March 19, 2005

2 year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom

A post from wayy back in 2004 before the elections of November and January. It gives the case on a basis of pro-war pro-Kerry voting. It is not very persuasive even back when I read it, but I believe it is a nice piece of history to look back on given all we know now.

PDF Document outlining timeline of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A good overview of OIF, for those interested.

Now I'm going to quote some parts of the hraka article and the comments to it. In order to use the hindsight of 2005 to answer the premonitions and the arguments against Bush in 2004. Nice timetravel trick, eh?
"A house divided against itself cannot stand," Abraham Lincoln once said. Even the greatest of optimists, with the rosiest of outlooks, would have to admit that at this point in time the United States is a house divided against itself.

Is responded by,
4. Abraham Lincoln. It is supremely ironic that you would include a quote from President Lincoln, who next to George Bush was probably the most hated and reviled wartime president in US history. Lincoln, who, like Bush, did not win a majority of votes, was disliked by members of his own cabinet, and is hated by many in the South to this very day. Lincoln was not popular until it was obvious the North was going to win, and he was not "beloved" until John Wilkes Booth blew his brains out.


For those one-issue WoT voters, it's time to consider sucking it up and taking one for the team. It's time to start wondering if the presidency of George W. Bush is more of an impediment than an aid when it comes to defeating the Islamists.

It's time to think about voting Kerry in 2004.


As one commentor perceptively pointed out, that is saying that Republicans can suck it up and take on for the nation when it comes to the War on Terror but that the Democrats can't if Bush is President. Rather unjust, don't you think, that those who can put partisan interests above national security will be rewarded with the power of the White House?

The argument for Kerry and against Bush, in that blog post, is a couple of folds.

1. Kerry will be a uniter and have more support to do what we can to win the war globally.

2. Bush has pionered the hard steps and now we can have a more stable, different kind of leader take the reigns.

3. America has a greater chance to win the war if she is united, rather than divided.

Number one is only partially correct, because while Kerry may have less opposition from our so called allies, that doesn't mean he will take advantage of that through using his will over his allies. What he can do, means nothing if he won't do it.

Number 2 is flawed based upon justice. The party that did the hard parts should get the credit. Just as if JFK started Vietnam and concluded Vietnam, he should get the credit for ending Vietnam rather than Nixon. But usually this doesn't factor into the equation, because the party that did not do the hard work, cannot accomplish the goals and therefore they don't get the credit for ending anything. I.E. Vietnam and John F. Kennedy.

Kerry cannot take the reigns because those without the courage to volunteer do not have the courage to stand against the fire.

Number 3 is hinged upon Albraham Lincoln and the historical details concerning him. As mentioned before, Lincoln was a very divided figure, as evidenced by the fact that a couple of states seceded because of him being elected. A "divider" in the literal sense, not just the metaphorical sense that is applied to Bush.

And of course, the question and the challenge facing Lincoln was how to prosecute the war to a victorious conclusion without losing the House to the Democrats and thereby eliminating any chance of a reunited Union. Lincoln did this through two things, Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation. The victory at Antietam led to the Emancipation Proclamation and both lead to the victory of the House Republicans over the dovelike House Democrats.

As historically proven, unity comes after victory, not before. Being unified as a prerequisite for victory, is unrealistic and foolish. Because without victory, there can be no unity, whether of the Union or of the nation as it is right now.

As we are witnessing the after-effects of the January 30th elections in Iraq, we are seeing the unity. The unity that only VICTORY could ever have brought about.

Electing John Kerry would have been an acknowledgement that we were losing, that we needed new leadership and new policies and new strategies because the current ones lack "uomph" or something akin to it. Because the American people reaffirmed Bush, the Iraqi people affirmed their trust in America for the first time in our promises to stand by them against all enemies foreign and domestic in Iraq and the Middle East. Because the Iraqi people affirmed their trust in us, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon occured because now the Lebanese are affirming their independence because they can now trust AMERICA to not forget them as we forgot the Iraqis of Gulf War 1 with the usual predictable results. Having realized that they have partial immunity from Syria's "Hama" rules because of America the all seeing eye, Lebanon has now been free to demonstrate with 1 out of 4 million of their population.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home