I've gone a long way on this one. I was vigorously anti-Viet Nam War in the streets. I *never* - however - made the common mistake some of my contemporaries did of blaming the average G.I. joe (and jane) for an awful policy that an otherwise great President - Johnson - started and egged on, and an otherwise obscene excuse for a president - Nixon - continued to push, attempting to bomb into the stone age people already living in stone age conditions. I supported the troops, shook their hands and said "thank you" when they got home, and worked very hard to bring them all home.
I supported the first Gulf War. I don't like little countries like Kuwait being beaten up by big countries like Iraq. After 9/11 (which came as no surprise to me as Heart will attest), I gave tentative support to chasing the terrorists out of Afghanistan. But I had no illusions about an Afghani "DEMOCRACY" and still don't. It's fairly easy to take Kabul. Every fool since Alexander the Great has taken Kabul on their way to somewhere else, but, as the Soviets found out the hard way, getting the "Afghan people" (actually, a bunch of peoples left over from various tribal groups that wandered in and sat down during various historical periods) to live any way other than how the local warlord wants, is not only difficult, but impossible. I thought we'd toss out Osama and his cohort of unwelcome guests, defrock the Taliban, put the King back on this symbolic throne in Kabul and *go home*. Opium trumps Islamist fanaticism three times out of four.
But NOOOOO. We got the doddering old King to come home from an extended vacation in Italy, pressured the Loyl Jurga to kick him upstairs to "Father of the Nation" (whatever that might mean) and install a distant cousin with a colorful outfit and good English as Mayor of Kabul, retitled "President of Afghanistan" and there we sit, Osama laughing at us from the equally ungovernable Waziristan, from which he makes broadcasts and organizes pep rallies for Islamists.
Yes, I supported the Afghan enterprise, mindful of our less-than-mindful commander in chief. And I continued to support our troops without condition, because its because of them I can sit here and write this without getting my door knocked down.
Then, Shrub and the boys say, on to Iraq, bringing to mind his earlier slip of the Freud about a "Crusade" since the one thing I could say not awful about the former dictator of said country was that he tended to execute "foreign fighters" along with anyone else that displeased him. Nothing to do with 9/11, I thought. Zero sum. So, when the Seventh Cavalry went charging in, my heart was with them, but I thought a lot about General Custer and the Little Big Horn.
Iraq is three countries, not one -- kind of like the former Yugoslavia. Under Clinton we did a nice job with our "no fly zone" allowing our real friends in the area, the Kurds, to sort of almost have what they are entitled to, a country. I liked the no fly zones. I liked the boycott. Apparently, it worked, or else the WMD are still in somebody's basement, which I doubt.
From "Mission Accomplished" to tonight's speech, don't even mention it. Something approaching two thousand American young men and women (and some not so young Guardsmen and reservists almost my age who thought they'd done their duty) are dead, over ten thousand are maimed, the Kurds are linked to an Iraq they want no part of, the terrorists now have a "live fire training ground" that they doubtless use for training purposes for terrorists from all over the Islamic World, with more coming every day, and the "government" we have installed will last only as long as we stay there, which, like Korea, is looking more and more like forever.
I love our troops. Enough to want them to live long full lives. I am reduced to an old but simple slogan. OUT NOW!
ps - "making democracy in the Middle East" is the motive of people like Heart, who have a lot of heart, and I respect that. That isn't Bush's reason, it's his fourth-down-the-list rationale. If I thought you could "force democracy" on a country, I *might* be for it in a more multilateral campaign. But I'd start with our "friends" in the dictatorships like Pakistan (a nuclear-armed Islamic dictatorship) or Uzbekistan, or better, the Sudan. But the idea of "imposed democracy" is quixotic at best. Germany and Japan had considerable pre-militarist democratic traditions. (We still have bases in both, as you all know, sixty years after.) Iraq does not. We should be more thoughtful.
******
note from heart..omg....we never disagree...this is a first and the man is determined to subvert my whole message...i guess he has a "mind of his own'" oh well!


