Are war critics helping the enemy?

[Mycroft]

You may say that was not lying, but you can not deny that it was misleading. You people will defend the choice to invade Iraq no matter what happens. No matter what turns up in terms of deception, premeditation and misjudgement by the adminstration, no matter what you might learn, you will continue to defend entering Iraq.

Except I don't.

I was against going to war in Iraq. I still think it was a poor decision.

I recognize, however, that it's a decision that can't be unmade. We don't have the option of going back in time and choosing differently.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Except I don't.

I was against going to war in Iraq. I still think it was a poor decision.

I recognize, however, that it's a decision that can't be unmade. We don't have the option of going back in time and choosing differently.

Of course, but why are you supporting the President's Rhetoric that those who critically examine the war are aiding our enemies?

 

[Year Zero]

To answer the original question of the thread: No.

Wars are not decided by words of civilian populations thousands of miles away. There is a rather insane view held by certain neoconservatives and their supporters that admitting the war was a mistake, or criticizing the war, will somehow "reveal" to the Arab and/or Islamic world something we are trying to keep hidden. For example, Bill O'Reilly and some others were angry at the release of photographs from Abu Ghraib prison- expressing more anger at the expose of the abuse than the actual abuse itself. Of course the stories from Abu Ghraib, both real and imagined, were already known by the Iraqi populace months before Americans became aware- as many people had been in the prison and later released, spreading truth and rumors to everyone they knew.

There is no need to tell the Arabs/Muslims that this war was based on deception, that it is wrong, and that there is no way the US can "win"- they ALREADY KNOW that. It is foolish to believe that because one is ignorant of something, everyone else must also be ignorant. Americans know very little of the history of the Middle East, but the local population IS aware, and they are not impressed with promises of American "democracy" and self-rightous diatribes against "dictators".

War criticism will have no strategic effect in this war. It will not strengthen the resolve of the insurgents, nor will the lack of it demoralize them. The advantage always goes to insurgents by default, who do not need to win but simply "not lose". While the US leadership ignores Clauswitz' first principle of war(Objective), they have done even worse and have yet to even present a believable reason why they went to war in the first place. For the mainstream insurgency, which is primarily nationalist/Baathist, their objective is clear, far more simplistic, cost effective, and their reasons for fighting are obvious to anyone.

 

[Mycroft]

Of course, but why are you supporting the President's Rhetoric that those who critically examine the war are aiding our enemies?

Because it's true, and I believe a reasonable person should keep that in mind when voicing their criticism.

Which is not to say that a person should not criticize the President, or that people should not criticize the war. Both are not only allowed but encouraged in a free democracy such as ours.

 

[Year Zero]

It does not "aid" our enemies. The idea that this somehow provides moral support to the insurgency is ludicrous because the insurgents are obviously convinced of their moral supremacy in the first place. In the case of Al Qaeda, their faith in their cause is clearly rock-solid. As for the majority of insurgents, Iraqi nationalists, their moral supremacy was handed to them by the US and UK. Why would an insurgency made up of people trying to oust a foreign invader need any form of validation from the people of the invading nations?

 

[Mycroft]

It does not "aid" our enemies. The idea that this somehow provides moral support to the insurgency is ludicrous because the insurgents are obviously convinced of their moral supremacy in the first place.

Excuse me, let me clarify:

mo·rale (mə-răl') pronunciation
n.

The state of the spirits of a person or group as exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, discipline, and willingness to perform assigned tasks.

mor·al (môr'əl, mŏr'-) pronunciation
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

 

[DavidJames]

Because it's true, and I believe a reasonable person should keep that in mind when voicing their criticism.

Which is not to say that a person should not criticize the President, or that people should not criticize the war. Both are not only allowed but encouraged in a free democracy such as ours.

Thank you. You may have said that before and I missed it, but I agree 100% with these concise and thoughtful comments.

 

[Year Zero]

Excuse me, let me clarify:

Gee thanks Captain Obvious!!! I already knew the difference between MORAL and MORALE. However, MORAL SUPPORT, a factor in insurgency relating to outside support(using Bard O' Neil's framework), can be said to RAISE MORALE.

