen Green has an interesting essay comparing the war in Iraq to the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima. The parallels go well beyond the fact, as I noted here months ago, that the U.S. suffered multiple times more dead and wounded at Iwo than we’re ever li…
Great post, despite the many quibbles in the comments.
In fact, for anyone who thinks we’ll stop debating Iraq any time soon, just look how easy it is to start an argument sixty years later about the wisdom of decisions made in one theater of a war almost everyone agrees was worth fighting.
One very important point everyone has overlooked is that Iwo was planned before the planers knew the bomb – A. would even work and B. the President would use it and C. The Japs would realise it was pointless and give up after only 2.
I got my ifo first hand from three Naval offices who were fighting the Japs in 1945. One of whom my father was a four striper. Or as Jarheads say “full bird”.
When we took Iwo the military had visions of a year*S* ( as in many)long invasion of Japan. Thousands of bombers would have had to land on Iwo in such a fight. Thank God we A. got the bomb to work – and more importantly B. Harry had the brains to use it. MIllions of lives( both Japs and allies) were saved; tens of millions of casualities were averted.
Judging by your comments, you probably don’t realize that “just so that bomber crews might have a safe place to put down in case of emergency” likely saved many more Air Corps lives than the Marine lives which were lost on Iwo. There was no alternative to landing at Iwo, so the bombers would have had to ditch. Typically, a very large percentage of the crewmembers would not survive.
Iraq?Iwo Perspective
Vodkapundit reminds us of some specifics of our historyand howw it repeats itself. Well done!
Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution … Like Anti-Vietnam War Protests?
Captain Ed has some interesting commentary on the NYT’s coverage of the government overthrow / resignation in Beirut:
Instead of explaining how the Iraqi elections set the stage for the wave of demands for democratization in the Arab world, the Time…
According to “Flyboys” author, Chichi Jima, some miles to the north, was completely bypassed by the US war machine. It too was heavily fortified, but taking it was not deemed necessary. BTW, “Flyboys” was a great read, and not for the reasons one might think. It’s a pretty good brutality of war book, with atrocities practiced on both sides, Japanese and American
Sorry, I meant to give the author’s name for “Flyboys”, it is James Bradley, author of “Flags of our Fathers.”
Beth’s comment regarding democracy as comparable to the atomic bomb will probably bear out in more ways than one.
Just as the Left has insisted for decades that the atomic bomb was unnecessary in persuading Japan to surrender, so, too, will the war in Iraq be held as unnecessary for furthering the cause of democracy in the region.
Of course, first the argument will be democracy won’t happen in the region (witness the grudging support for it in Iraq and the drumbeat of claims that the cost is too high). But should it actually take hold in the region, then it will be something whose time had come, regardless of whether Bush launched a war in Iraq or not.
For a worm’s eye view of the war in the Pacific, I STRONGLY recommend William Manchester’s “Goodbye Darkness”, his autobiography of his own experiences in the Pacific War (he was in on three island campaigns and was critically wounded on Iwo); and Eugene ‘Sledgehammer’ Sledge’s “With The Old Breed: at Peleliu and Okinawa”. Both books tell the story of a common Marine infantryman’s experiences in the Island Wars, and tell many truths tha the ‘big picture’ strategic and political recountings lose sight of.
Only Sledge could tell of the absolute bitter hate that the Marines and the Imperial Japanese came to feel for each other, and only Manchester could talk about what it felt like to revisit the sites he bled and suffered for as a young man, forty years on.
More Pespective
Steve Green has some solid thoughts on the parallels of the battle for Iwo Jima and the war in Iraq. I have always believed that much of the angst over the war in Iraq has more to do with a
I think it’s a great post *and* I’m learning a lot from the comment quibbles.
A great, great post, Stephen.
I think that Crank’s comment cuts deep and true – Iwo was sixty years back and we still redeal the hand on what if’s and why’s at the drop of a hat, don’t we?
BTW, I concur with the folks that mentioned the numbers of Fort pilots (and others) who lived as a result of being able to divert to Iwo.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki there probably wouldn’t be a Japan today. Some definite percentage of the people reading this, or our family and friends, probably wouldn’t be here, either. Olympic was going to be a blood bath… and the huge question hanging over Truman’s head, beyond defeating Japan, would be where the Russians would stop after the shooting was over.
We have indeed dropped a nuke. And it had to happen. We can stop the killing by freeing millions or killing millions. I’d rather see the former work.
To Make An Omelet…
…you’ve got to break a few eggs. Stephen Green, aka Vodkapundit, notes that a great deal of sacrifice took place on Iwo Jima with somewhat less sacrifice so far in Iraq.
