How is it otherwise seemingly intelligent people go along with Congressman Harry Reid without asking why — if he is sincere in his convictions against the war in Iraq — he and his colleagues aren’t working quietly to achieve their goals in a civilized manner? But au contraire, Reid and gang dramatize their stance to gain publicity for political gain. And in the process give aid and comfort to the enemy in Iraq and around the globe. That’s not seeking peace; it’s close to crossing the line to treason.
Don’t get me wrong here. Certainly citizens and politicians have every right to criticize war policy in our free society. But Reid and company are orchestrating a coup of sorts, representing to the world that there is another legitimate government in America running policy. How else do you explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria, posing as if she sets the agenda on US war aims? And why does the rhetoric surrounding the peace crowd include accusing President George Bush of impeachable offenses? Sounds like regime change to me.
Noel Coward’s World War II film proclaimed “Why We Fight.” Today, the chorus is why we don’t want to fight, anywhere for anything. Korea and Vietnam are perhaps to blame, establishing the template for “limited war” and the potency of propaganda as the weapon of choice. Korea gave us “brainwashing” and Vietnam the enlistment of Americans to fight their own country on the “home front” fueled by an organized disinformation campaign originating in Moscow.
In Korea and Vietnam, the US learned how vulnerable the powerful are. With modern nuclear weapons, no nation can touch us if the cards are ever really on the table. During the Korean War, the Soviets had only rudimentary nuclear capability, yet the US refrained from using its ultimate power out of moral fear of the consequences. And during the Vietnam War, the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction entered the lexicon. This reality was used effectively by the enemy to keep the US at bay in an almost Neolithic conflict where native warfare would win the day.
In Iraq, it’s the same story. Everyone, including al-Qaeda, knows the US is the strongest military machine in history. Yet our enemies also know we are restricted from using our power, even with MAD no longer the threat. Once again — déjà vu — it’s our morality that keeps us from victory. There’s all this about the religious zeal of the terrorists but little said about the restraint of the US that keeps us from nuking the bandit hideouts.
So what are we doing in Iraq if indeed we are going to lose another Korea and Vietnam? It’s simple. After 9/11, the president of the US was confronted with a major attack on American soil, matching the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A response was necessary.
President Bush addressed the American people and pledged we would fight terrorists wherever they existed at last count in about 60 countries. Facing that reality, the US chose Iraq to make a stand to retaliate. It was a good choice for many reasons. Iraq’s leader was a murderous despot who executed his own citizens for political and personal reasons. Saddam Hussein ignored restrictions placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War and made regular threats to attack his neighbors and, of course, Israel. He also would not deny he had so-called “weapons of mass destruction,” a key element in the White House motivation to invade.
Not reported in mainstream news at the time of the invasion in 2003 was the request by our sometime friend Saudi Arabia to remove US personnel and hardware out of the Kingdom as the American presence was fueling al-Qaeda threats and attacks. The day we invaded Iraq, 30,000 US servicemen and their tanks, airplanes and Humvees left Saudi Arabia, our only toehold in the region. Thus, in strategic terms, Iraq would become the place we would, literally, draw the line in the sand against our enemy.
The US underestimated the volume of violence that would explode in Iraq. But that is actually proof that one of the most important invasion justifications is true. Iraq has drawn the fire of the international terror movement. At first, the White House was ridiculed for stating our presence would draw the violence to one place where we could confront the enemy. This has now become a commonplace, with news people and military leaders regularly and without qualification stating that al-Qaeda is the enemy in Iraq. One proof is that the enemy is not active anywhere else, which is why we have avoided another incident on US soil. It could be too that al-Qaeda is playing the same game as the Vietnamese, thinking the American public is turning their way so why blow them up.
And we have real human beings on the ground in Iraq doing a professional job under great stress and danger. The anti-war activists insult them and their bravery, forgetting the successes and homing in on the failures. Worse, they disingenuously assert the armed forces as their constituency, saying they want to bring them home, forgetting this is an all-volunteer army and that most soldiers desire to be in a position to use their training to serve their country. One of the latest canards I heard recently is that our soldiers are under-trained and ill-equipped, an effort to demean our own servicemen and women and the US to boot.
This fatuous posturing must be hard for the soldiers to take, like the interviews with their spouses who say they hate to see their loved ones depart. This type of journalism is designed to undermine morale and turn the public against the war. Nor do the newsmakers explain the conflict in terms of geo-political strategy. We have to stand up to terrorism, and we chose Iraq to draw the line and serve as the flashpoint. At least the White House understands that our presence in Iraq is part of our responsibility as the most powerful nation on earth. We may not like that role, but we have it, and we must act responsibly whether or not other nations approve of all we are required to do.
You don’t have to wave the flag, but you don’t have to fall for Harry Reid’s treachery.
Notes from La-La Land
I was pleased that the Wall Street Journal ran a piece by a psychologist who shares my view of the Virginia Tech killings. Go to www.metronc.com and click on “Between Issues” to learn how we have allowed people like Cho to kill.
•••
Attacking George Bush on Iraq has distracted the public from the economic miracle under his presidency. The stock market is booming, interest rates and inflation are low, and unemployment is nearly non-existent. So how do the anti-Bush spin doctors react? They say the splendid economy is creating “income disparity” and is therefore a failure.