That is beside the point however. Criticism of this war does not provide MORAL SUPPORT nor does it RAISE THE MORALE of the insurgents, both factions of the Sunni insurgency are convinced that their respective causes are just. More importantly, their statements show that they are fully aware of the strategic situation which is why their morale will be secure.

 

[Mycroft]

Gee thanks Captain Obvious!!! I already knew the difference between MORAL and MORALE. However, MORAL SUPPORT, a factor in insurgency relating to outside support(using Bard O' Neil's framework), can be said to RAISE MORALE.

That is beside the point however. Criticism of this war does not provide MORAL SUPPORT nor does it RAISE THE MORALE of the insurgents, both factions of the Sunni insurgency are convinced that their respective causes are just. More importantly, their statements show that they are fully aware of the strategic situation which is why their morale will be secure.

Being convinced that your cause is just is not the only element in morale, nor is it wise to assume that every member of the insurgency thinks exactly the same. Being told by the press corps of your enemy that their nation is tired of the losses and getting ready to pull the plug and go home at any moment has got to be tremendously encouraging when facing a superior force with superior firepower.

Now, for your further education:

moral support

Moral support is a way of giving support to a person or cause, or to one side in a conflict, without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement.

For example, in a war between two countries or alliances, a third nation may give moral support to one side, without actually participating in the conflict (for example, Paraguay in World War 2).

Another common example can be found in sports. By coming out to watch your friend's team play a match, you are likely not directly supporting his team in any significant way (especially if there is no charge to attend), but your friend may still feel encouraged by the moral support of your presence.

The line between moral support and other forms of help is often hard to draw. For example, athletes are known to play better when the spectators encourage them--and in some cases referees' decisions may be influenced by a partisan crowd.

 

[Year Zero]

Now it's time for YOUR education:

Go to Borders and find a copy of Bard O' Neil's Insurgency and Terrorism, latest edition. Find the section on how people criticising a war in their homeland is a strategic asset of insurgency. Feel free to search FMs and other military documentation that supports this theory as well.

People are criticizing the war because they know they have been misled, and they don't want to risk more casulties because they realize that this war is not in their interest. The insurgents ALREADY KNOW that this war is not in America's interests, and they know that the people are and will inevitably tire of sending their sons to die in a war that is not for their interests.

The Weinburger doctrine demonstrated knowledge of this issue, based on analysis of the war in Vietnam. The home-team was fighting for their way of life and independence, and we were wasting lives trying to keep it from them. Thus the Weinburger doctrine warned against getting into a war that does not have the American interest at heart, because the people will not accept high casulties.

In military literature, this is constantly highlighted in reference to the 3 October 1993 "Blackhawk Down" incident. From a military standpoint, it was a stunning victory with only 18 dead on our side and as many as 800-1500 militia or militia-supporters killed. Yet our own generals and military authors treat the incident as a disaster- because Americans would simply not tolerate 18 men killed in a conflict that had no bearing on the American way of life.

Regardless of what each individual insurgent believes, they ALL know that their goals do not include taking over the United States, and that goes even for the Tawhid Wal-Jihad people(Zarqawi's group). Thus they can deduce that eventually enough American people will realize this and tire of the war. Insurgents always have this advantage.

And like in Vietnam so it is in Iraq that "Hajji has no DEROS".

 

[Mycroft]

...Thus they can deduce that eventually enough American people will realize this and tire of the war. Insurgents always have this advantage.

And the issue, as always, is how strong this conviction is among individuals.

 

[Year Zero]

And the issue, as always, is how strong this conviction is among individuals.

This conviction does not have a strategic effect because the reality of the conflict in this sense is already apparent at the start of hostilities.

Guerilla warfare, particularly insurgency, revolves around the concept of time. We invaded their country, they want us out. They can only guess as to our true motives, but what they do know is that it is their culture and country under attack, not ours. They need not worry about the level of dissent in the attacking country because they know that it will inevitably rise the longer the conflict goes on.