Pre-invasion planning for Iwo Jima never mentioned emergency landings as a rationale for taking the island. The sole reason Iwo was invaded was to provide a base for P-51 fighters to escort the bombers. But only 10 (yes, 10) escort missions were flown from Iwo, which proved to be too far away from Japan (750 miles one way) even for P-51s.
No one knows how many actual emergency landings were made, but Army Air Force records show that most landings were for training or scheduled refuelings.
The great preponderance of Japanese early warning of bomb raids was from signals analysis, not Iwo Jima spotters.
Japan had discarded Iwo as an air base long before the invasion. Raids from there to attack American bases in the Marianas were never effective to begin with.
It’s extremely doubtful that the number of aircrew saved by landings at Iwo plus the number saved at sea by CSAR missions flown from Iwo ever approached the 6,800-plus lives lost taking the island.
I wrote more here.
Vodkapundit Shoots and Scores
Please check out Stephen Green’s post on Perspective.
Never heard that P-51 stuff before. The P-38 was the premier long-distance interceptor and escort in the Pacific. But escorts were unnecessary, Japanese air defense was minimal. The Raiden might have made a difference but Japan never built anywere near enough of them. Somebody obviously planned for B-29 landings on Iwo, otherwise a strip big enough for 4-engine bombers wouldn’t have appeared there by itself.
The airfields for LeMay’s planned incineration of Japan by conventional means would have been on Okinawa – room for more airstrips and much closer to the target.
I’ll refrain from the dominant urge to recommend any specific books. Any decent American public library has hundreds of books on this very subject. Heck, a few of you have probably even read some of them.
Den Beste didn’t have the stamina to persist through the niggling and carping. But the details are important. Without them it’s not history, it’s mere flag-waving.
I enjoyed the original post and the responses, even the quibbles (after all, that’s what historians — even amateur ones like some of the quibblers — DO: they study strategic and tactical goals, examine relevance, make comparison, draw conclusions, weigh evidence, and quibble over the significance ascribed, or not, to events). Enjoyable! I particularly like the emphasis one poster put on the fact that Iwo was the first bit of Japanese real estate taken by the Americans. That helped boost morale by showing it could be done, even in the face of adversaries who were dug in solidly.
BB-
I read the book “Flags of our Fathers” [and "Flyboys"] and can hardly wait for the movie (by Spielberg & Eastwood) to come out.
Iwo was much more significant than the original post claimed. It was the first Japanese soil ever taken by another country. It proved to be a huge psychological blow to the Japanese.
My hubby was a Marine and so was my father. I was raised on the tales of Iwo Jima and have always loved WWII history.
Thanks for mentioning that book. It brought a smile to my face.
Wolfwalker, Thor, and Mr. McEnroe are all making good points, so I’d like to add a couple that flesh them out:
1. You don’t always take ground because you need it. The three fighter fields may not have helped us but we denied them to the Japanese.
2. 18 months before, the Japanese had made us pay a brutal price for Tarawa. They expected to extract a higher price for the home islands. We needed to prove them wrong.
3. We remembered Tarawa too, and needed to find out if we’d learned the lessons.
With those points in mind, and viewing Somalia as the Tarawa jumpoff, I think the Iwo/Iraq comparison holds up.
Martinis and Heinlein
I’m sure glad that “Vodkapundit” Steve Green has returned to blogging. And over the past 24 hours, he has blogged with a vengeance. Just click…
Nice, Stephen! I’m reminded of an earlier article of yours (titled “Game Plan”) that prefigures this post.
Remember your three keys to winning this war?
1. Take the initiative.
2. Fight when we have to, even if we can’t win.
3. Remain what we are.
True for Iwo Jima during WWII, true for Iraq during the war on Islamofacism.
“Stick to the game plan. We can win.”
Ever thus.
Great post, Stephen … like Tmj.
Bush has inspired MY dream — a World Without Dictators.
He had a fine speech here in Bratislava, too. (Slovak Spectator has the text)
http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?cl=18873
Was Iwo worth it?
If the war had been won when the Japanese were incapable of WINNING… instead of two years later when they finally had enough… there wouldn’t have been an Iwo Jima.
Or Okinawa. Or Philippine campaign. Or a hundred other nameless vicious little fights that left men dead on the field.
You fight until one side quits.
Just like we are doing now.
