Join The Debate!

Iraq and World War II Not the Same

It's ridiculous to compare the necessity of going to war against the Japanese Empire, and by extension the Nazi juggernaut, to the completely unnecessary "preemptive" war we initiated in Iraq on specious intelligence and with shifting justifications.

The Japanese attacked us in a frontal assault meant to shake loose our influence in the Asia and to free up our stranglehold on much needed resources so they could consolidate and strengthen their hold on the Empire. They were an easily identifiable enemy complete with uniforms, a uniform philosophy, a discernible point of origin, and with a national identity. Notwithstanding their prattle about developing an Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, their actions were a straight power grab for control of the region. The same held true for the Nazis.

We were forced into that war, and went into the countries of Asia and Europe to beat back a savage invader who had no right to be there. We restored to the countries we liberated their rights of self-determination (well, most of them, but the question of our postwar actions with the Soviets and colonial powers is too much for this comment) Upon securing victory we immediately implemented pragmatic policies designed to ensure stability and a transition to democratic government, often using the same functionaries who had worked for the regimes. Our post-war government was criticized for its tepid de-Nazification and for leaving Hirohito in place, albeit in a constitutional monarchy, but the machinery of government kept working, the resentments which can lead to insurgency subsided, and in the long run it appears to have been the right approach.

Compare the preceding to our decision to launch a costly and ill-considered war, one which was not to liberate a conquered people, but to remove a despised dictator. Our military victory was never in doubt, but we have utterly failed to secure the peace. We created a vacuum of power and further complicated matters by firing virtually the entire armed forces of Iraq and de-Baathifying on a massive scale. We took a group which has ruled Iraq for 1000 years and told them it's over. Instead of searching for the best and brightest to help with reconstruction we put an idealogue into the post of finding candidates, one who is documented as having examined candidates for idealogical purety rather than for practical competence. We ignored the deep religious, ethnic, and tribal divisions and jealousies and loyalties. In between building schools and handing out candy to children our soldiers are forced, for the sake of their own safety, to patrol and kick in doors and detain suspected insurgents and to fire on buildings and to race through the streets in their Humvees in an effort to avoid kill zones and ambush sites. Everyone they see is a potential enemy and they react accordingly. How does this build trust?

You talk about choosing to "fight to win". Okay, what is it we're supposed to win? How do we win it by fighting? As Iraq descends into the chaos Tom Ricks this weekend described as a "Hobbesian state", what military actions do you suggest to prevent and reverse this condition? How many more like Cpl Arms will have to die before we decide we're victorious?