The Tet offensive, for example, was a tactical defeat and a psychological victory. Yet that does not mean it was planned to have that psychological effect, for it could not have been. Granted, the NVA and VC must have known that the attack would seriously sap the morale of the American and ARVN forces, but one cannot fight wars by putting hope in the idea of causing the populace of the attacking nation to end the war. All priority in strategy must be first focused on the battlefield, any effect on the opposing enemy's homefront can only be seen as a bonus, and such a thing is hard to plan for.

 

[RandFan]

People are criticizing the war because they know they have been misled, and they don't want to risk more casulties because they realize that this war is not in their interest. The insurgents ALREADY KNOW that this war is not in America's interests, and they know that the people are and will inevitably tire of sending their sons to die in a war that is not for their interests.

I take issue with your rhetoric for two reasons.

1.) I would have more respect for your position if you substituted believe for "know". However politics and ego won't allow for most people to come to such an admission. There can be no beliefs when it comes to our observations of world events and what is in our interest. And reasonable people can't disagree. We have a word for those who disagree with us, it is called "wrong". We simply "know" because Ed forbid our own precious world view could be wrong.

2.) I would have more respect for your position if you substituted best interest for simply "interest". I think it clearly arguable that the war is in our interest. The problem becomes when weighing all of the competing interests and pitfalls of this endeavor is whether the war causes more problems and pain than it can hopefully solve or resolve.

I believe the issues are simply too complex to come to such an absolute conclusion. Many if not most of us do care about the world around us. As the Charles Dicken's character Jacob Marley so famously said, "mankind is our business". We do care about Muslims and North Koreans and people living in oppressed nations throughout the world. It would also be in our interest if there were a vibrant and healthy Democracy in the Mid East. If Americans truly believed that there was a high likelihood that our involvement and the cost of young American lives and resources could significantly effect change in that part of the world for the better then there would be no question that many if not most of us would find it in our best interest.

The problem is that most Americans understandably have with the war is whether or not those changes will occur and how many Americans must die and how much money do we have to spend to achieve this goal. The problems for most is not the goal but the likelihood of achieving that goal.

 

[Year Zero]

I take issue with your rhetoric for two reasons.

1.) I would have more respect for your position if you substituted believe for "know". However politics and ego won't allow for most people to come to such an admission. There can be no beliefs when it comes to our observations of world events and what is in our interest. And reasonable people can't disagree. We have a word for those who disagree with us, it is called "wrong". We simply "know" because Ed forbid our own precious world view could be wrong.

Those people who critcize this war DO know. Their beliefs are not the issue. They are pointing out blatantly obvious problems in regards to the pretext for this war. Many anti-war activists have "beliefs" about what should be done that are totally unrealistic and just as ignorant as their opponents, but their material criticism of the case for war is sound.

2.) I would have more respect for your position if you substituted best interest for simply "interest". I think it clearly arguable that the war is in our interest. The problem becomes when weighing all of the competing interests and pitfalls of this endeavor is whether the war causes more problems and pain than it can hopefully solve or resolve.

It is not in "our" interest, but rather to the interest of a few people that benefit directly from it.

I believe the issues are simply too complex to come to such an absolute conclusion. Many if not most of us do care about the world around us. As the Diken's character Jacob Marley so famously said, "mankind is our business". We do care about Muslims and North Koreans and people living in oppressed nations throughout the world. If Americans truly believed that there was a high likelihood that our involvement and the cost of young American lives and resources could significantly effect change in that part of the world for the better then there would be no question that many if not most of us would find it in our best interest.

What makes you think Americans have the right to decide what a "better life" for Muslims or North Koreans is? Were you aware that for many decades North Korea, despite having been nearly totally levelled and flooded and in a constant state of war, enjoyed a comparable and often better standard of living than South Korea, which was often seen as a haven of filth and poverty? Is it possible to conceive that maybe the vast majority of North Koreans are sincerely happy with their way of life, as it has deep roots in Korean culture, and that they don't blame their government for natural disasters?

Americans do not care for Iraqis, if they actually did, they would have sacrificed their own freedom and possibly lives to prevent perhaps not only this last war, but the first Gulf War that set the stage. America is the one country that can literally turn its back on all the suffering it has caused and get away with it- nobody will hold it against us, nor will they attack us. Other nations never had that luxury, be they Germany, the USSR, or England.