Iwo Jima was must have, period. I can find a large group of B-29 vets who will be happy to tell you how much they love the Marines and how much they appreciate taking Iwo. True, only 10 full fledged escort missions departed Iwo, but fighter sweeps, Air-sea rescue, refueling stops(a not inconsiderable need in the Pacific) As to why the Japanese fought so hard, well, they did the same math the Army Air Force and Marine Corps did. I can suggest “Pineapple Air Force ” or “The Longest Campaign” for an Army Air Force perspective, at least relating the the VLR fighter campaigns.
I am not a fan of “Flyboys” Too much reaching for moral equivilence . My uncle Herman was a rifleman at Iwo,by the way.No moral equivication there at al.
Hmm, I guess it would be remiss to point out how Japan attacked the U.S. and Iraq didn’t at this point.
I guess it would be silly to point out how hundreds of Iraqis are still being blown up each and every week at this point.
I’m thinking it would fall on deaf ears the fact that medical science and body armor have drastically reduced the amount of casualties taken in war. Given 1940′s standards in both, the Iraqi casualty count would be in neighborhood of 5K, at least, if not higher than Iwo.
I shudder to think how easy it will be to justify invading other countries when we can use robots controlled from submarines.
BTW, justifying nuclear weapon use could very likely be one of those things that comes back to haunt us. Just something to think about while Russia supplies Iran with nuclear fuel, and the EU starts selling weapons to China…both in response to the U.S. actions in Iraq.
Finally, a smart person.
Thanks, Wah.
It’s laughable that so many people have applauded this blog entry, when, for all of his pretense about making a poignant comparison between GWOT and WW2, he actually makes a brave effort to avoid making any point whatsoever.
He starts off badly, by saying that Iwo Jima and Iraq are similar, and then spending several paragraphs listing the ways in which they’re different. This hardly gets the point across – whatever it is.
A bit further down, he states a number of “irrational” reasons why people think invading Iraq was a mistake. However: we *did* encourage more people to become terrorists; we *didn’t* find any WMDs; Iraq *never* attacked the United States; and there’s enough oil there to pay off the entire US national debt. Before you start talking about hindsight, we doubters knew all of these things before the war even began, and they’re as rational now as they were three years ago.
(Here’s a 60-second lesson in modern history.
In the late 1990s, Iraq was getting into everyone’s good books again: they negotiated an oil-for-food price that even the US liked, they started co-operating with UNMOVIC again, and they re-established diplomatic relations with several countries. In 2000, the UN agrees that oil-for-food payments could be made in euros.
The US realises the negative economic impact that would have for its own economy, also being aware that global peak oil production is not far away, and prepares for action. They start deriding the oil-for-food programme, complaining about unfair oil pricing, resume air strikes in Iraq and start talking about WMDs. The US gets a chance to make its case to the UN Security Council, doesn’t do a very good job, and goes to war anyway.
Thereby, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t entirely driven by US oil requirements or control of Iraqi oil supplies, but moreover, to counter the economic ramifications thereof – which would be severe, if not catastrophic.)
Finally, we come to the point of the article: that the US wants to spread democracy in the Middle East, which would be a good thing. Maybe this is actually true, but the point is taken as being true without really being justified. We’ve heard all about Iraq being an “odious regime”, but how odious are the rulers of other Middle Eastern nations? And if they are so odious, why has the US invaded Iraq and none of the others? Could we not have made the same or harsher criticisms of Saudi Arabia’s regime, or even Israel’s, as we have heard of Iraq? The author makes the same mistake by assuming that the efforts are “paying off” without exploring how this is happening.
Furthermore, I hardly think the United States is fit to inform other countries about democracy. The US has spent the better part of the last century trying to tell other countries what to do and how to do it, either through direct military action or through CIA-funded coups. It badmouths other democratic nations for their policies and practices, yet it can’t – won’t? – even conduct fair elections of its own. If I want to know about democracy, I’ll ask the Swiss.
I think the few paragraphs that end of this article are probably the most disappointing. This is where the point should not only be made but clarified, concluded, and maybe even hammered home. Instead, we get a bit of propaganda imagery, and thus hope for a proper denouement, and then… nothing. All that is clear from this article is the author’s sense of self-importance on the topic. He barely makes any point at all, and fails to justify it with anything other than his own opinion. I could have watched Fox News for that.
Had this been a high school essay, I’d give it about a B-. We’re not quite in “see me after class” territory, but the author could definitely do much better, with a bit more effort and a bit less self-righteousness. Those who complimented the author for this article should be equally ashamed.
Nice one, roesti. But how ’bout a ‘C’ ? Here’s my version.
