|
Since it is a new year, it seems only plausible that we discuss the state of the Iraq War. It is a mess. And, I'm the first to admit that over this year, I have seemed at times, talking out of both sides of my mouth. I think it has to do with "wanting to believe." And, it has to do with not knowing what to believe.
Every "talking head" has a different idea. To those who hate Bush, it is absolutely a mistake. Those who love him talk about the good we're doing, the freedom we are giving the Iraqi people, adinfinitum. What are we to believe?
WE HAVEN'T BEEN ATTACKED:
Recently, I had breakfast with a few buddies; and we, of course, among other topics, discussed the war. Mostly, the conversation was negative; the only positive comment was: "We haven't been attacked". Somehow, this statement has always seemed somewhat shallow to me. We don't mind our soldiers getting killed in Iraq as long as we can keep terrorism from our shores. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT US BAD MOUTHING WAR:
Give me a break! We are in a war in which poll after poll indicates how divided we are; and yet, we are not supposed to express our opposition? You have got to be kidding me. Well, we know that everybody who has a mind is going to pay close attention to the President's wishes.
Here is what we can know: We probably should have thought much longer before we invaded Iraq. It really was against our historical principles. Historically, we have been a reactive nation, not a preemptive one: Pearl Harbor and even Vietnam; although the Gulf of Tonkin has nearly been discredited , we reacted. Yes, Kosovo was different, but, in Kosovo, we had much allied support in the ethnic cleansing debate. My opinion: Simply, we have problems distinguishing between the lexicon of regime change and preemptive strike.
MISMANAGEMENT: NOTHING NEW HERE
(We Could Not Protect The People):
We didn't go in with enough troops, let's just admit that upfront. Even Paul Bremer, who most now realize could screw up a two car funeral possession, claims he told the Secretary of Defense that we needed a half million troops to successfully occupy Iraq.
Our greatest failure in the invasion strategy of swift and compact, probably lies in our failure to provide security for the people. When people can't feel safe, we fail miserably.
We might talk about the price of freedom, but it sounds incredibly hollow.
None of this is new ground: we didn't secure the borders, the vast store of weapons, the Iraqi National treasures, etc; but, most of all, we could not protect the people with the troops we had. And, because we could not give them security, we are where we are today. We have, in hindsight, made some stupid mistakes like disbanding the Army. When we put all those men out of work and on the streets, they found a new job: insurgent.
COMPOUNDING OUR STUPIDITY:
What were we thinking? What was "W" and his select crew thinking? Well, in my opinion, the government's thinking was misguided. Obviously, they "did not get" what they were doing and they didn't listen. Ideologues and zealots rarely do. Governments don't admit mistakes and they surely don't apologize. But, worse, we have "stayed the course" even if it has been a wrong course. Iraq continues to be a fast train to nowhere.
IRAQNAM:
We did not learn the lessons of Vietnam. Regardless of noble purpose, the Vietnam war kept growing. Americans kept dying and we kept changing strategies. Obviously, there were forces beyond our control in Vietnam like corruptness, and an enemy that was unbelievably motivated to fight on his own soil.
It seems so obvious to me now that we could have simply left Vietnam with little consequences. A friend of mine who has been several times in the last few years says that Vietnam would have gotten where it is today twenty years earlier, if we had left them alone. Meaning that today, they are motivated, industrious, and entrepreneurial; and, the country has a young population, many of whom were not even alive when we were there. In some ways, the comparisons end there between Iraq and Nam.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE?:
I don't see any end in sight. Our training of the Iraqi Police and Army? Will it work? I don't know. What choice do we have? Last month was the bloodiest of the entire war. Kidnappings are more the rule for foreigners outside the military.
We don't appear to be changing the mix of our forces. We need more Special Forces( special operation troops that are less visible and more lethal). Leadership like Rumsfeld continues to be stale; we are doing the same things that we've been doing expecting different results. We're settling into Vietnam type rotations. The seven thousand troops now leaving, I think, is motivitated by politics.
We need a realistic timetable for making a change and an exit strategy and we need it now. KT
|
|
|
Since it is a new year, it seems only plausible that we discuss the state of the Iraq War. It is a mess. And, I'm the first to admit that over this year, I have seemed at times, talking out of both sides of my mouth. I think it has to do with "wanting to believe." And, it has to do with not knowing what to believe.
Every "talking head" has a different idea. To those who hate Bush, it is absolutely a mistake. Those who love him talk about the good we're doing, the freedom we are giving the Iraqi people, adinfinitum. What are we to believe?
WE HAVEN'T BEEN ATTACKED:
Recently, I had breakfast with a few buddies; and we, of course, among other topics, discussed the war. Mostly, the conversation was negative; the only positive comment was: "We haven't been attacked". Somehow, this statement has always seemed somewhat shallow to me. We don't mind our soldiers getting killed in Iraq as long as we can keep terrorism from our shores. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT US BAD MOUTHING WAR:
Give me a break! We are in a war in which poll after poll indicates how divided we are; and yet, we are not supposed to express our opposition? You have got to be kidding me. Well, we know that everybody who has a mind is going to pay close attention to the President's wishes.
Here is what we can know: We probably should have thought much longer before we invaded Iraq. It really was against our historical principles. Historically, we have been a reactive nation, not a preemptive one: Pearl Harbor and even Vietnam; although the Gulf of Tonkin has nearly been discredited , we reacted. Yes, Kosovo was different, but, in Kosovo, we had much allied support in the ethnic cleansing debate. My opinion: Simply, we have problems distinguishing between the lexicon of regime change and preemptive strike.
