Military Adventurism
Okay, so this probably seems weird for me to talk about. Recently a good friend of mine could not understand how I could agree with the invasion of Iraq and yet not agree military intervention in Libya. To be clear about that point, first and foremost, just because a President decides to use military force does not mean I unilaterally agree with it. Secondly, I didn’t actually agree with the invasion of Iraq, but once the decision was made, I supported it. But of course there is more to it than that.
It is my firm belief that we should have finished the job back in 1991. But such was not our mandate. We don’t actually fight wars any more. We need “exit strategies” and “clear and decisive goals” which of course must be communicated to the oh-so-well-informed public so that everyone from the NY Times to the guy in a ball cap they interview after the tornado can armchair general the war.
Taking a look at Iraq, its strategic importance at least geographically is immediately apparent. It is situated in a neighborhood which is rather unfriendly to US interests. The only power in the region we can even nominally call an ally is Israel. And the best that can be said of that relationship is that Israel will act in Israel’s best interest and those interests may, from time to time, coincide with US interests. The best way to ensure our own interests are monitored is to have a presence in the region. The best way to justify presence in a region is by occupying a country.
Anyway, without going into too much detail, I think what disturbed me the most from his comments was the notion that he was saying either that; a.) Since I am in the military, I must therefore always be in favor of use of the military. Or, b.) Since my friends is a liberal and he figures me to be a conservative (!!) he is saying that I favored the invasion of Iraq since it happened on Bush’s watch but don’t favor Libya because it is on Obama’s watch.
I don’t favor military action for its own sake, obviously. Civilians (my friend has never served) will tell you how terrible war is and so on. But once again, to paraphrase Douglas MacArthur; No one hates war more than a soldier is absolutely true. We are the ones who have to go to them. We know first hand how much they suck.
I was not a huge Bush supporter, and am not conservative. I am also not a huge Obama supporter and am not a liberal. I am libertarian. I would like to see a Commander-in-Chief who at least has some experience with the military, and would love to see that as a requirement to get elected.
So. While I was not enthusiastic about the Iraq invasion, I understood it and saw its necessity. Once the decision was made, I supported it, and when ordered, I went with the enthusiasm and professionalism befitting a senior non-commissioned officer in the United States Army. I do not see the necessity of the Libya tour and do not understand why we are there. However, my Commander-in-Chief has made that decision and while, as a private citizen I disagree with it, as a professional soldier, I support my President and if ordered will go.
It is my firm belief that we should have finished the job back in 1991. But such was not our mandate. We don’t actually fight wars any more. We need “exit strategies” and “clear and decisive goals” which of course must be communicated to the oh-so-well-informed public so that everyone from the NY Times to the guy in a ball cap they interview after the tornado can armchair general the war.
Taking a look at Iraq, its strategic importance at least geographically is immediately apparent. It is situated in a neighborhood which is rather unfriendly to US interests. The only power in the region we can even nominally call an ally is Israel. And the best that can be said of that relationship is that Israel will act in Israel’s best interest and those interests may, from time to time, coincide with US interests. The best way to ensure our own interests are monitored is to have a presence in the region. The best way to justify presence in a region is by occupying a country.
Anyway, without going into too much detail, I think what disturbed me the most from his comments was the notion that he was saying either that; a.) Since I am in the military, I must therefore always be in favor of use of the military. Or, b.) Since my friends is a liberal and he figures me to be a conservative (!!) he is saying that I favored the invasion of Iraq since it happened on Bush’s watch but don’t favor Libya because it is on Obama’s watch.
I don’t favor military action for its own sake, obviously. Civilians (my friend has never served) will tell you how terrible war is and so on. But once again, to paraphrase Douglas MacArthur; No one hates war more than a soldier is absolutely true. We are the ones who have to go to them. We know first hand how much they suck.
I was not a huge Bush supporter, and am not conservative. I am also not a huge Obama supporter and am not a liberal. I am libertarian. I would like to see a Commander-in-Chief who at least has some experience with the military, and would love to see that as a requirement to get elected.
So. While I was not enthusiastic about the Iraq invasion, I understood it and saw its necessity. Once the decision was made, I supported it, and when ordered, I went with the enthusiasm and professionalism befitting a senior non-commissioned officer in the United States Army. I do not see the necessity of the Libya tour and do not understand why we are there. However, my Commander-in-Chief has made that decision and while, as a private citizen I disagree with it, as a professional soldier, I support my President and if ordered will go.