And here I thought I wasn't going to blog on politics any more tonight.
In my post "Smile for the camera" I included a link to pictures taken at an anti-war protest commemorating the 2000th death in Iraq. The Bellman commented:
Give me a camera and editorial power over what I choose to show, and I'll find whatever you want me to find in whatever large event you send me to. I just did a google search for images from Reagan's funeral and there are a cavalcade of smiling people. I don't put it together in a post entitled, "why are people thrilled that reagan died?"
Yep, I'll agree with you there. However, there were a lot of folks not facing the camera, yet still smiling. Reagan had been effectively dead (with his Altzheimer's and being out of public life for a number of years) for a long time, so his actual death wasn't much of a shock.
These folks didn't seem shocked, or stunned, or anything but pleased for a reason to get together for a march and maybe some drinks afterward. I'd have expected them to at least put forward some semblance of solemnity towards the camera.
As someone who goes to anti-war rallies on occasion, I can assure you that most* everybody is there to try and stop the killing, not to celebrate America losing or Americans dying.
-
Nobody I know who was against the war is happy that we reached the 2000 mark. I can't believe anyone would think that we are. We were the ones trying to prevent the 1 death, let alone the 2-2000. I wrote on my blog that to think that Cindy Sheehan is happy about 2000 deaths takes more than idiocy, it takes willpower. I really think that something has gone wrong in this country if that is how we are looking at each other.
I won't disagree with you much there, Bellman. I will disagree about Sheehan, I DO believe that (having tasted the heady drink of fame) she'll prostitute herself to whatever group will get her before a camera. But as for the rest? Well, I'll trust your take on them, for the most part.
But the problem comes when you insist that even one death is too many and must be avoided at all costs. There, we disagree. (And I may be reading your post wrong.) I believe that by doing anything to avoid the first death, you set the stage for even more to die.
History has shown us that it's not wise at all to ignore a murderous ideology. The spread of Islamic fanaticism is a good example of that. We tried like anything to ignore it. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a fine example of that - yet on 9/11 two planes brought down the WTC, and another smashed a hole in the Pentagon. You can try to cite root causes (IE the Palestinians and Israel, or how poor the Arab people are (which makes me wonder, why haven't we seen waves of Bangladeshi suicide bombers?) or how we're looting their countries of the only salable resource they have (and at 60 bucks a barrel, it's questionable as to who's getting looted)) but what it boils down to is that they were taught hatred and indoctrinated into their religion until it seemed a perfectly good and logical thing to slam airliners into buildings.
Yet we're not supposed to do a damn thing about it except bend over and take it up the ass while they cut our throats? Sorry, I don't believe in suicidal pacifism. Nor do I believe in graduated responses to provocations - when dealing with a violent enemy gradual escalation in response to attack is simply an invitation to more attacks, not a deterrent to them attacking. If they believe that they can win, they'll absorb the costs of the attacks and conduct more. If they don't believe they can win, they'll give up.
The status quo in the Mideast wasn't supportable. Diplomacy had failed. In Beruit and Somalia we'd proven that given sufficient casualties we'd cut and run. We were seen as weak, as a good target.
And by their assessment, we were. We'd proven over the years we'd take severe provocation without responding. Think about high school - who got picked on the most? The kid who wouldn't, or couldn't, fight back. So it was perfectly logical to attack the US - because they wouldn't fight back.
There was no workable alternative to going to war.
I would dearly love it if peace would break out worldwide, if the 'insurgents' in Iraq would lay down their arms and let the government run the country. They've been through two elections so far, with a third coming up in December. (And apparently some who at one time would rather fight are seeing politics as being a better option - at least an option that would provide them a longer lifespan- see here.) There are signs that it's happening - but what's gotten them to the point where politics is seen as preferable to fighting is the fact that they're not getting enough results from the fighting.
And that's good damn news for our side.
The real problem I've got with the anti-war crowd, Bellman, is that there aren't any workable alternatives put up to fighting. It takes two sides to make a peace, only one side to make a war. You can march, you can chant, you can do whatever you want to try for peace. Certainly Chamberlain tried, and England was looking for peace... but Germany wasn't looking for peace at that time.
Neither is Islamic fundamentalism. They see it as their right to rule the world. Their ideology demands it. France belongs to Islam. So does Spain. So does the entire continent of Africa. So does Europe. And Asia. There is no equal coexistance possible, no live and let live tolerance within the systems of sharia' law, past the point where the unbeliever is useful. Those who do not believe must die. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
There exists in warfare, and in history, a bizzare calculus. There are turning points where, in hindsight, it can be seen that if X hadn't happened then a chain of events wouldn't have ensued and ended up with a hell of a lot of dead people lying around. There are alternate history novels galore, as you're probably well aware, and each one is based on the premise that something relatively minor did or didn't occur - and the changes piled on top of changes until something completely different resulted.
And I believe we hit one of those points in 2001, when the WTC came down - and the President decided that our usual half-assed half-hearted response just wasn't going to work. If he had not, the last 4 years (I believe) would have ended up with Saddam manipulating the UN into dropping the sanctions. (There was already considerable momemtum for that pre 9/11.) With the sanctions dropped, he would have had no problems reconstituting his WMD programs, possibly with help from Libya. (This was documented in the Dulfer report.) He may well have tried the weapons he created on the Kurds in northern Iraq, as he had once before. The Taliban, with little effective opposition in Afghanistan, may have been a willing partner, and even Iran might have been willing to do a deal with the proven survivor Saddam.
Now we get into serious speculation here, but not unrealistic scenarios. With Iraq, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan cooperating, the production of nuclear weapons would have been difficult but not impossible. With nuclear weapons and a delivery system capable of reaching Israel (as well as points in Europe) - would it have been long before the serious threats started? With the threat of chemical and biological WMDs in place, it would have been damn hard to build up any sort of military response. Any troop concentrations would have been easy targets - and 2000 lives would have been an afternoon's death toll. Nuclear weapons use wouldn't be unlikely - what worked between the USSR and the US in the Cold War was the knowledge that both sides would lose big in a nuclear exchange, and no rational leader who cared about his population would start tossing nukes. Saddam, however, doesn't care about his people - they're disposable. He demands - and gets - Kuwait back. The UN howls, but is ineffective.
The threatened countries band together, Patriot missile systems are deployed. Nuclear weapons are readied. There's three choices - let it all alone and let them do what they want, attempt containment (as in Cold War days) or take the fight to the enemy via invasion. (Nukes are out, as much as possible.)
So you're looking at having to stage men and materiel in a country outside the range of any missiles Saddam might have, and then invade. Think of the Normandy invasion in WW2 - only larger, and into the teeth of a nuclear armed enemy. The Tigris would have run red with blood.
Sheer speculation? Of course. Saddam might just as well have turned away from the bloodshed, and embraced peace. But from his past actions, and the way his sons acted, I think the chances of that were very low.
So there we are. You see 2000 deaths as high - from my viewpoint (admittedly, one that was expecting the USSR to attack West Germany and western Europe) I think the number of deaths are damn low when you consider what's been accomplished..
And I'm falling asleep here - so I'm closing this out....
J.