The last man to die for a mistake hasn't died yet
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The last man to die for a mistake hasn't died yet
An American soldier was killed in a rocket attack at the Basra airport in southern Iraq this weekend. The man's name has not yet been released -- I will come back and update the post when it is -- but one imagines he was much like his comrades sent to the Persian Gulf, a can-do American focused on doing his job and getting it right. That doesn't change the fact that it is a mission that -- no fault of his own -- was badly mistaken from Day One. More than seven years later, good people -- Americans and Iraqi civilians -- are dying still from the wreckless and treacherous mistakes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and their cronies.
There was no call for a celebration when the news dribbled out last week that the last U.S. combat units had withdrawn from Iraq. It is only mildly satisfying that President Obama is finally sticking to a timetable to end a war that was launched under false pretenses way back in 2003. Today, there are still 50,000 American soldiers in a volitile region of the world, and the soldier who died this weekend won't be the last, unfortunately. It was nearly four decades ago that John Kerry asked who would be the last to die for the mistakes of Vietnam, and it's been three years since Bruce Springsteen asked the same question about Iraq.
Who will be the last to die for this mistake?
Sadly, we don't know yet.
Comments (97)
"Point being, Iraq wasn't really a threat. We're not protected by having troops over there. Even if we were, the marginal increase in protection almost definitely isn't worth the cost of the war." Well said RG.— Les Ismore
Billy Ray -- absolutely 100% agree with this part of your statement: "The point I am making is that the President and the highest officers bear the heaviest imaginable responsibility to the people they command to ensure that the orders they give are truly in the best interest of this nation". I THINK I disagree with this part, "I would submit to you that the occupation of Iraq was not in the best interest of this nation." I think that is a judgment call that we still can't measure. If you look short term, I think your statement is correct, but if we look another 10-15-30 years in the future, will having a stable capitalistic democracy in the middle east as a loyal business and political partner be in the best interests of the US? A lot of people would say, Yes...— IggleFan68- "To me, saying that a service person died "for nothing" insults that person's memory and their sacrifice." Taking your example, I'd agree. Especially considering the all volunteer military. They died for what they believed in, although i'm sure some are disillusioned about the mission.— RG
- "but if we look another 10-15-30 years in the future, will having a stable capitalistic democracy in the middle east as a loyal business and political partner be in the best interests of the US?" I pray that you are right.— Les Ismore
Comment removed.- To respond to your 8:46 post, igglefan: I understand all that about wanting to turn Iraq into "a shining jewel of peace and prosperity." It's just that I think that acting on that was akin to going all in on a pair of jacks. Believe me, now that we as a nation have made the wager, I'd love to be proven wrong about all this and to see Iraq become everything that Woodward says that Bush hoped it would be. But looking at the ethnic and religious divisions in the country doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in a good outcome. I still think the smart money is on us having just handed Iraq to the Iranians on a silver platter - unless the anti-Islamist opposition in Iran comes through in a big way. As for your other points: First, though it's perhaps a technicality these days, we never have been at war with Iraq, nor with anyone else since the end of WWII. But even if I agree with you that there's a way of interpreting the relevant Security Council resolutions such that we had the authority to attack Iraq when we did, that still doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. I'll defer to Les Ismore on the topic of what our intelligence should or should not have indicated about Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2002-2003, but I do want to respond to your statement that "they did find SOME, which has gone massively underreported." I would not expect Fox News to underreport any such news, but the only thing I found on their website was that discovery of 500 pre-1991 chemical shells. That's a pretty slim justification. Finally, your statement that only Obama can claim to have opposed the war before the fact should be qualified. Plenty of us outside the political class thought the same.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "I pray that you are right." All Americans should be doing the same, Les. THAT was Bush's "gamble". According to "Bush at War", GWB was convinced that freedom and liberty were so powerful that a population that was "liberated" would embrace freedom and thrive. That's why I keep saying that you can't judge GWB's presidency yet. If he is right, it makes him a top 5 President -- he's changed the world. If he's wrong????— IggleFan68
- "Les...buy a map to see the threat..hint...it's between Iraq and Afghanistan." sorry, but that wasnt what we were sold.— Les Ismore
- RE your more recent post, IggleFan: I agree with you 100 percent that it's a judgment call. It always is. If Iraq is indeed a stable capitalistic democracy x number of years down the line, I'll be pleased to see it. Let's just say I'm going to need to see a bit more of a track record before I start investing for my retirement in emerging-market Iraqi stocks. (BTW, we have a "stable capitalistic democracy in the middle east as a loyal business and political partner." It's just not a predominantly Arab or Muslim one.)— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "GWB was convinced that freedom and liberty were so powerful that a population that was "liberated" would embrace freedom and thrive." I also see an additional argument here. Why should we be subsidizing other countries political reforms?— RG
I didnt support the war in Iraq, I thought it was a huge mistake, but once the invasion started that became irrelevant I supported the troops. Bill is right in what he said, the left have gone out of their way to attack the military at every turn including Bunch on this blog. The General Betrayus ad has only recently been taken of the move on site. The reasons for war were laughable at best but those on the left have once again shown they cannot be trusted to support the military. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy then maybe the sacrifice was worth the cost, but only maybe.— PAEnglish- Billy Ray -- ha! Check my next post -- I didn't see your post before writing that one -- we both identified what GWB did as a gamble... And you raise a question: Does the President have the right to gamble with American soldier's lives? I'm going to look at this somewhat dispassionately. Iraq was a godawful mess in 2002/2003, certainly not an ally, and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. What's the downside of attacking them? 1. Some loss of American life. 2. Further destabilization of the region. 3. Rallying of Islamic countries against the US. 4. Political destabilization of the US. After consulting with my military advisers, they tell me, "You might lose 10,000 lives in 10 years". Ok, still good. I consult with my political advisers, they tell me, "The region really can't get much worse". Ok, still good. I consult with my State department, and they tell me, "Saudi Arabia won't change, Pakistan ain't much of an ally now, Turkey is good, Iran hates us, Syria is on the fence, Egypt is useless". Ok, I'm still good. My advisers warn me about what VietNam did to the country. Hmmm, not good. I can give speeches about "perseverance, in it for the long haul". At the end, I'm left with a minimal loss of US life, and political destabilization of the US as the "cons" in the plan. Given those downsides, it makes sense to me why GWB took the gamble.— IggleFan68
- "Bill is right in what he said, the left have gone out of their way to attack the military at every turn including Bunch on this blog." PA this is wrong on so many levels it is laughable. The left "attacked" the people who brought us this war, NOT the brave men and women who executed the war. And guess what, the left was correct, this war was not necessary and a waste of blood and treasure.— Les Ismore
- PA English - Your kind of "support" is NOT what American soldiers need. By supporting Republican efforts at keeping our troops there without the proper supplies (including body armor and Humvee armor) is the kind of "support" we dont need. And your yellow ribbons on your SUV are NOT supporting our troops. Voting for responsible legislators that will provide the necessary support for our troops both before, during and after deployment is what you should be doing to show your "support".— Les Ismore
- "Does the President have the right to gamble with American soldier's lives? " Absolutely NOT.— Les Ismore
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: