My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War
We sure keep getting into wars in the Middle East, don't we? There are just so many people there in dire need of a good bombing -- terrorists, nutso leaders, camels who look at us cross-eyed -- that it's hard to choose whom to even focus on. But instead of the rah-rah "Let's kill those bastards!" you'd expect from Americans, we're now in more of a long, drawn-out-sigh, "Not another war" mood. And remember that this is from people like me who have nothing at all to do with the military action over there -- we're not even required to find the countries on a map, much less be engaged in combat. I guess we're just tired of hearing about the wars.
War is hell … if you're in the war. For everyone else, it's the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we're only making things worse and how we're wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don't know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We're all war weary -- despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can't deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time.
So what's the solution? Don't get into any more wars? Well, President Obama has pretty much proven that's not a possibility. I mean, he was the stereotypical liberal peacenik, denouncing President Bush as vehemently as possible as an awful, awful man for even contemplating getting us into a conflict with a country that was no direct threat to us, and even he couldn't help but start another war in the Middle East (I mean, "kinetic military action in the Middle East," wink wink). It's like the dictators there exist just for the purpose of being villains. If you accurately portrayed them in a movie, critics would call them unrealistic for being too one-dimensionally evil and crazy. And when you see people that terrible and also so much weaker than us militarily -- the U.S. fighting them outright on a battlefield would be like the NFL versus a peewee league team -- no one has the willpower to not smack them around.
Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I'm sure we'll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the "Bush=Hitler" signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.
Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don't get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, "Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!"
They didn't mean anything by it, but it's useful to understand that no matter how much the left screamed about the Iraq War in those protests, 95% of that was partisan silliness and, at most, 4% actual deeply held belief (and possibly 1% brain parasite). That's pretty evident when you consider how relatively quiet they are with Obama -- pretending to care about civilians being killed today won't help defeat Republicans, so why bother? That's the big problem now -- there's no longer a separation of war and politics. And our staying in a country and trying to help people means the war goes on longer, which gives it more time to be exploited politically while our troops are in constant peril. Plus, everyone else grows tired of hearing about it. So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we've bombed it?
Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn't say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn't we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?
I know of a few objections to that. One is that we might not get the results we want, such as toppling the dictator. Like if we had left Iraq after the Shock and Awe, Saddam could have regained his control of the country. Or someone else even worse could have come into power. Well, guess what? We could have just gone back in and bombed again. Lather, rinse, repeat until we have what we want. It's extremely easy for us to blow stuff up in these countries -- especially from the air. We can just keep doing it over and over, and they can't stop us or even really threaten us. We have stealth bombers, and I'm not even sure all those countries have radar to detect our regular bombers. And we could literally hit a button and obliterate any of those countries anytime we want. We wouldn't, because that would be super mean -- but it wouldn't hurt to remind people we have the ability.
Would people get angry about us just bombing a country and then heading back home? Sure they would. They'd scream at us for leaving these countries in shambles and for all the harm we’d be causing the civilians. The UN would probably pass an impotent resolution against the U.S. But the military operation would be over, and attention spans are short. Yes, the left would screech about our awful warmongering for a little while after one of these strikes, but then Glenn Beck would say something, and they'd obsess over that like it was the worst thing ever and forget all about the now ended war. So really, devastating a populace will in the end cause a lot less complaining than staying and trying to help.
Yes, this new policy would be awful for the people living in those countries, but currently those people are being brutalized by dictators, so getting brutalized by us is really just a lateral move. I know we'd like to help, but it's too hard and too risky. Plus the left will never stop screeching about it while we're there, and we just can't take that anymore. Remember that dumb "Bush lied, people died" slogan? Well how about "Hippies whined, so... we don't help people no more"? Okay, I'm not a filthy hippie, so I can't make a good rhyme. I'm a conservative, so I'm only good at saying things that are both coherent and true.