Comparing Iwo Jima and Iraq is a stunningly frivolous undertaking as well as a distraction from the events at hand. Besides the quite more obvious fact that Iwo Jima was part of an actual war and Iraq a mere routing followed by an occupation, it seems the truer comparison would be the battle over Peleliu in October 1944, as mentioned in a previous post by wolfwalker. A pretty much worthless event in the scheme of things which could’ve easily been bypassed, saving American lives. I’m sure P. Island had its promoters and armchair supporters too. You know, “let’s have a showing of American superiority” and all of that blather. And I’m sure it also had its detractors; perhaps some of the very American soldiers sent onto the island who knew it was a waste from the beginning. Pity. There’ll always be supporters of wars who are located in their own secure locations back home–draft dodgers, chickenhawks, bean counters and people who never actually served their country but serve themselves well; and there’ll always be veterans of the worthless wars and battles who will insist their cause was ‘just’, because to do otherwise would be to lose face and feel less than a ‘hero’. Small minds abound.
Of course, there’ll always be those who want to trust their leaders and government never to send them into frivolous wars and battles in the first place: to make sure their cause is just, to not waste their lives.
Now that we’re up to our necks in Iraq something good better come out of it, or the lost lives of our patriots will not just be wasted, it will be criminal. The corporate draft dodgers and their cronies who presently occupy 1600 pennsylvania avenue; who chose this war instead of chasing down the real terrorists, and who are profiteering off the blood of our soldiers and the sanctity of our trust, will not soon be forgiven if the neocons’ bungled house of cards crumbles and Iraq not only produces a failure, but creates a new terror in the form a ‘nuclilar’ Iran. Bush’s “catastrophic success” may really be about ‘end time’ after all.
Ever notice how those on the ‘left’, will attack or criticize a president even if he’s a democrat, but ‘zealots of the right’ and cowardly sheep in general will only superficially attack a republican or critisize not at all? That’s because most right-wingers like to follow the leader. Look at history.
As far as your list goes, let’s not snivel about high oil prices (reagan youth are soooooo funny), the top three American oil companies have made their biggest profits ever in the last two years. It can’t be about oil.
It can’t be about money either. Halliburton and subsidiaries creating their own free market wealth to the tune of… why, I think it’s $20 billion by now, isn’t it?
It can’t be about WMD, there weren’t any WMD there–damn, I wonder what those aluminum tubes were for, or what happened to that yellowcake, and those mobile labs…well, at least saddam won’t threaten us with ‘mushroom clouds’ anymore.
Oh yeah that’s right, as Stephen has said: “We went into Iraq hoping to bring revolutionary change to the Arab people, who have suffered under odious regimes.” What pompous hogwash. I expect you to enlist next week and join your fellow neocon heroes on the front line in Iraq to relieve some of our true patriots who have been there already too long. Anything less coming from you must be viewed as cowardice.
Oh yeah, and while reagan was busy creating the taliban, promoting contra death squads, stealing money from kids’ school lunches to make his friends rich and getting lost in his alzheimer fuzz; Gorby ended the cold war and should’ve received a Noble Peace Prize for it. reagan youth are idiots.
Have a great day, Stephen. Don’t take this personally.
Nice piece. Its always good to learn something new. My main beef with Dubbya is the lack of honesty. Can we not handle the truth? If he had declared from the onset that we were going over to fight freedom, would so many be bent out of shape right now? Would he have been afforded strong public support under those pretenses (spreading democracy)? I’m not sure. My personal feeling is that I was misled by my president. This tends to put a bad taste in my mouth.
That being said, I am proud of the work our troops are doing over there. At the moment, it seems things are looking up. Lets all hope it stays on course…
—-
The primary reason was, despite Bush Administration claims, to gain a strategic footprint in the Middle East with “Democracy” imprinted on the sole.
—-
(wmellema, Don’t take any of this personally if some of it seems a bit harsh, it’s not meant for anyone in particular.)
That bad taste in your mouth is both Bush and Cheney’s wads. If it was Clinton’s wad would you doth complain so much, or less? Would you be standing (or kneeling) there looking for justification for a failed war policy, bungled operations, myopic planning, incompetent leaders spouting propagandized rationales, dying American soldiers extended far beyond their capabilities, lies and more lies and greed demonstrably larger than anything that has previously been allowed to occur in the twentieth century (including the Reagan years) thinking it was all good for you? Well, here’s a question, was it good for you? There’s protein in it, I’ve heard it’s good for the skin, you can stick paper to walls with it… it can’t be all bad.
It’s like Monica Lewinsky saying, “Well if it tastes bad, it must be good.” Here’s a good guideline to follow: If it smells bad, tastes bad, looks bad, lies to you, but makes a profit