MISMANAGEMENT: NOTHING NEW HERE
(We Could Not Protect The People):
We didn't go in with enough troops, let's just admit that upfront. Even Paul Bremer, who most now realize could screw up a two car funeral possession, claims he told the Secretary of Defense that we needed a half million troops to successfully occupy Iraq.
Our greatest failure in the invasion strategy of swift and compact, probably lies in our failure to provide security for the people. When people can't feel safe, we fail miserably.
We might talk about the price of freedom, but it sounds incredibly hollow.
None of this is new ground: we didn't secure the borders, the vast store of weapons, the Iraqi National treasures, etc; but, most of all, we could not protect the people with the troops we had. And, because we could not give them security, we are where we are today. We have, in hindsight, made some stupid mistakes like disbanding the Army. When we put all those men out of work and on the streets, they found a new job: insurgent.
COMPOUNDING OUR STUPIDITY:
What were we thinking? What was "W" and his select crew thinking? Well, in my opinion, the government's thinking was misguided. Obviously, they "did not get" what they were doing and they didn't listen. Ideologues and zealots rarely do. Governments don't admit mistakes and they surely don't apologize. But, worse, we have "stayed the course" even if it has been a wrong course. Iraq continues to be a fast train to nowhere.
IRAQNAM:
We did not learn the lessons of Vietnam. Regardless of noble purpose, the Vietnam war kept growing. Americans kept dying and we kept changing strategies. Obviously, there were forces beyond our control in Vietnam like corruptness, and an enemy that was unbelievably motivated to fight on his own soil.
It seems so obvious to me now that we could have simply left Vietnam with little consequences. A friend of mine who has been several times in the last few years says that Vietnam would have gotten where it is today twenty years earlier, if we had left them alone. Meaning that today, they are motivated, industrious, and entrepreneurial; and, the country has a young population, many of whom were not even alive when we were there. In some ways, the comparisons end there between Iraq and Nam.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE?:
I don't see any end in sight. Our training of the Iraqi Police and Army? Will it work? I don't know. What choice do we have? Last month was the bloodiest of the entire war. Kidnappings are more the rule for foreigners outside the military.
We don't appear to be changing the mix of our forces. We need more Special Forces( special operation troops that are less visible and more lethal). Leadership like Rumsfeld continues to be stale; we are doing the same things that we've been doing expecting different results. We're settling into Vietnam type rotations. The seven thousand troops now leaving, I think, is motivitated by politics.
We need a realistic timetable for making a change and an exit strategy and we need it now. KT
|
| The "A Million Little Pieces Controversy" by Dan Foster(Does It Matter?)
|
|
When I was a young preacher, I was always fascinated with the fact that most TV preachers and many of my fellow pastors always had lived these horrid lives before finding God and joining the ministry.
They were drunkards, beat their wives, neglected their children, and then they saw the "light." They were converted and they had stories to tell. From the wretchedness of sin to the pulpit. I was rendered speechless often, mainly because I didn't have any of those tales. How could I ever be a successful minister? My Mom and Dad were great. We were farmers and worked hard; and, as far as I knew, everybody supported everybody else. However, as a young minister, I thought one must be in the dregs of the mud and mire to be lifted out to pursue righteousness. It is the only way!
So, I was not surprised with all the flabbergasted sighs about James Frey and his terrific memoir, A Million Little Pieces. The book appears to be somewhat, if not downright, exaggerated. I can never say "I told you so" but I was suspect. Pat, pat, pat. Does this fact, if true, that Frey embellished his story somewhat, render the book any less readable? (Me thinks Frey protests too loudly, but afterall, Random House now wants to give people their money back, if they feel duped.) In my opinion, the story is slightly tainted, but still a good story.
Frey's book held me and I read almost every word,which for an ADD (attention deficit disorder) type, a big, Wow! Reading a book with no paragraphs, no punctuation, and capitalized words-which are not supposed to be-was a challenge; but, for this book, it works. One gets the feel that it is kind of like a journal. I could not put it down-spellbinding in a sense! And, I think, the book gave a rare look into rehab portraying addicts at their worst: the way addicts are-the way they talk, and how they think. Frey has described rehab to a "T."
When he did his self-assessment (one of the twelve steps of AA); however, I found it slightly hard to believe. If so, he was a young sociopath; I can hardly accept what he did to people as a youngster and got away with it. I have read enough about the drug culture (the hard scrabble life) and have had enough experiences counseling addicts to know that it would be almost impossible to get away with all the stuff he listed.This is where I get a little "put off" by the exaggeration.
If Frey's story about his run-ins with the law were true, he would have been in jail early on, killed or something. Maybe there is a slight kernel of truth here enhanced to make a good story, but it was not necessary, no need to do it.
But, we don't have to believe that Frey is bad news to believe the "rehab" experience. There's a slight bit of exaggeration in all our writing I think;
and, if there is self-loathing, sometimes there's a tendency to make ourselves as bad as we can be.
Overall, the book
is a good read; but, if I had been Frey, I would have put in a disclaimer. Something like, "These events and happenings are relatively true. Five people having the same experience will all see it differently. " But what happened in rehab happened(assuming that it is true), and I hope it sheds light on what rehab is."
|
|
 Now Available: Newly revised paperback General Lee:Father of the Airborne. Order from Amazon.
| |
|
