Bring them home

August 14, 2003 4:43 PM

"Bring them home now!" is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on." At a news conference yesterday, reported the Washington Post, the organization has stated their goals of returning to their home bases the 150,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq.
posted by dejah420 (19 comments total)

Leave a mess unfinished that worked in Haiti and Afganistan, or not.
posted by geist at 4:57 PM on August 14, 2003

Here's a related WarFilter thread.

Meanwhile, "the Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there." I guess giving the soldiers some relief isn't a high priority, even though they're getting their salaries cut.
posted by homunculus at 5:11 PM on August 14, 2003

This is ridiculous. Sorry Bush did something stupid, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to rebuild their government and civilian infrastructure after we destroyed the one they already had.

The United Nations didn't want this war in the first place, why should we expect them to go and fix the problems we made?

Bush had extremely high approval ratings going into this, so I just don't see where we can claim we didn't want the war. Since no real weapons have been found, the only possible reason we could argue for going in the first place is humanitarian - to back out now would do away with even that.
posted by mragreeable at 5:19 PM on August 14, 2003

The United States has a responsibility, morally and militarily, to stay in Iraq. NOT ONE of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines was forced to join the military: every single one of them signed on the dotted line to serve their country and follow the orders of the President of the United States.

And you know what? I don't seem to recall any similar "protest" over our troops being used in Bosnia, Haiti, etc -- instances when the use of military force was arguably less important and vital to national and world security.
posted by davidmsc at 5:43 PM on August 14, 2003

The United Nations didn't want this war in the first place, why should we expect them to go and fix the problems we made?

I agree that we shouldn't expect that, but why shouldn't we at least try to get their assistance? This mess is costing the lives of more American soldiers and more Iraqi civilians everyday.
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on August 14, 2003

You know, davidmsc, I think I actually agree with you.

I've always thought this war was a bad idea, and the mess the U.S. military is now hip-deep in is one of the reasons I opposed it. Still, it would make a bad situation far worse to pull out now. Some people can argue, based on Saddam Hussein's general nastiness, that the U.S. was doing Iraq a favour by overthrowing their government; but that claim will fall awfully flat if U.S. troops pull out before Iraq's infrastructure, economy, and government are running smoothly again.
posted by Mars Saxman at 6:11 PM on August 14, 2003

There is nothing like the sweet smell of money to get a country back on its feet again, and despite the complaining that the war "was all about oil", having that oil flow restored is going to mean the service personnel coming home all the sooner. It is the lifeblood of Iraq, and the means to its immediate future. The pipelines also mean employment for the new Iraqi Army, guarding them from saboteurs, and money to support the new government.

Iraq is also acting less and less like a country in crisis. Today, for example, it's starting to re-open its embassies in a bunch of countries. Some of the biggest initiatives in the country are also the most *boring*, such as funding small business, the largest employer around, and repairing infrastructure, also very boring. And resurrecting public education, with a major grant from the UN, I might add.

In other words, police action is no longer much of anything compared to the nation building in full swing. Sure, the military still patrols a lot, that's what they do. But the emphasis is now not on destroying, but *preventing* things from being destroyed.

And with every day of increased prosperity and stability, the window of opportunity closes that much further for the troublemakers. Right now, that young Shiite Imam, with an "army" of a few thousand irregulars, is the greatest threat--what a joke.

He wants to provoke a crisis, a trap to ensnare the US and Britain--either give me power or slaughter my followers, provoking a revolt.

But he has already been out maneuvered. He either plays ball with the new government, or he will be locked out of power--pushed aside by other, more reasonable Shiites, who will not look highly on his antics, and who owe him nothing.
posted by kablam at 7:33 PM on August 14, 2003

NOT ONE of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines was forced to join the military: every single one of them signed on the dotted line to serve their country and follow the orders of the President of the United States.

David, please. That's a total nonsequiter. The Nazis at Nuremberg claimed exemption because they were just following orders. The US has a responsibility to stay in Iraq, but the vows of soldiers to follow immoral orders has little to do with their obligations.

Besides, no one, not even the White House, can show that attacking Iraq had jack-shit to do with the security of the US. Do you have evidence the rest of us aren't privy too yet?
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:33 PM on August 14, 2003

I still say that the US should just pull out 100% and leave it to the UN to then decide whether or not to ignore Iraq.
posted by mischief at 8:52 PM on August 14, 2003

I gotta agree with mischief as well as his irony.

It's like they say on the bumpers of Volvo's built in the early and mid 90s:

"Regime Change Begins at Home"

Anything that this administration touches is poison to democracy, in Iraq and in the US. That much is clear.

Until they are out of power (uhh right) this whole fiasco will continue to consume America from the bottom up. If what matters is us, ourselves, Americans, then to allow this administration's big banking connections contine to siphon off the people of both countries while they're there paying lip service "to fixing it", "rebuilding it", whatever, can only be attributed to a hysteria buttressed by myth.

We can take it on our own, the rebuilding and "democratizing" of Iraq. Yes we can. But that is also a myth we're being forced to swallow. It wasn't the people of this country that created, stabilized a fascist regime and subsequently destroyed many humans that lived in the vicinity of the head fascist we were inculcated to hate --Hussein. Jesus Christ, it is well known what a swell bud Hussein was to various members of Bush's cabinet. Rumsfeld shook hands with him! And somehow, we as Americans who opposed the attack on Iraq are now to feel guilty?

