[Xantar]

Bravo on picking up on this point. Personally I have very mixed feeling on this point. Timing is a very big key when going to “war”. Was it bad timing? I don’t really know, I mean think about it. America had just been kicked in the face with the attacks from Sept. 11th. And we hadn’t done anything about it other then send the UN over there to inspect. How long would you wait to hit somebody back after they had punched you in the face… not once but three times? Would you wait until a crowd came to support you? Would you wait for some friends to come back you up? Even if you where the all mighty class president and your reputation stood on the line… would you wait to get approval to fight?

The timing was bad, but I don't think it had anything to do with gaining the world's approval or having a case that Iraq had WMD or anything like that.

One thing I've learned while studying political science is how wars are fought. Arguably the greatest military philosopher of all time, Carl von Clausewitz, wrote that there are three elements to a war force: the civilian rulers, the military and the public. You need the support of all three in order to successfully prosecute a war.

Consider World War II. None of us here is old enough to remember that time, but you can read up about it and get enough information for our purposes. During that time, you had events like neighborhood drives to donate your used tires for the war. People were told to donate all their scrap metal and other materials for the cause. In their minds, the ordinary citizens were helping to fight the war.

The same wasn't true about Vietnam. And it wasn't true about Iraq. The quagmire wasn't that American soldiers would face guerilla war. It was that they would face the opposition of people back home.

President Kennedy back in the day and President Bush now didn't mobilize public support for their wars. They convinced the public instead that the sacrifice would be relatively small ("Look at how tiny that country is. They'll roll right over for us!"). And the public in both cases didn't fully understand what the reasons for going to war were. Nowadays, President Bush is saying that we fought the war in Iraq to establish a democracy in the Middle East and free some oppressed people. That's all well and good except back when the war started, people who supported the war thought it was to fight terrorism and get rid of WMDs. And supporters for the war were a lukewarm 60% of the population at best.

So now consider the reactions to the news that casualties now number 1,000. In World War II, the people would have said (more or less), "They've killed a thousand of our young men! Congress and Mr. President, I want that Hitler dead for what he did!"

Now, the reaction looks something more like, "One thousand dead? I don't know. Was it worth it?" Some people say yes. Some people say no. That's not the point. If it's not a thousand, it will be two thousand. Or three thousand. Every supporter of the war in Iraq has a limit. This was not true in World War II where the stakes were unconditional surrender and the battles were to be won at all costs. And as a result, public pressure is forcing even President Bush to come up with a plan for pulling out, probably much earlier than he would like.

Then there was the military. What happened went more or less like this: the Bush Administration says to the military, "We want to make war with Iraq." The military responds, "OK, we'll need at least 500,000 troops. More would make it even safer."

This wouldn't do for the Bush Administration. A deployment that big was not politically feasible (perhaps partly because of opposition by citizens). So they ordered the military to execute the war with much fewer troops. And in effect, they went into the war with a certain amount of the military opposed to them as well.

This is what President Bush should have done: he should have stated his case for the war, whether it is for the WMDs or to establish democracy or whatever. And he should have stated that sacrifices on everybody's part will be necessary and that there is a likelihood that the war will go on for much longer than anticipated. There wasn't a single military expert at the time who didn't think that Iraq would probably become a long term problem.

If there were clear indications that the public supported him fully and was willing to go forth no matter the cost, then he should have gathered the support of the military community as well. He should have said, "Tell me what you need to do this and I will see to it that you get it." The military might be cautious, but being cautious along with them wouldn't have hurt.

If President Bush didn't get the support of the public and the military, he should have waited to try to persuade them to his side. And if he couldn't do that, he shouldn't have gone to war. Whether the cause was just or not, as a politician his job is to be pragmatic and do what is within the capabilities of the country.

One last thing: if the reasons for the war turn out to be empty or false midway through, President Bush should have said that outright. What he did instead simply caused the public to distrust him.

Originally Posted by CamFu

Americans can't give these people freedom, why because they don't know what it's like to fight for it.

This is a very important point as well. Governments, especially democracies, cannot be given to a people. They might be imposed, but they can't simply be given. The people have to choose that government and then struggle for it in some way. That might be through war. It might be through Gandhi-style protests. But in any case, a government is not the people's unless they have fought for it.

That's the reason why Liberia has failed. Ex-slaves were shipped to Africa and then simply told to go be free. But that didn't work. Liberia is now in many ways a failed state. Liberians didn't feel any attachment to their government because they hadn't struggled for it.

Originally Posted by Crono

I know for a fact that Islam is not a religion of tolerance, not ONE Islamic nation is free. Changing Iraq could possibly change the Muslim world for the better.

Indonesia is a democratic country that has not only elected a ruler but has also had a peaceful transfer of power. It is made up of several ethnic groups scattered across several islands. There are three official languages. But all the Indonesians more or less co-exist together without much friction.

And the astonishing thing is the vast majority of Indonesians are Muslim.