We need to tend to our own "freedom" and social problems before telling nations that have existed for 5,000 years(Korea) how they should live.

The problem is that most Americans understandably have with the war is whether or not those changes will occur and how much do we have to spend to achieve this goal. The problems for most is not the goal but the likelihood of achieving that goal.[/QUOTE]

 

[RandFan]

Those people who critcize this war DO know.

Thank you. I rest my case. Reasonable people CAN'T disagree. Absolute knowledge is possible for enlightened folks like yourself.

It is not in "our" interest, but rather to the interest of a few people that benefit directly from it.

Hmmm... well, I disagree with you so there must be something wrong with me.

What makes you think Americans have the right to decide what a "better life" for Muslims or North Koreans is?

I think most would agree that starving to death is a bad thing.

Were you aware that for many decades North Korea, despite having been nearly totally leveled and flooded and in a constant state of war, enjoyed a comparable and often better standard of living than South Korea, which was often seen as a haven of filth and poverty? Is it possible to conceive that maybe the vast majority of North Koreans are sincerely happy with their way of life, as it has deep roots in Korean culture, and that they don't blame their government for natural disasters?

I'm reasonably familiar with the history and what is going on there and it is simply heartbreaking and the natural disasters were exasperated by that nations policies. Freedoms are severely restricted and those who speak out against the government do so at the risk of their lives. There have been a couple of documentaries from North Korea by human rights groups that take issue with your notions.

Americans do not care for Iraqis, if they actually did, they would have sacrificed their own freedom and possibly lives to prevent perhaps not only this last war, but the first Gulf War that set the stage.

Americans did sacrifice their own freedom and their lives because they did care. Many soldiers re-enlist and go back because they sincerely care. But you are incapable of seeing or acknowledging this fact because you live in a world where your view is absolute.

America is the one country that can literally turn its back on all the suffering it has caused and get away with it-

I agree with this statement. Sadly it has more to do with political expediency and not the average person. We bear the responsibility of course. We elect those who turn their backs on suffering and we are often more interested in our own comfort and well being that other people in other lands. But again, that is not an absolute. We have given untold billions in world relief. Our people have served in the Peace Corps and our Doctors have provided free services to third world people (see Doctors without borders) and we have done much for the world.

Again, you are only capable of seeing the world in stark black and white terms. There is no subtlety or nuance in your views. Which is interesting. I have followed some of the things you have written and originally had a different view. Oh well.

 

[Year Zero]

Enjoy these days, when you have the luxury of debate. For if this course you speak of continues to its logical conclusion, one day you will no longer be able to deny the destruction that American "caring" has caused, because its effects will have come home to her shores.

You can tell yourself that our soldiers care about Iraqis and North Koreans, and that America cares about the freedom of the world's people. But 50 years of history and millions of people that have been on the business end of that "freedom" say otherwise. Tell your stories of "freedom" to someone who survived the napalming of Korea or Vietnam about America's fight for their "freedom", ask an Iraqi who has lost his arms to our bombs, a Serb who lost her three-year-old daughter to Tomahawk shrapnel, or someone who survived the death squads of Pinochet, the Contras, or the Shah's SEVAK.

You can try to isolate events in history, isolate "dicators" like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il, ignoring all the historical context that surrounds these people and events- but the people that live through it know better and their voice is growing stronger.

 

[RandFan]

Enjoy these days, when you have the luxury of debate. For if this course you speak of continues to its logical conclusion, one day you will no longer be able to deny the destruction that American "caring" has caused, because its effects will have come home to her shores.

Yeah, what is the logical conclusion to democracy and free thought?

You can tell yourself that our soldiers care about Iraqis and North Koreans, and that America cares about the freedom of the world's people. But 50 years of history and millions of people that have been on the business end of that "freedom" say otherwise. Tell your stories of "freedom" to someone who survived the napalming of Korea or Vietnam about America's fight for their "freedom", ask an Iraqi who has lost his arms to our bombs, a Serb who lost her three-year-old daughter to Tomahawk shrapnel, or someone who survived the death squads of Pinochet, the Contras, or the Shah's SEVAK.

