So, What Do We Do Now, Donald?
Understanding the Difference Between the Afghan and Iraqi Wars
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Along the street where my parents live, small shop owners line up on one side facing the row of parking meters and aligned cars leaving you with just enough sidewalk space to walk your way through so that you tend to get to know them as well as you exchange greetings on your way for a visit. The faces haven’t changed much. Mr.So still has his mini-grocery. Jay Stimpfl converted his barber shop into a unisex salon. And there’s Donald Wechniewski still puttering around in his repair shop. If there were any contest held for most popular neighbor, he would win it hands down. The guy not only had an uncanny mechanical ability, but was also gifted in matters needing electrical and plumbing repairs which he readily gave to neighbors in need. Pretty soon, the neighborhood depended on him and his solutions not just for home repairs but for more mundane interests such as “ Can our street sign a petition banning that video arcade from here?”..etc.etc. Much later, the familiar question, “So what do we do now, Donald?” became a catchphrase for reevaluating a difficult problem. As I smiled and waved as I passed him by, I kept wondering how he would respond were I to engage him in a friendly banter on world issues. I guess I’d start out with the question on how he voted then we’d drift to the Terrorism issue and how we responded.
At this late time since the US post-9/11 counterterror offensives, with Hamid Karzai already elected as President of a fledgling Afghan Republic, and neighboring Iraq facing the prospect of its own election – whether it be successfully held amidst a hurried deadline and a background of security concerns, I still come across articles here at JU or in mainstream newspapers (“The Afghan Miracle”, Washington Post, Dec 10, 2004) that reveal a lack of understanding that the Afghan and the Iraqi issues , viz a viz the US post 9/11 response, are totally different problems needing totally different approaches. What really ,well, pisses me off is, that the developments in the Afghan situation is actually being used as an argument for justifying the military misadventures and socio-political lapses used in Iraq and possibly a reduplication of such a strategy in future Middle East ventures.
Okay, so nobody wants to wash dirty laundry on a venue like JU – open to enemy eyes- especially after the election outcome making moot and academic any possibility of a significant change in political course, but if you weigh it altogether, correcting what I’m convinced of as a misperception to avoid future mistakes, esp in future planned wars, is by all stretches of imagination, weightier. That is, if anybody is interested in an honorable peace for the Middle East at all. You know, the problems there just keep spilling back to us, Christmas or just about any other season, so we better make certain that when we respond to it, we’re not just putting gum to plug a leak, or worse, blow up everything just to keep things quiet. As Donald would say, “if you have to fix it, fix it well so that it stays fixed.”
Did we fix it well ? In Afghanistan, it seems we did. Didn’t you notice? In the Iraq War, we had an irritatingly deafening torrent of criticisms, but in the Afghan War, nary a whimper. Why so? They were both sovereign nations we invaded. What could have been the difference ?
Ever hear of the Moral High Ground ? In the battlefield, if one wants to ensure his advantage over the other, he seeks the High Ground. That’s the reason we strive so much for air supremacy. So what’s the Moral High Ground? (Jeez, I hope the Evangelicals and other member of the religious right who emphasized on “values” during the last elections could answer me)
If the question were, “Were we on the moral High Ground when we invaded Afghanistan,?”, the answer would’ve been a resounding Yes. The country was attacked by Al Qaeda who were based and protected by the Taliban Theocracy then in Afghanistan. To do less was to put in jeopardy more American lives to more terrorist attacks. The whole world understood that. That’s why we had less problems.
But if we are asked ,:”Were we on the Moral High Ground when we attacked Iraq ?”
Be honest , man. First, it was the worn-out WMD, then it became the fact that Saddam was a dictator (we should know ‘coz we put him there), then it became putting more teeth to UN sanctions – something ironic since the UN never supported the Iraqi invasion. Come on. We have to admit we got carried away. There definitely was more evidence stacked against the Saudis than Iraq but we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia.
We also failed to evaluate the repercussions that were to ensue from this misadventure. You know, the power vacuum that we caused sucking in other regional powerbrokers like Iran and Syria and more Al Qaeda recruits into the fray. The fact that Saddam, being the dictator that he was, was actually providing a stalemate to the regional powerbrokers was of no consequence to a supposedly well-thought foreign policy. Allowing genuine Iraqi opposition to nurture and supporting their democratic aspirations even if it bloomed later would’ve led to same demise of the Saddam regime. At least it would’ve been a much more lasting demise with acceptable political fallout for the US. The much-hyped nexus of terrorists and WMDs would’ve been more effectively neutralized by good Intelligence, not necessarily by invading Iraq. Democracy would have been better taught by example than through the barrel of a gun. So much for Stanford-trained foreign policy. We are not only on the Moral Low Ground, because of the Iraq invasion we are now on the Moral Low Stupid Ground.
Why? We unlocked forces within the Iraqi society that once were at odds with each other and bonded them against the “US occupiers”. That’s us, man. Even if the elections were to push through as scheduled, the strengthening Iran-backed Islamic Alliance could easily win it since they have the High Moral Ground. Hey, their foreign policy adviser is better than ours.
So, what were all the lives – both Iraqi and American – lost for? We’re on the brink of having to deal eventually with another Islamic State, if not an Islamic-sympathetic Republic.. Two headaches instead of one. And I thought the invasion was to get rid of one headache. If we postpone the elections, then the enemy crows that their urban guerilla warfare is effective. Talk about catch-22. If we toy with the election results or even if we don't and a US friendly politician gets elected, protests will galvanize the Iraqi opposition and we'll never hear the end of it.
