|
One of the great slight-of-hand arguments that the neo-conservatives
like to use is that if a Democrat were in the White
House, Saddam still would be in power. This might be
true, but because a Democrat probably would have focused
on fighting terrorism Afghanistan might be more stable
by now, Osama might be dead and al-Qaida might be on
the run. Instead, bin Laden is at large and al-Qaida
is perhaps more dangerous now than before the Iraq war
began. But they say the ends will justify the means
and, hey, we got Saddam!
Bush would like us to believe that Iraq is a war of
necessity like World War II, during which the pictures
of dead soldiers on the beaches and battlefields were
suppressed so that American resolve would not be shaken.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold up, because Iraq
is a war of choice. The precedent of not showing the
flag-draped coffins is a very convenient way for the
administration to make sure that the average American
stays unburdened, because if we aren’t shopping
and traveling, “the terrorists have won.”
If Pat Tillman had not been a relatively well-known
name in the sports world, there would have been no moments
taken to honor him before recent sporting events. What
a contrast this is to World War II, when almost all
sports were canceled and many high-profile athletes
and entertainers enlisted.
Personally, I thought we got back to playing games
too quickly after Sept. 11 and I would not be opposed
to stopping sports right now so that the country can
focus on the war on terror and the war in Iraq —
which are two separate things. I also would remind President
Bush that the allies won World War II because everyone
was sacrificing for the effort, which is a far cry from
what is going on now. World War II had to be fought,
and the circumstances surrounding our occupation of
Iraq are vastly different and deserve close scrutiny.
I was willing to give this administration the benefit
of the doubt after Sept. 11 because I don’t believe
it was preventable, and during the build up to Iraq
because I told myself they must have the best intelligence
and information. Now, I question their motives because
the intelligence on Iraq was possibly “non-actionable,”
by Sept. 11 Commission, standards and it is clear that
they put stock in bad information from bad sources.
I also want to know why the intelligence is so questionable
now, when it was so “rock solid” before
we were attacked? Is it because they weren’t asking
the right questions or because they just didn’t
want the truth?
To this average American, it looks like we have left
Afghanistan twisting in the wind and have shortcut the
war on terrorism because the neo-conservatives wanted
to fulfill a pre-Sept. 11 agenda to get Saddam and control
Iraq’s oil. This could be disastrous if it proves
that we have spread ourselves too thin and Afghanistan
tumbles back into chaos.
It looks like we rushed into Iraq because the neo-conservatives
were afraid to wait for investigations to prove there
were no weapons of mass destruction and no connection
between Iraq and al-Qaida. They did not want to chance
that Bush would not get re-elected. I think they figured
they could wrap this little operation up before November
2004, but what they have learned is that war tends to
have a life of its own and predictions of welcoming
crowds throwing roses in the streets are not to be trusted.
It looks like we have gone into Iraq to enrich Bush,
Vice President Dick Cheney and their friends in the
oil and energy industries as well as Halliburton, Bechtel
and other multinational conglomerates that stand to
make billions on no-bid contracts, signed with the blood
of soldiers and civilians, with little auditor oversight.
It seems that Bush re-established relations with Libya
much more quickly than he would have if Libya had no
oil and that we will never go against the Saudi royal
family for the same reason.
It looks like Bush has to have Cheney with him so
they get their stories straight before the Sept. 11
commission, but it also looks like W. can’t walk,
talk and wave at the same time without considerable
mental effort and that he most often gets that goofy
grin on his face after he successfully repeats something
he was told to say without pausing.
Time will tell if Bush’s and the neo-conservatives’
plan will lead to a stable Iraq and if that will make
a difference regarding the war on terrorism. But to
this average American it seems that by taking down Saddam,
we simply are making up for America’s past wrongs.
After all, the United States helped Saddam come to power;
helped keep him in power; supplied him with intelligence,
technology and materials while he was fighting Iran,
some of which he used on the Kurds with our knowledge;
and then we turned our backs on the Shiites after the
first Gulf War when we had asked them to rise up against
him.
It is possible to support the troops but not the president
and I salute Pat Tillman and his comrades who have paid
the ultimate sacrifice in this “war.” At
least he died looking for al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but
the question is would he have been there at all if the
administration had not taken its eye off the ball and
allowed Afghanistan to go into overtime?
Related
story at ESPN.
|
Advertisement