[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: America's Little Wars Are Draining Us In A Big Way WASHINGTON — You have to wonder exactly what you're supposed to say in a week like this one, as President Barack Obama officially declared the end to the U.S. war in Iraq and most Americans breathed a tempered sigh of relief. You have to say Obama did a good job with the speech — dignified, fair, balanced — rightly praising the American troops for their courage and resolve, going out of his way to mention President George W. Bush favorably, and deliberately placing the onus of responsibility on the next war, Afghanistan. An American like me who was against the war from the start for all the obvious reasons — no reason to attack Iraq for al-Qaida's attack on us; overstretching our military personnel and systems; all the lies about weapons of mass destruction — is left in a quandary. Yes, I want to praise our volunteer military — after all, it wasn't the troops' decision to go to Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah. But I will believe until the day I die that the decision to go into Iraq was morally and militarily wrong. We will probably not know for many years whether the sacrifice was worth the outcome of a workable nation with a representative (not democratic) government; nor will we know whether we were really fighting al-Qaida or just involved in some free-for-all with Central Asian tribes and insurgencies. Register with Chicago Tribune and receive free newsletters and alerts >> So, how do you voice, at this pregnant moment, the necessary criticisms that history will surely support, yet at the same time not undercut the real patriotism that must underlie any successful military, particularly when the civilian leadership has sent them into these "small wars"? As Broadway's King of Siam would say, "Is a mystery." Even though the Vietnam War and the terribly flawed decisions that went into it, with 50,000 American dead, were dissected soon after the war ended in 1975, nothing at all changed in the Pentagon regarding getting into these wars or the principles behind them. Even the most highly informed discussions on the war did little good. One thing we might do at this time, however, is pause to remember the promises that came out of George W. Bush's administration on what "winning" in Iraq would mean. It would mean spreading democratization in the Middle East; it would mean a solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem; it would mean living space and peace for Israel. These were the underlying currents swirling around the neocon group behind Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. They believed in "permanent war"; Israel's right to protect herself by doing virtually anything against any neighbor; and a total transformation of the Middle East, beginning with Iraq. Note that none of this had anything to do with the al-Qaida attacks on 9/11, which involved only a handful of men. Outside of the "permanent war," none of this happened. The Middle East is more, not less, in conflict because of the American invasion of Iraq; Afghanistan, which might have been settled now without the detouring of troops to Iraq, is in a desperate situation; and the Middle East suffers more war and conflict, while Israel is every day more isolated and endangered. One can trace how the Iraq/Afghan wars are spreading to Pakistan, Somalia and even Yemen, while every American soldier on the ground creates more insurgents. Later, when the real dissection of today's wars has begun, and we throw in Vietnam and Cambodia and Somalia and the rest of our lost wars, we may pause to note something important. The original decisions to go to war in these unimportant little countries were made by intellectuals — by men and women with no accountability for what they inspired. In Vietnam, these were the civilians around Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, in particular those with former Special Forces experience or emotional adherence; in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the inner group of neocons, originally leftist Trotskyites who then switched to the right, bringing their war propensities with them, when they saw the left turning against Israel. They are still very much around in the right wing of the Republican Party, and they are always the people to watch. The time to discuss all of this will come, but the bigger question we now face is whether the American people really want 800 American bases all over the world "projecting power," and whether we want to invade other countries and bring back body bags instead of rebuilding our bridges and highways and ports. As Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, writes in his new book "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," we are being propelled "toward insolvency and perpetual war. Over the horizon a shipwreck of epic proportions awaits."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
All our "wars" have had an inconsequential effect on our treasury. Fuck, just the USG assuming Fannie and Freddy's debt added over $5,000,000,000.00 to our deficit this year alone. Let's face it, the Democrats bankrupted the United States.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|