Cindy Sheehan

[stevenleser]

21. Nope. The real reason is she shares a problem with a small percentage of the anti-war crowd

To that small percentage, every war is the same and they try to place them in the same neat little box.

Everyone who is anti-war, and I am including myself here, agrees that war is to be avoided and that it indicates a failure of some sort on one or both parties.

Where Sheehan and those who agree with her fail, in my opinion, is that they are so desperate to characterize every war as 'bad' they systematically ignore any argument that contradicts them. We all (at least 99.999999%) here on DU agree that 'W's war in Iraq was unjustified and illegal and was likely about oil or other hidden agendas. We do not all agree on Afghanistan because there are legitimate arguments for why we went there. You can disagree with those arguments, but dismissing and refusing to acknowledge that other people can legitimately believe them detracts from your own credibility.

The same anti-war crowd to which Cindy belongs has recently been trying to suggest that World War II was also an illegitimate war (I am saying from the point of view of the US and the allies). It does not help the cause of being anti-war to push your position to the point of the ludicrous and bizarre.

I also thinks the focus on drones is a credibility destroying behavior. Either a war is legitimate or isnt. Focusing on a weapons system that is being used in that war that is perfectly legal (the only question of legality is who is providing the targets, something easily remedied if necessary), and in fact produces less collateral damage than other options results in a loss of credibility. Again, you have to understand a little about the military to know that the missiles the drones use are less powerful than the missiles a fighter jet would use and would produce fewer casualties than a ground assault, but people who know those things (like me) look at people who raise the drone issue and immediately know that, like anyone else who shouts at the top of their lungs without really knowing what they are talking about, they are not to be taken seriously.

To me, the way elements in the anti-war crowd approach the issue in the last 5 years resembles the way zealots approach religion.

So, yes, because of her approach and those like her, they are able to place Obama in the same box (or worse) than George W. Bush in terms of being pro-war. Of course, since FDR brought us into World War II (in recent books and articles by this group, he is responsible for us being in WWII), FDR is just as bad as George W. Bush too by their estimation. So WWII=Iraq=Vietnam=Afghanistan. All the same to this group. And that is how an anti-war heroine launches herself into obscurity.