Apologies to Shepherd Fairey, who is poorly imitated above, and lambasted HERE as a fraudulent hack. Remember, Patrick, views and opinions linked on this site do not necessary reflect the views and opinions of those here on the scribald staff.
Apologies to all of us, in consideration of the malarky below. Poor Katie Couric really screwed the pooch, according to Mrs. Palin. She also thinks that Obama has disqualified himself from the running due to some of his statements about the war. While I'd like to dismiss this as baloney, I'd also like to presently examine the issue further, perhaps while you listen to Ms. Barracuda spout some of her sharp, sophisticated knowledge. (Ahem!) Or, perhaps while you listen to the Fox News Commentators fall over themselves massaging this bright young whippersnapper.
Specifically, she is referring to his having said at one point a year or so ago that we are "air raiding villages and killing civilians. I agree that one running for higher office should play this card close to the vest. Especially, one should do so, in consideration of the uniformed men and women throughout the country and fighting these wars.
The biggest reason why Obama having said this is offensive is because it can come across as demeaning to the troops. That is certainly how it sounds. And the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan categorically do not deserve to be characterized so brazenly by anyone, let alone the POTUS. These heroes are doing what they believe to be right, in that they are honoring their commitment to service to the utmost degree. They may agree with the government's policies, or they may disagree, but they accept that it is not their job to make those decisions, but rather to be a warrior and to work as part of a team. You can no more denigrate their service than you can that of the Americans who fought in WWII, the Revolution, or, unfortunately, all of the other wars we have fought. (See: Achilles heal [of argument]).
That being said, if any person reading this or living in America does NOT think that we are killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are completely disconnected from reality. If you do not think this is a problem, then you are morally culpable. That is, civilian deaths in time of war are, as the military so tastefully calls it, "unfortunate." But they are also unavoidable consequences, and a well fought war approaches the lowest number of civilian casualties as possible.
Of course, from a strategic and selfish (in the good way) standpoint, it is even more important to keep one's own troops alive, uninjured, and successful in their mission. Where these goals collide is when civilian death tolls inevitably rise. Nonetheless, the reduction of injury and death on both sides is important.
This discussion will avoid, for purposes of brevity (I have late night house cleaning to do)
a consideration of the goals in regards to the health and well being of "enemy" warriors, in that my long held notion of "I wish for my enemy to stop in his aggression, or in his defense against my aggression, so that we might sit upon this park bench and share some tea and Krimpets" has fallen by the wayside, circa the beginning of time. Of course, I still hold it in high regard, except possibly for the part about my aggression....
Which brings me to my point. Civilians are going to die in Iraq & Afghanistan, and believe me, they have NOT been waiting around for you to start paying attention in order to do so. Thousands upon thousands dead. Millions (perhaps) displaced. Injuries in the tens and probably hundreds of thousands.
These ugly facts are not solely the fault of the US, of course. Unless you espouse some SERIOUS conspiracy theories, it can be assumed that US soldiers are not planting the IEDs and are not firing the RPGs and are not serving as suicide bombers to aid in the destruction of the countries. These acts are being perpetrated by individuals who are angry about the US's presence, but are absolutely wrong to respond as they have, terrorizing their own nations to the brink of collapse.
We all know this, and the position we put our soldiers into, even in the most ideal of situations, is tenable at best. Therefore, in the interest of protecting their lives to the nth degree, and simultaneously, in the interest of minimizing civilian casualties, we should be dropping as few bombs as possible.
Look at Iraq. Petraeus' strategy, if it is in fact working, has been to inundate the neighborhoods with protective presence, rather than oppressive control. Rather than work out of big bases and drop bombs on the "bad guys" (and their children) we have moved to a more cogent and intelligent strategy. In order for you to protect the citizens, you must get to know them. WALK AROUND A LITTLE BIT. (The police forces of some of our cities might learn a thing or two from Dr. Petraeus, and where they have, they have achieved success. No? See: Who's the Man?)
That being said, this mantra of "the surge is working" is a bit conspicuous in its overuse. This especially coming from the man who in March was openly called out for trying to glad-hand us into believing all sorts of things about the safety and efficacy of the Iraq program.
That said, it looks like, at least to some extent, the surge is working. Of course, one could point out the simple fact that you can't really call it a "surge" so much as an "appropriate assignment of troop numbers to deal with the task at hand" which had theretofore remained unfulfilled.
Afghanistan is a different bird, nerd. Hills and caves and hideouts OH MY! But it's all true, and that shady shaky border might just shimmy us into our next war...with PAKISTAN??? I hope not, and seriously think not, though I was surprised to hear that very conjecture today from someone (forget who) who I did not expect from whom to hear such things.
Inevitably, there are going to be bombs dropped in Afghanistan. Inevitably, civilians will die. And in some ways that is OK. (After all, I encourage you, civilian, as the big bomb drops your way, to smile and remember the happy times and think to yourself, this too is OK, because it has to be, because I let it be that way for others)
But in other ways it is absolutely NOT OK, and MUST stop! We must do everything we can as a nation, as a culture, and as a military to avoid the killing of non-combatants. Beyond the moral imperative, it is good sense militarily. As we have stepped into the neighborhoods and away from the air strikes (and lined the Iraq's pockets with as much money as they could fit in em and revealed ourselves as being WAAAAYYYYY cooler than that "al Qaeda" crew they were thinking about runnning with), our relationships with the Iraq's got better.
Even though the tactic must be different, we have to make a point to make the same efforts of local diplomacy and peace-mongering in Afghanistan, so that we may solidify and strengthen the country from the foundation up.
Again, I bring myself longwindedly to the point. THIS is what Obama was trying to say (I believe). He wasn't calling soldiers war criminals or murderers or disparaging them in any way, as Palin implies in her Fox interview. Rather, he was being a policy wonk and speaking from a policy perspective, about factual and difficult realities on the ground. Contrast this with McCain in Iraq in March. To imply Obama's disrespect is to reveal your own, Ms. Palin.
Endnotes: Conservative, Republican, and disenchanted with the whole dang system? Don't support McCain??? Can't support Obama??? Have I got the solution for you! Coming soon.
Posts