They and theirs created and have perpetually profited from what they've done to the Middle East. Now, those of us who were against the attack on the people of Iraq have to fall in line behind the just-so story of how the Bush administration is dedicated to rebuilding Iraq? All the while our soldiers are being bludgeoned and doing some bludgeoning themselves I surmise? What gives?

Why are people being put into life and death, primordially instictive situations because of decisions made by high minded, big business idealists?

If they're so idealistic why the fuck haven't they let us in on the plan? They know there are plenty of us out there who are believing some seriously realistic conspiracy crap. I mean, that's not good, right? Why don't they come right out and tell us all about the business connections that are involved and why they're necessary for their "planned" beneficence on the Iraqi people?

Why not? They know there are plenty of confused mofos here at home. We're all Americans are we not? Even if we're opposed to the Bush (cough) doctrine, aren't we still Americans? He claims to be doing this for Americans. Where then is the beneficence for their very own fellow American countrymen? So that we can understand this?

So no, bring the troops the fuck home now and let them sit down with Bush and let them all have heart to hearts. Bush is the hugging Prez is he not? Surely he's got a few "there-there little buddy's" in 'em.

Only way I see it is, our guys are getting killed and living in misery and don't frankly, know why anymore. I can't blame them.

Even Bush apologists have to admit the moral certitude in all of this isn't that potent.
posted by crasspastor at 9:45 PM on August 14, 2003

I rather firmly believe that the tide against the war will only continue to rise, and the same cheesy binary logic that brought the war will lead us to abandon Iraq wholesale to decay in anarchy. The war was a crock of shit, but we don't get to undo it.

Starting the "Total War" may be the greatest mistake the US has ever made, but bailing out of Iraq after we crushed its ability to maintain order--for right or wrong--would be the worst thing to ever happen to Iraq. Forget the idea of a Shia dictatorship; that will look good after _x_ years of civil war trying to fill Iraq's power vacuum.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:03 PM on August 14, 2003

"I rather firmly believe that the tide against the war will only continue to rise, and the same cheesy binary logic that brought the war will lead us to abandon Iraq wholesale to decay in anarchy. " * --IJR

* For further reference, please see "Afghanistan, US Rebuilding."
posted by Dunvegan at 3:39 AM on August 15, 2003

...or (better yet) see 'Afghanistan, US Rebuilding.'

And on pre-post-redo, a little of what crasspastor said.
posted by Dunvegan at 3:44 AM on August 15, 2003

I'm assuming that Shria will be imposed and there will be a democratic looking government with a voting process that is more symbolic than practical and a very powerful religious leader. Anything short of complete anarchy will be spun into a wonderful victory by the Bush administration.
posted by skallas at 3:56 AM on August 15, 2003

i feel bad for these families
but it's their fault for believing in this country and letting their children leave.

i know it's patriotism and a love of country that surely gave them the pride to let their children go into this mess, but what's been going on in that part of the world has nothing to do with a love of country, and everything to do with exploiting people's love of patriotism for other people's love of greed and unsatable need for power

what's truly sadening is that these people really only have their children. the people exploiting them have tons of money and tons of power and are happily guiltless about fucking with these people's only true treasure, their kids, to make a little more senseless money.
posted by Peter H at 9:12 AM on August 15, 2003

"The United States has a responsibility, morally and militarily, to stay in Iraq."

Even if they ask us to leave?

It's their country. It turns out we had no reason to be there in the first place. They want us out. What right do we have to stay? Haven't we screwed things up enough?

We should pull out and turn things over to the UN. No good can come from us imposing a government on them. Now that we've failed to get the clerics on board it's game over.

If we allow fair elections they'll elect someone we won't allow. If we rig the elections (only allow certain people to run) it will only lead to more attacks and riots. We can't win. And if we try we'll make things worse. Time to get out while we can still put a good face on things.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:47 AM on August 15, 2003

Time to get out while we can still put a good face on things.


Too late. Already screwed the pooch on that one.
posted by yesster at 12:12 PM on August 15, 2003

Now, waitasec. You're saying that anything better than anarchy will be *spun* to look good? But let's put that in perspective. Would Iraq be a *real* success if it developed into an nation like "our friend" Saudi Arabia?

We're pretty happy with them, you know, despite our problems. We would certainly never invade Saudi, even if it wasn't Islam's Grand Central Station.

How about "our friend" Jordan? Or "our friend" Egypt? Or "our friend" Turkey? Are they good enough to reach your standard of what we "should have done?"

In other words, what will we have to do to make you happy? Will Iraq have to be as civil as Canada?

Granted, Sharia law sucks--but we've made it clear that, at least until we leave, it's not going to happen. And once the government, a *secular* government, gets started, with *lots* of money from oil, and a working army and police, it's going to be damn hard to unseat by hot-heads.

No, I'm afraid that Iraq will not become the next Canada. But it also may be kept from becoming another Iran, or another Syria. And that should be good enough.
posted by kablam at 5:32 PM on August 15, 2003

Show me the way to go home
posted by homunculus at 11:28 AM on August 16, 2003