You can try to isolate events in history, isolate "dicators" like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il, ignoring all the historical context that surrounds these people and events-

I don't dismiss the wrongs perpetrated by my government. My view is not so myopic. I'm more than willing to consider the historical context surrounding these people. I don't see America as only right and everyone else as only wrong.

...but the people that live through it know better and their voice is growing stronger.

They know for damn sure that they don't want oppression. Yes, their voice is growing stronger. That I agree with you.

 

[RandFan]

Tell your stories of "freedom" to someone who survived the napalming of Korea or Vietnam about America's fight for their "freedom", ask an Iraqi who has lost his arms to our bombs, a Serb who lost her three-year-old daughter to Tomahawk shrapnel, or someone who survived the death squads of Pinochet, the Contras, or the Shah's SEVAK.

Again, the evils of the world are only perpetrated by America and our allies in your mind.

Never mind that the Taliban turned a soccer arena into a killing arena to murder women who dared speak out against them and for other sins like teaching and showing ther faces.

Never mind that Slobodan Milosivek was commiting genocide.

Never mind that Millions of North Koreans died needlesly as a result of North Korean policies. Never mind that North Koreans are denied basic rights and suffer teribly decades after the last American bomb was dropped there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wars are not decided by words of civilian populations thousands of miles away.

This is simply wrong. We live in a democracy. Civilians, with words, can indeed decide a war, by deciding they don't want to continue fighting, and by forcing politicians to do so. And when you stop fighting and the enemy doesn't, you lose. It cannot be any other way in a democracy: we always run this risk with any conflict we engage in.

 

[bob_kark]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I've been a bit busy.

As I said, since I am not a lawyer, I don't know whether she committed treason or not. Given that she was never charged with a crime, and that our judicial system works on the premise "innocent until proven guilty" I have no choice but to assume she is innocent of treason.

While legally speaking, she has not been found guilty of treason, that does not mean she's innocent. The term "innocent until proven guilty" simply means that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a resonable doubt, not the defence to prove innocence. It does not mean that we need to believe that everyone is innocent until they are found guilty by a court of law. But, if that is how you want to view things, I doubt I could change your mind.

I note that you have not defined "aid and comfort." So the truth is, you don't know if she could have been charged, either.

Aid and comfort, help or assist, just what you would suspect. There is a broad meaning for a reason. If you are looking for precedence, Iva Ikuko Toguri, AKA Tokyo Rose, AKA Orphan Ann, was convicted of treason. She was charged with 8 counts of treason leading from her broadcasts on Radio Tokyo during WWII, where she made Anti-US remarks to demoralize US troops. She was only convicted of one charge, "That she did speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ships." This resulted in a 10 year sentence and a $10,000.00 fine.

The sad thing is that she was convicted due to perjured testimony and was actually trying to help the US. She tried several times to sabotage her own show and helped to keep several US and Australian POWs alive by providing them with food, medicine, and clothing. In addition, the judge later admitted he was prejudiced against her. However, regardless of her innocence, she was tried and convicted of charges very similar to the actions taken by Jane Fonda.

Much the same with the Bush Administration outing a CIA operative during war time. If no charges are ever filed, and they are not convicted of a crime, then I will be forced to assume they are not guilty, whatever my personal views on the matter.

Well, as we've just seen, being found guilty of a crime does not guarantee actual guilt. Maybe you should play it safe and assume everyone is innocent unless you see them commit the crime. That makes just about as much sense.

My questioning the relevance of Jane Finda had to do with the fact that whatever the laws in 1970 (or so), they have almost certainly been re-written since then. Your comment that criticizing Bush's war comes close to treason is nothing short of frightening and appalling...I am glad you qualified it at the end!

Well its good to know that even though you admit you are not a lawyer and don't really know much about treason, you think that the laws of treason must have been rewritten since 1970 (or so). Again, the laws concerning treason have been written into the Constitution, there have been no Amendments to the Constitution concerning treason. In fact, the only two Amendments ratified since 1970 would be the XXVI Amendment, right to vote at age 18, and the XXVII Amendment, compensation of members of congress.