Tag: Iraq

I hate the term collateral damage. It is one of those words used by bureaucrats and politicians to make it seem as if their actions on the battlefield have little impact beyond the immediate war. It makes me think of car loans and physical property, when it really means human life.

And the sad thing is, as Derrick Jackson points out in his column today on last night’s Democratic debate, there are too many candidates out there — the exception being Dennis Kucinich — who are willing to sacrifice innocent civilians on the alter of revenge.

Here is Jackson:

So for all the talk about who among the Democrats is most against the war, Iraqi civilians remain too abstract to say “Enough!”

Yes, we lost 3,000 people during 9/11. But between 64,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians are now dead because of our invasion and the resulting civil war.

Are we not done killing innocents in the name of bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and weapons of mass destruction?

Apparently not.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

A solider asks:

Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here?

I wish someone could give him a decent answer.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Sue Niederer, a former South Brunswick resident whose son Adam was killed in Iraq, reflects on Cindy Sheehan’s “resignation letter as the ‘face’ of the American anti-war movement.“

Niederer tells Politics NJ that Sheehan’s decision to walk away from the movement is understandable given the mix of apathy and anger she has faced.

“It’s a shame,” Niederer said of Sheehan’s decision. “The basic thing is Cindy Sheehan is a very good person, and she has been bombarded from both sides – the left and the right.”

The anti-war mom said Sheehan is right in her assessment of the country’s general disengagement from the war and the war’s effects. Sheehan said the country is more concerned with “American Idol” than with the soldiers in Iraq.

“There’s not any realization until people are physically impacted, or the economy is affected,” concurred Niederer. “Our country right now is more about the idolization of things that are not real. Reality hurts.”

Sheehan and Niederer are correct in their assessments. The war, while incredibly unpopular, has played out like a little-watched TV show, a cable series that has a small following but little impact on the wider culture.

This has allowed the Beltway pols and pundits to continue using an old narrative that distorts the political process and has resulted in a disconnect between what the public says and what the politicians hear.

Watching the news in North Carolina — a national cable station — I was struck by a comment made by one of the regular talking heads who was critical of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s vote against the latest funding legislation. They were now listening to the fringe of the antiwar movement he sdaid (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember who it was) — the implication being that they were acting outside the mainstream. The mainstream, however, wants out and has come to view the Bush presidency as a disaster.

But this is only part of the problem. The extreme partisanship we are facing also has distorted our democracy. Sheehan makes the point that too many so-called progressives have placed the electoral prospects of Democrats over progressive principles, holding back on their criticism of people like Jim Webb, who was elected as a war critic but who voted to give the president the money he requested with no strings.

Sheehan, as she points out, was a darling of liberal war critics until she “started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party” to. That’s when “support for my cause started to erode and the ‘left’ started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

What has now happened is that the Democrats have ceded ground, given up the power of the purse on the war and any authority they might have had to get us out of the deadly mess the Bush administration has made in Iraq.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

What’s interesting about this David Brooks op-ed is that it sums up something that we should have known before going into Iraq — and is part of the argument made by Jonathan Schell in his book The Unconquerable World, which came out shortly after 9/11.

One of the points he makes, referring to the nonviolent revolutions in Eastern Europe, is that the nexus between political and military power is fraying, expecially when large states are forced to confront smaller, committed groups. Schell focused his argument on revolutions and the use of alternatives to violence — rightly, I think, linking that approach to the most successful topplings of despots (as in Eastern Europe).

I think, though, that the use of nontraditional or assymetrical warfare — while not to be condoned — fits within his thesis. The days of the big nation-state riding in and remaking smaller nations in its image are long gone (the history of the second half of the 20th century is all the proof we need).

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here