The following is a copy of a response to one of my earlier posts:

IM1 says:

February 20th, 2007 at 12:22 am
edit
“Hi Mdefl

In the post about Prince Harry going to Iraq, you said you loved his attitude when he said: ?There?s no way I?m going to put myself through Sandhurst, and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.? Yet in this post you refer to Bush’s “misadventures? in Iraq, and in other things you seem to give the impression that you think U.S. involvement in Iraq is pretty much a total disaster. So I’m a little confused – do you think Iraq is a failure or a fight for one’s country worthy of kudos”?

The above represents about 25% of the country who drink whatever koolaide the Bush administration forces on them. According to this segment of the population, any questioning of the administration means that you are an unpatriotic defeatist. They attempt to diminish concerns with an accusation that people like me are anti-soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am against the Bush strategy for Iraq, not the troops who are caught in the middle of a horribly chaotic situation.

The strategy, or lack thereof, has been an utter failure. This administration was warned by many experts of the mid-east region that they needed to have a solid plan for the aftermath of the removal of Sadaam or else they would be facing a crisis of sectarian and ethnic violence.

Ryan Crocker was one of these experts whose warnings went unheeded. Does he have creditability? He should because the Bush adminstration has put him up for ambassador-designate to Iraq! His hearings were held in the Senate this past Friday, not that you would know about that with all the Britney coverage clogging the air waves.

I really want the situation to improve in Iraq. However, our troops are now caught in a civil war where at least 9 tribal factions are at war with each other and Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria are acting as a combination of agitators and terrorists? How exactly does a regular military “win”? I think the answer is that our definition of winning ain’t going to happen here. There will not be a signing of a treaty between the US and all of these factions (plus the other characters in this play) ever.

While our 19 and 20 year old soldiers give their lives in this chaos, what motivation do the Iraqi’s have to really take control and develop a political solution to the crisis? This is a complicated issue and I will not be held hostage to the simplistic, gingoistic mindset that has taken control of people who want to support George W. Bush no matter what the cost.

Without dissent, there would be no America. Removing Sadaam was fine by me assuming that we actually had a plan to manage the aftermath. Is there anyone that can state that we did have a plan that made sense? Who has paid the price for the Bush administration’s mistakes? The soldiers whose bravery and courage I do not question.

As for the people who are intent on linking my dissent to a position of being anti-soldier, I have this to say – go to hell. I support them whole heartedly. Our brave young men and women deserve much better than what the Bush administration has given them so far.