Does it undermine the troops to criticize the Iraq War?
Observation, drafted on Oct. 7, published on Oct. 11, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col.. Steve Russell (ret.), Founder and Chairman of Vets for Victory may be forgiven if he gets some of his
analogies wrong. (Notably those that compare the Iraq War with that of WWII. After all, the then US involvement in
the European theater was sparked of by a clear-cut case of national self-defense (Germany actually had
declared war against the US). And so military action was, therefore, universally supported at home and abroad
(from Day 1). For too little was its legitimacy in doubt, that one could have now still argued against it). What merits
real consideration however is his assertion whereby a criticism of the war at home undermines the troops in the
field and thereby makes it less likely that the US will actually win the Iraq campaign. For too relevant is the public
sentiment factor in any kind of war, that we could permit ourselves now not to address the Vets for Victory point of
view. ( see: Mr Russell’s presentation on Friday Oct. 5, at the Heritage Foundation, broadcast by C-Span).
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept that it is next to impossible for any country to win a
(prolonged) war, without the moral support of its own population. And so we can only urge governments not to
declare war precipitately. For too much will they thereby damage their own policy goals that they could now still
hope to actually achieve them.
Given therefore that the prospects for victory are in deed determined (in large part) by the legitimacy of a war as
such, we have to tell Mr. Russell that he is getting it wrong, if he thinks that critics are to blame if public sentiment
turns against the war. For too much does this logic insinuate, that a democratic public can continuously be misled,
that it would even make sense now to defend the latter.
No, no, if we want to be true democrats, we have to accept, that a free public eventually determines on its own
whether it wants to follow this or that argument. And so we should not ask anyone “to sacrifice his doubts” for
anything. For too little would he then have de-constructed them that he could now still hope to overcome them.
Given therefore that it is not doubt itself that is causing a lack of resolve but much rather the inability to honestly
confront it which is leading to defeat, we ask the critics of this war to not give up their reason questioning
campaign. For do much do they thereby strengthen the military force, that they could now still trust to accomplish
that otherwise.
No, no and no again, if we do not want to lie to ourselves, we have to recognize that it is the absence of self-
critique which has led al-Qaeda to abuse Iraqi lives. And so it is its lack of democratic processes which is causing
defeat. For too much have the Sunni tribes been repelled by its suppression of doubt that they would now still
want to harbour it.
Observation, drafted on Oct. 7, published on Oct. 11, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col.. Steve Russell (ret.), Founder and Chairman of Vets for Victory may be forgiven if he gets some of his
analogies wrong. (Notably those that compare the Iraq War with that of WWII. After all, the then US involvement in
the European theater was sparked of by a clear-cut case of national self-defense (Germany actually had
declared war against the US). And so military action was, therefore, universally supported at home and abroad
(from Day 1). For too little was its legitimacy in doubt, that one could have now still argued against it). What merits
real consideration however is his assertion whereby a criticism of the war at home undermines the troops in the
field and thereby makes it less likely that the US will actually win the Iraq campaign. For too relevant is the public
sentiment factor in any kind of war, that we could permit ourselves now not to address the Vets for Victory point of
view. ( see: Mr Russell’s presentation on Friday Oct. 5, at the Heritage Foundation, broadcast by C-Span).
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept that it is next to impossible for any country to win a
(prolonged) war, without the moral support of its own population. And so we can only urge governments not to
declare war precipitately. For too much will they thereby damage their own policy goals that they could now still
hope to actually achieve them.
Given therefore that the prospects for victory are in deed determined (in large part) by the legitimacy of a war as
such, we have to tell Mr. Russell that he is getting it wrong, if he thinks that critics are to blame if public sentiment
turns against the war. For too much does this logic insinuate, that a democratic public can continuously be misled,
that it would even make sense now to defend the latter.
No, no, if we want to be true democrats, we have to accept, that a free public eventually determines on its own
whether it wants to follow this or that argument. And so we should not ask anyone “to sacrifice his doubts” for
anything. For too little would he then have de-constructed them that he could now still hope to overcome them.
Given therefore that it is not doubt itself that is causing a lack of resolve but much rather the inability to honestly
confront it which is leading to defeat, we ask the critics of this war to not give up their reason questioning
campaign. For do much do they thereby strengthen the military force, that they could now still trust to accomplish
that otherwise.
No, no and no again, if we do not want to lie to ourselves, we have to recognize that it is the absence of self-
critique which has led al-Qaeda to abuse Iraqi lives. And so it is its lack of democratic processes which is causing
defeat. For too much have the Sunni tribes been repelled by its suppression of doubt that they would now still
want to harbour it.
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |