Mike McConnell and Iraq: The Rant

http://www.associatedcontent.com/audio/2739/mike_mcconnell_and_iraq_the_rant.html

I was listening to Mike McConnell's show the other night, and he said something that really ticked me off. Now, normally Mike's a pretty dependable guy; he doesn't go in for the right-wing rhetoric much, he's basically on the level.

But, this time, here he is, talking to this guy named James, who is complaining that "there is no end in sight" in Iraq, and we need to cut our losses and call it, right?

Well, Mike says to James, that's utter nonsense, because what about World War II? We, the regular Joes, didn't know we had the atomic bomb. We were training troops for the invasion of Japan when the war suddenly ended. So, four months before the end of the war, you would have said, 'there's no end in sight; we gotta call 'em home.'

James said 'NO, because in World War II, we knew what we had to do. We didn't know how long it would be, but there was a visible end: we invade Japan, and it's over with.' Somebody beats somebody else, and that's it. Game over, done, everybody goes home.

So, McConnell changes the subject! He says, 'I can't believe you have the nerve to call here when things are so much better than they were a year ago! Do you have a problem with less Americans dying? Do you have a problem with less civilians dying? Blah, b-blah, b-blah.'

And, changing the subject instead of just conceding a lost point aside (a Limbaugh classic), that's the thing that really got me going. Yes, fewer people dying is a good thing - BUT the bottom line is that they shouldn't be dying at all. James's point was that we should not have been in Iraq to begin with. Therefore, all the people who have died, and all the people who continue to die, should not have died.

Beyond that, as far as the issue at hand, yes, those things are an improvement. BUT, the fact that they are "better" does not mitigate the greater fact that they are still happening! This so-called "good" is a relative one, only positive in terms of the greater negative. People are still dying - civilians and soldiers alike! Saying that x number of people dying this week is good is only valid in the context of even more deaths. It is far more accurate to say that it is tragic, terrible, horrific, and criminal - but less so than the week before. Having less of a bad thing doesn't make it any less bad; the only "good" is that there is less of it.

James summed it up wonderfully, saying, 'Who do we have to beat to get this over with?' Well, who? Which government do we have to topple? In World War II, we knew which enemy we had to take down. But in Iraq? We already toppled the government!

So....

John McCain says we should stay in Iraq in order to prevent terrorists from cropping back up, but... Let's look at the facts there. We've got our military presence in Afghanistan, and that country is now mostly back under Taliban control - even though we're still there. It is well documented that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we showed up, so it's a safe bet that if we aren't around to blow up, they'll lose interest pretty quickly.

Most of all, though, we've got terror cells that keep cropping up in this country - and this is where we live! Our military has been here, and continues to be here, and it doesn't make one little bit of difference!

So, what good, exactly, comes from continuing the occupation of Iraq?