« Previous · Home · Next »
Finish the Job!
By Charlie
Owen West, writing (in all places) in the New York Times, hits one out of the park. He calls national unity on finishing the job in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists who have been at war with this country for decades.
Somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom, not a large war by America's historical standards, has blossomed into a crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats with a fist instead of five fingers. Instead of rallying we are squabbling, even as the slow fuse burns.One party is overly sanguine, unwilling to acknowledge its errors. The other is overly maudlin, unable to forgive the same. The Bush administration seeks to insulate the public from the reality of war, placing its burden on the few. The press has tried to fill that gap by exposing the raw brutality of the insurgency; but it has often done so without context, leaving a clear implication that we can never win.
In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective. Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.
The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused. It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.
This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.
...
We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more. We have crossed several rivers and the nation is hoping that ahead lie streams. But if they are oceans, we should heed Lincoln's call: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in."
Hooah, sir.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/212
Comments
legion-- You are so far from reality that I do wonder about your service record. Do you have one? Have you read any history? Do you know how long we remained in Japan after 1945? Germany? Do you remember the speculation about 10,000 body bags?
Can you even answer: How many of our GIs were killed in World War II, just in the Eurpoean theatre?
Chief,
What exactly does mobilizing millions of citizens onto active duty, fighting a prolonged war against specific, self-identitifed governments, and then leaving various divisons in place at permanent bases to guard against a highly plausible east bloc invasion have to do with today's Iraq?
Before your knee jerks any higher, you might go back up and note that nowhere do I call for "immediate" withdrawal of our troops or for capitulation to terrorists. I (and a lot of other people) do not trust the crowd that got us where we are to competently, safely, or successfully lead us back out. You wanna argue? Argue that.
And as for casualties, the US had about 400k dead, but I don't have a good cite for purely ETO numbers at hand. But as much as I dislike comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I equally refuse to compare it to WWII - I don't think either of us wants to open that door. Besides, as I already said, what does WWII have to do with Iraq (or this post, or my comment, for that matter)?
Iraq is no war. It is a conflict between tribes and between Islam and those that want freedom, not just from dictators but from religion.
The Iraqis are going to have to have their fights, civil war or revolution before they can live together.
America's present administration decided to be the one to ring the bell on Iraq. We did it, we are trying to help and sometimes hurting ourselves more than helping.
America during the first two world wars, had press censorship, bollywood made patrotic movies, the government had bond drives and the American public had rationing.
During the Vietnam "Conflict", we took away all of that, added media and liberal professors and socialist and mixed and convinced Congress to pull out the money for the "conflict"
For the present conflict in Iraq, (which will be nothing but a blurb in one of the chapters of the conflict in the middle east) we not only added the same VN era ingredients but also tripled the amount of self hating, self doubting, self abuse.
We are stiring that pot now.
What will the final recipe produce? Many say failure, many say if its cooked long enough, it will turn out ok. Many, way too many really don't care.
Iraq may turn out to have semi-peace, with huge American bases and a strong economy.
Much of that depends not just on Iraqis and Americans but on the outcome of the problems in and with Iran.
The ME is scared to death now of being negatively effected or damaged by a conflict between Iran and America. But they have no experience with making peace, only war, so they look to the EU which knows only how to give out bribes in the hope of peace.
Should we turn up the heat or turn it down and let it simmer?
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
The problem is that "one party", as Owen calls it, has royally screwed up every single opportunity they had to make real advances in this conflict. Yeah, we have Saddam in a cell. But, thanks to pathetic incompetence, abject corruption, and a complete refusal to plan for post-conflict clean-up, Iraq is not any safer today for the average Iraqi to live in, let alone stable enough to create a decent democracy in. The Taliban are regaining power in Afghanistan, largely because we diverted our focus before the peace was secured; against competent military advice and standard procedures. Bin Laden remains at large, wandering through the border between two countries that are (supposedly) or allies in this whole thing.
Further, this "one party" is incapable of admitting any error (other than Bush's recent, lame "I used poor words" concession). Without any admission of error, the mistakes that were made cannot be admitted, let alone fixed. "One party" has taken a historical opportunity to unite the world and make it a safer place, and turned it into a historical pratfall.
Why should "the other party", or indeed America at large, continue to support and work with people who openly refuse to not make the same mistakes again and again? That's not "bipartisan cooperation"; it's suicide.