The 'I Told You So' Argument
While watching a documentary about the anti-Vietnam protests it became clear to me that those who opposed the war have been at least somewhat vindicated. They argued that the war would fail and that it was a waste of human life and material resouces, and we can now look back and conclude that they were largely correct.
How well, then, do the arguments of those who opposed the current war in Iraq hold up?
As I remember, there were four main thrusts of the opposition argument.
1. The WMDs were not the threat that Bush/Blair et al claimed they were.
2. The coalition forces would not be welcomed as liberators but imperialists.
3. In response we could expect more terrorist acts against the 'ringleaders'.
4. The claims that the 'job' would be done quickly and easily were hopelessly naive and in fact it was almost certain that the troops would still be there fighting a resistance movement for years to come.
Unless my math is off that's 4-0 to the peaceniks.
Maybe if the advocates of militarism listened occasionally they might avoid getting themselves into these pickles!
How well, then, do the arguments of those who opposed the current war in Iraq hold up?
As I remember, there were four main thrusts of the opposition argument.
1. The WMDs were not the threat that Bush/Blair et al claimed they were.
2. The coalition forces would not be welcomed as liberators but imperialists.
3. In response we could expect more terrorist acts against the 'ringleaders'.
4. The claims that the 'job' would be done quickly and easily were hopelessly naive and in fact it was almost certain that the troops would still be there fighting a resistance movement for years to come.
Unless my math is off that's 4-0 to the peaceniks.
Maybe if the advocates of militarism listened occasionally they might avoid getting themselves into these pickles!
posted by Sparx at 13:36
3 Comments:
the problem is that many people still think that we only lost vietnam because of the protesters at home. the protesters, they claim, undermined moral of the troops and caused the political leadership to pull out before we were able to win. meanwhile, even when we were there, news reports of atrocities only made the military "pull its punches" in vietnam which is also why we lost
i don't believe any of that, but it just goes to show that no one ever wins these arguments. no matter what happens, each side can make up a story that explains away whatever facts that would otherwise indicate they were wrong.
i highly doubt that the true believing conservatives alive today will ever admit they were wrong on iraq. it really doesn't matter what happens there.
What is there not to believe? All those arguments (and a few more I might add) were being voiced in the U.S. and in Europe by sensible politicians long before the troops went in.
This makes perfect sense to me.
Ultimately the adventurists have been fairly successful in using the ends to justify the means. There is a functioning government in Iraq and people voted in elections, therefore the invasion was the right thing to do. End discussion (and mental reasoning!)
Post a Comment
<< Home