Kinsley on The Iraq War Paradox : It Hurts, but Don't Stop

[jefferson_dem]

Has there ever before been a war that so many people disapproved of but so few wanted to stop? Have the reasons for starting a war ever been so thoroughly discredited without turning into reasons for ending it?

The Vietnam-era antiwar movement had an agenda: Bring the troops home. Or, in two words -- suitable for a picket sign or a T-shirt -- "Out now." ("Out," children, meant something different back then, but liberals were in favor of it just the same.) What seems to be today's antiwar position -- it was a terrible mistake and it's a terrible mess, but we can't just walk away from it -- was actually the pro-war position during the Vietnam era. In fact, it was close to official government policy for more than half the length of that war.

Today's antiwar cause doesn't even have a movement to speak of, let alone an agenda. It consists of perhaps 47 percent of the citizenry -- the ones who voted for John Kerry -- who are in some kind of existential opposition to the war but aren't doing much about it and aren't very clear about what they would like to see happen. Meanwhile, American soldiers die by the hundreds and Iraqis -- military and civilian -- by the thousands in a cause these people (and I'm one of them) believe to be a horrible mistake.

Kerry spent months untangling the knots of his Iraq position while tangling new ones even faster. He pounded George W. Bush over the phantom weapons of mass destruction and he mocked Bush's confusion of Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. Kerry said that Bush's invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." So was he in favor of ending it? No, his position was that he would try, but not promise, to bring the troops home in four years. Four years! American involvement in World War II lasted 3 1/2. Bush had a good point when he wondered how, as commander in chief, Kerry could ask American soldiers to die for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, that problem does not vindicate Bush's belief that Iraq II is the right war in the right etc. But Bush's apparently sincere belief -- protected by his thick skull from all the winds of reality that contradict it -- does relieve him from needing to explain why he doesn't want the war to end now.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64027-2004Nov19.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. One HUGE difference between then and now: the draft.

When your very own personal ass is on the line, you tend to get a bit more motivated. I guess it's not enough for most people to know other people are getting killed as long as it isn't likely to be them.

[alcuno]

2. I think that the paradox is that in the back of our minds, we don't want

it to end well. Not as long as we have an administration that refuses to admit its mistake. If it were to end well, they would believe it was the right thing to do and likely do it again.

[knowbody0]

3. like viennam-a celtic knot

[anamandujano]

4. 2 problems here

"Today's antiwar cause doesn't even have a movement to speak of, let alone an agenda. It consists of perhaps 47 percent of the citizenry -- the ones who voted for John Kerry -- who are in some kind of existential opposition to the war but aren't doing much about it and aren't very clear about what they would like to see happen. "

I can't believe Michael hasn't educated himself about the republican owned voting machines and the mounting evidence that Bush stole it again.

And he must know that there were world wide demonstrations to stop the war and the press ignored them. If there were some kind of stop the war effort now, would we hear about it other than the internet?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It takes awhile to get a movement going.

The Vietnam protest movement wasn't really singificant until about 1968, even though the US had been involved since 1965. It took the draft and the increasing fatalities -- a couple hundred soldiers a week at its worst. And the media had cojones in those days, too. They actually reported what was going on, and as bad as Nixon was, the government didn't try to hide the soldiers' coffins. When the people really understood what was going on, the antiwar movement spread outside college campuses and got so big that Nixon couldn't ignore it any more, although he pretended he wasn't paying attention. But it was 10 years between the beginning of US involvement and the fall of Saigon. The antiwar protests started in about 1966-67 and continued until the US withdrew in 1975. Whatever we start now won't get big overnight -- but we have to keep at it.

[UL_Approved]

5. Pulling out would leave a total power vacuum

This would leave the country of Iraq open to the terrorist nations so well purported by al-Bush. Remember, it was stable before, but it is unstable now. We fucked the place up royally, and now we HAVE to fix it. BTW, we are STILL in occupation of Germany and Japan. We STILL have military bases over there. The official combat ended after 3 1/2 years of WWII, but occupation continued for years. That is where we are now, and there is NO way of a quick withdrawl without a severe failure on the horizon. Kerry realizes this, and we need to as well. What we need to do is open up the country for reconstruction, not just an oil grab. Rebuilding Fallujah instead of leaving it as a smoking pile of rubble with oil wells strewn about should be a top priority. THAT is the answer.

[pretzel4gore]

7. michael kinsley is an asshole....maybe kerry voted for bush

the idiotic kinsley pig hates the real USA so much he'll fabricate crap about the vietnam anti war movement (which was closely linked to the civil rights movement, which, being ad hoc spontaneous, were dynamic things no one really controlled)...kinsley probably hates the 'counterculture' like all them geeky foolish suckhole rightwingers now filling the massa media who were too busy kissing the MAN's ass to be a part of (btw howdy doody thinks carl rove was angered by his nobody status during hippie era when being cool meant not kissing mens asses, which explains thus rove's meaness re: handling the goofball ie bush) kinsley puts his hare- brained theories on typing paper and the brainwashington post prints them up nice like...but who gives a fukk about kinsey the bushevik whore