CNN iReport

I know that officially we’ve stopped referring to it as “The War on Terror”.  But reading the commentary by Ed Rollins this morning titled “Those Who Quit to Protest War”, seemed to indicate that while we may not refer to it by name anymore, plenty of people still keep the sentiment alive and well.

A civilian adviser in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, resigned because he is against the war there and doesn’t believe we should remain there.  Here is an excerpt of his statement from his letter of resignation:

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Rollins, who I tend to disagree with 9 times out of 10, made some good points but as usual put his rigid conservative/republican spin on it.

Here’s a quote from his commentary in reference to Bin Laden:

"He is still out there with tens of thousands of supporters who want to destroy Americans and Westerners.  The threat is still real.  The bad guys are still out there and may be here."

Is fear really the only tool the right has left?  The fact that tactics like this are still working on people in this country is even more discouraging.  Yes he is still out there, and yes they may be here....I for one am inclined to believe that that is not reason enough to occupy another country, especially countries such as these that only use us for our oil dependency.

Plus, when our own people spread this type of rhetoric, in my opinion they are aiding the terrorists in their goal to spread terror, making them no better than the terrorists themselves….isn’t that exactly what they want?  I refuse to live in constant fear just so some politicians can earn brownie points and have bragging rights of some kind about a hopeless war effort they supported.

Rollins and the rest of the right-wing seem to be falling right in line with that philosophy.  And just FYI for those who think this way; retreating and withdrawing from a place because we realize it’s unwinnable does not equal “weakness”, regardless of what the right would have you believe.  If anything, it illustrates our rationale and understanding of a complex situation, as well as our ability to recognize that and rethink our involvement.

And no, me refusing to live in fear does not translate to me wanting the U.S. to be attacked again.  Sick that some people would actually think that!  You know, these are the same people that think anybody against the war is siding with the terrorists, because they only see what they want to and actually buy in to all the right-wing fear-mongering!

Like Cheney, constantly claiming that if we pull out of the region it absolutely, without question, will result in another attack on U.S. soil by those people we let “get away”.  Fear tactics, plain and simple.  Trying to scare people into supporting sending more troops and continuing a war.  But for what purpose?  What could people like Cheney possibly have to gain by us remaining in that country…….?

I do understand that we still need to be vigilant and watchful…but that doesn’t require us to go about things the way we have been.  It was always my understanding that our military was there to defend our country, not to be the police of the world!  We can’t defend against terrorists (or terror for that matter), but we have such a knee-jerk reaction to things of this nature and somehow it leads us to believe that we can.

I believe many people think of this post-9/11 era as being the same as WWII; that we have a clear and obvious enemy that we must send our troops across the world to combat in order to ensure the safety of the rest of the world as well as ourselves from an army bent on world domination.  Problem is, there is no army.  There may be as few as only dozens of people that are the supposed “terrorists” we claim to be trying to eliminate, yet we treat this situation the same as going to Germany to defeat Hitler.

These people do things covertly and in secret, not out in the open and blatantly like Hitler and the Nazi’s did.  Why we haven’t figured this out and tailored our tactics accordingly is beyond me.  Not to mention the simple history of this region; how many armies have tried and failed to conquer this region?  And, of course, as Rollins mentions in his commentary, there’s Vietnam.  Do we just have a genetic pre-disposition in this country to deny history and refuse to learn from it or something?

Rollins also refers to The Weinberger Doctrine as being what the war should be based on, more or less.  He implies that this set of standards is what should be used to determine whether or not to send troops into any conflict.

The Weinberger Doctrine:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Well it sounds like a great set of rules….if they could actually be applied in real life!

#1 - Exactly what "vital national interests" are involved, other than oil and the delusion of completely eliminating any and all "terrorists" that want to hurt the U.S.?  I find it odd that the military advisers to the President seem to honestly believe that this is an achievable goal.

#2 - Doesn't even really make sense to me; it's basically saying that we shouldn't commit troops to war unless we intend to win!  Sounds convenient to me; this way sending troops into any conflict can be justified because, obviously, we always INTEND to win!

#3 - Seems like an impossibility, can there ever really be a "clearly defined political objective" in this country?  There's no such thing as "clearly defined" when it comes to anything political.  Not to mention that the "capacity to accomplish those objectives" isn't there either.  The only "capacity" we have for winning in this part of the world would be to commit every last resource we have into that one place, and even then it's still highly unlikely that we would succeed.

#4 - This actually makes sense, to base the size and composition of forces committed on up-to-date information and intelligence....but it still doesn't change the fact that regardless of how much intelligence we gather in order to determine what is needed to achieve the objective, it's the objective itself that needs to be reassessed.

#5 - Yes, this is probably, as Rollins points out in his commentary, the major unanswered question.  Public opinion seems to be against this war and against sending more troops over there.  So the question becomes, what is considered "reasonable assurance" and who sets the criteria for what is "reasonable" in this instance?

#6 - "Only as a last resort"....so after 9/11 we had no other options, no other strategies, no other avenues to pursue?  Even the 9/11 attacks themselves, committed by a handful of religious extremist terrorists, while tragic, didn't necessitate a "last resort" response.  Again, what is considered a "last resort" and why, and who determines this?  Were WMD's the excuse needed to go into Iraq because the existence of WMD’s put that scenario in the “last resort” category?

The bottom line is that at any given time, even if we were to get Bin Laden, there are going to be people from all around the world that, for whatever reason, don't like the U.S. and would like to harm it in any way they can.  This is not something we can eliminate entirely, regardless of what the top ranking military officials claim.

And while I have sympathy for the innocent people in those countries that would just like to get on with their lives, it's not our responsibility to bring about change in those countries, that's up to them.

Sure we can guide them along the way, help them if they ask for it.  But it's time we got out of that part of the world, bring troops home, and start focusing on bringing about the much needed change that WE need in this country!

It's like if you were a professional organizer that was hired to organize other peoples' stuff....but when you go home your own house is a disaster area!  How could you justify telling others that you know best how to organize their things when you can't even get your own house in order?