Man, we are in deep sh_t. But we’re in this together,and although I know it's senseless talking about it 'coz the heads that hold the reins won't budge, i'll be sure as hell be blogging about it until ornery folks misled out there understand that Iraq is different and to apply an Afghan solution to it is unnecessarily dangerous for American lives and our economy .
I’ll talk about exit strategies with my next blog . In the meantime, the catchphrase lingers in my head – “ So what do we do now, Donald?”
At this late time since the US post-9/11 counterterror offensives, with Hamid Karzai already elected as President of a fledgling Afghan Republic, and neighboring Iraq facing the prospect of its own election – whether it be successfully held amidst a hurried deadline and a background of security concerns, I still come across articles here at JU or in mainstream newspapers (“The Afghan Miracle”, Washington Post, Dec 10, 2004) that reveal a lack of understanding that the Afghan and the Iraqi issues , viz a viz the US post 9/11 response, are totally different problems needing totally different approaches. What really ,well, pisses me off is, that the developments in the Afghan situation is actually being used as an argument for justifying the military misadventures and socio-political lapses used in Iraq and possibly a reduplication of such a strategy in future Middle East ventures.
Okay, so nobody wants to wash dirty laundry on a venue like JU – open to enemy eyes- especially after the election outcome making moot and academic any possibility of a significant change in political course, but if you weigh it altogether, correcting what I’m convinced of as a misperception to avoid future mistakes, esp in future planned wars, is by all stretches of imagination, weightier. That is, if anybody is interested in an honorable peace for the Middle East at all. You know, the problems there just keep spilling back to us, Christmas or just about any other season, so we better make certain that when we respond to it, we’re not just putting gum to plug a leak, or worse, blow up everything just to keep things quiet. As Donald would say, “if you have to fix it, fix it well so that it stays fixed.”
Did we fix it well ? In Afghanistan, it seems we did. Didn’t you notice? In the Iraq War, we had an irritatingly deafening torrent of criticisms, but in the Afghan War, nary a whimper. Why so? They were both sovereign nations we invaded. What could have been the difference ?
Ever hear of the Moral High Ground ? In the battlefield, if one wants to ensure his advantage over the other, he seeks the High Ground. That’s the reason we strive so much for air supremacy. So what’s the Moral High Ground? (Jeez, I hope the Evangelicals and other member of the religious right who emphasized on “values” during the last elections could answer me)
If the question were, “Were we on the moral High Ground when we invaded Afghanistan,?”, the answer would’ve been a resounding Yes. The country was attacked by Al Qaeda who were based and protected by the Taliban Theocracy then in Afghanistan. To do less was to put in jeopardy more American lives to more terrorist attacks. The whole world understood that. That’s why we had less problems.
But if we are asked ,:”Were we on the Moral High Ground when we attacked Iraq ?”
Be honest , man. First, it was the worn-out WMD, then it became the fact that Saddam was a dictator (we should know ‘coz we put him there), then it became putting more teeth to UN sanctions – something ironic since the UN never supported the Iraqi invasion. Come on. We have to admit we got carried away. There definitely was more evidence stacked against the Saudis than Iraq but we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia.
We also failed to evaluate the repercussions that were to ensue from this misadventure. You know, the power vacuum that we caused sucking in other regional powerbrokers like Iran and Syria and more Al Qaeda recruits into the fray. The fact that Saddam, being the dictator that he was, was actually providing a stalemate to the regional powerbrokers was of no consequence to a supposedly well-thought foreign policy. Allowing genuine Iraqi opposition to nurture and supporting their democratic aspirations even if it bloomed later would’ve led to same demise of the Saddam regime. At least it would’ve been a much more lasting demise with acceptable political fallout for the US. The much-hyped nexus of terrorists and WMDs would’ve been more effectively neutralized by good Intelligence, not necessarily by invading Iraq. Democracy would have been better taught by example than through the barrel of a gun. So much for Stanford-trained foreign policy. We are not only on the Moral Low Ground, because of the Iraq invasion we are now on the Moral Low Stupid Ground.
Why? We unlocked forces within the Iraqi society that once were at odds with each other and bonded them against the “US occupiers”. That’s us, man. Even if the elections were to push through as scheduled, the strengthening Iran-backed Islamic Alliance could easily win it since they have the High Moral Ground. Hey, their foreign policy adviser is better than ours.
So, what were all the lives – both Iraqi and American – lost for? We’re on the brink of having to deal eventually with another Islamic State, if not an Islamic-sympathetic Republic.. Two headaches instead of one. And I thought the invasion was to get rid of one headache. If we postpone the elections, then the enemy crows that their urban guerilla warfare is effective. Talk about catch-22. If we toy with the election results or even if we don't and a US friendly politician gets elected, protests will galvanize the Iraqi opposition and we'll never hear the end of it.
Man, we are in deep sh_t. But we’re in this together,and although I know it's senseless talking about it 'coz the heads that hold the reins won't budge, i'll be sure as hell be blogging about it until ornery folks misled out there understand that Iraq is different and to apply an Afghan solution to it is unnecessarily dangerous for American lives and our economy .
I’ll talk about exit strategies with my next blog . In the meantime, the catchphrase lingers in my head – “ So what do we do now, Donald?”
