[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: A war in which no one wins and everyone loses Jim Wright is a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. PO Box 1413 Fort Worth, TX 76101 President Bush's position vis-À-vis Iraq grows daily more untenable as the war grows increasingly unpopular at home and abroad. Seven out of 10 Americans polled last week disapprove of the war. Retiring U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan chides the U.S. president for his go-it-alone strategy. Even Bush-blessed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calls for a Middle Eastern conference of nations (which Bush dismisses) to discuss the region's future. The president often has tersely reiterated that U.S. troops will persist in Iraq until they have "completed the job." At first undefined, the "job" now seems to emerge as the creation of an Iraqi governing force that can maintain order on our terms but without our help. Bush, and all of us, may have to settle for something slightly less triumphal than his repeated declaration that he'll stop at nothing short of undisputed "victory." We are rapidly approaching the point at which some semblance of stability and a measurable lessening of violence, allowing the elected Iraqi government to move toward domestic tranquility, may have to suffice. Nobody can legitimately claim victory in a war like this. Nobody wins. Everyone loses. Statistically, we've seen more Iraqis killed than they have killed of us. But surely, pray God, those are not the emoluments of "victory." I've heard the violent death toll of Iraqis since our March 2003 invasion estimated variously at between 50,000 and 250,000. Our military occupation has, directly and indirectly, wrought far more devastation upon that nation's infrastructure than the war's original backers anticipated. Yet our new Defense Secretary Robert Gates solemnly advises that we're "not winning." We've stayed in Iraq longer than our country was involved in World War II. Our military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq -- two very different cases -- have by now, along with collateral expenses, cost U.S. taxpayers a total of some $500 billion. Still, that's not "winning." What positive good that money, otherwise expended, could have accomplished. We have suffered the loss of about 3,000 American soldiers' lives and have seen 29,000 injured, with undisclosed hundreds disabled for life. More and more it begins to appear that some sort of conference among neighboring Middle Eastern governments may be required to stop cross-border infiltrations of terrorists. Maliki has sent envoys to nearby countries to explore that as well as building common ground to improve regional stability. In his farewell speech at the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., Annan appealed to Americans to remember President Truman's admonition: "No matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please." Bush did as he pleased in Iraq. "Pre-emptive war," he called it. World leaders pleaded with him to let the U.N. task force complete its search for any weapons of mass destruction. No, said Bush. "The time for talking has passed!" Two weeks ago, Bush met privately in Jordan with Maliki. Afterward the two held a joint news appearance. Maliki soon discovered to his considerable discomfort that the U.S. president's offhand imprimatur ("He's the guy for the job," Bush quipped) did not add to the Iraqi leader's prestige or reputation for independence at home. The last thing that an Arab or Middle Eastern political leader needs is the appearance of being a stand-in or ventriloquist's dummy for an occupying power. Even in Lebanon, where U.S. influence helped persuade Syrian armed forces to vacate their neighbor's land and let the Lebanese people run their own country, elected local leaders do not dare flout nationalistic public opinion by appearing too close to the United States. It is woefully sad -- shameful, in fact -- but this is the way it is. Once viewed as "liberators," we now are looked upon as aggressors. We have seen the awesome, silent, stubborn resistance of Middle Eastern cultures to intrusions of outside influence, capped by the ultimate self-destructive horror of suicide-bombers who destroy their own lives just to kill those they consider religious and cultural opponents whom they accuse of violating their sacred domain. Those targets include gallant young Americans who left jobs and families to go in the name of our country, offended by the outrageous events of 9-11 and willing to offer their own lives as surety for our nation's good intentions. Winners? There are no winners. The only valid measurement is: Who has lost the most? . . . He hasn't heard the violent death toll of Iraqi citizens at 655,000+++ plus 1.9 million displaced, or does that not qualify as "violent"?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: angle (#0)
Here's what I don't get at all. Why is OPEC literally fueling US tanks, planes, and humvees which intrude on a fellow Muslim nation's sovereignity? The Sods and Iranians themselves could bring this foreign occupation to a screeching halt if they turned off their oil spigots for 1 week. What gives? The chaos spilling over from Iraq threatens their nations and their own personal power.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||