Memorial Day is all about remembering America's wars, and this year we are very consious of our current conflict in Iraq. Today's headline tells the story - "Relentless violence in Iraq leads to the weekend deaths of 54." That included an American soldier and two American journalists. The key word in that headline is "relentless." There just does not appear to be any end in sight.
I voted for Bush twice and think he is a good man, but I am beginning to question the wisdom of getting us involved in this war. Actually, I had a lot of misgivings about it before it ever started. Being a history teacher, I think I HAVE learned the lessons of history, and I could easily see this becoming another Vietnam, and now it appears those fears were well-founded. The men and boys in my school were all for the war, but I thought they sounded like they were getting ready for a Friday night football game. They were excited and ready to kick-butt. That's the funny thing about war - it IS exciting. Yet war means death is about to occur on a large scale. A lot of sons, brothers, husbands and sweethearts are going to go over there and never come back. In light of that fact, you would think we'd go to war with an overwhelming sense of dread. Historically, that has not been the case. Southern boys rode off with wild cheers of excitement at the start of the Civil War, and young men eagerly lined up to volunteer after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I can still remember the excitement we all felt when news came to us at church one Wednesday night that the U.S. was at war. That was the FIRST Gulf war.
People seem to forget that the novelty of war quickly wears off, and is followed by months and often years of daily casualty counts. The American public gets tired of the bad news and the drain on the economy. Soon they want out, but getting out is not nearly as easy as getting in, and is not always advisable.
There are two big questions concerning this war. The first is whether or not we ever should have become involved in the first place. The other is, what should we do now that we are heavily invested in this war? The answer to the first question does not necessarily lead to the answer to the second.
So, we went to war because of the belief that Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Having such weapons in the hands of a mad dictator is a scarey propostion, especially when that dictator makes no secret of his hatred for America. Besides that, this was a Muslim country within firing range of Israel. Of course, any overt use of such weapons on the part of Sadaam would have been suicidal since we could have easily turned all that sand into glass, but we live in the age of terroism. Countries no longer have to act overtly; they can fight their wars incognito. If, in fact, Sadaam had had weapons of mass destruction, the war might have been necessary. Of course, no weapons were ever found. That does not prove he never had them. He certainly had plenty of warning and plenty of time to destroy them, hide them in the sands of the dessert, or ship them off to Syria. But the fact remains, we found no weapons. I was afraid that would happen, and Bush would end up looking like a fool. Everyone believed the weapons were there, but all the responsibility has fallen on Bush.
I still don't know about the wisdom of a premptive strike without solid proof of those weapons. I only got on board after hearing Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. He was very convincing. Now, of course, he is gone. There is speculation that he felt he had been duped by the CIA and used by the President.
When no weapons were found, I comforted myself with the idea that we had removed an evil dictator who terrorized his own people. Now those same people are terrorized by daily car bombs going off in the streets of their cities. Civil War could break out at any time if it hasn't already done so. Are they really better off? I don't know. Even the Iraqi people can't agree on that.
Did we act correctly by going to war? Santayana said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. There is truth in that statement, but it's not that simple. For one thing, how do we know which lessons of history apply to the current situation? Concerning Iraq, should we have applied the lessons learned from WWII or those learned from Vietnam? In hindsight, we now know that the world stood by far too long while Nazi Germany carried out acts of atrocity against the Jews and others within her borders. Removing Hitler was the only moral thing to do. We also learned that evil and madness cannot be appeased. Such lessons would lead one to conclude that removing Sadaam was also right. Removing a dictator that delighted in feeding his enemies to a meat grinding machine does seem like the moral thing to do.
But then we have to ask if we really want to be the world's policeman. After all, there are other evil dictators and there is great cruelty taking place all over the world. Are we morally obligated to intervene in all these situations? Would that even be possible? Even the resources of the United States are limited. What would God have us do?
Considering how dangerous the world is today, the case could be made that we SHOULD become the world's policeman. We are the only country rich and powerful enough to do it - maybe an American Empire isn't such a bad idea. But we could only do it through overwhelming force, and we would have to run these wayward countries our way, which means we would be in charge. In other words, bring back the Age of Imperialism. Perhaps we, and the unstable nations we would take over would be better off. However, such an undertaking would be extremely costly, so we would need to benefit economically from these countries much as the British once benefitted from her colonies. The occupied nation would enjoy an improved standard of living. It wouldn't be long, however, before there would be cries of exploitation. Then of course, it would be necessary to put down rebellions ever so often, since nations don't really appreciate being run by other nations even if they can't do it themselves. Now that I think about it, the British no longer have their colonies - guess that didn't work out so well. That lesson from history tends to favor minding our own business.
Now let's move on to the lessons learned from Vietnam. I lived during this conflict, and here is what I learned from it. 1. Don't go to war to save a country where half the people don't want to be saved. You won't know who your enemies are. 2. Don't go to war unless you are going to fight to win. Use overwhelming force and get 'er done. 3. A democratic society cannot win a war that the people do not support. 4. Americans do not have the staying power for long, drawn-out conflicts. 5. If you don't win, things will end up worse than they were before you started.
I don't even need to point out the relevance of these lessons to our current conflict. So, knowing what I know now, I lean towards thinking we should not have become involved in the first place. I may even go out and buy the Dixie Chick's latest album.
But we are involved, and the second question is, what should we do now? Colin Powell warned that "if we broke it, we would own it," and that pretty much sums up our current position. If we pull out now, the country will almost certainly devolve into civil war. That could destablize the entire Middle East, the source of much of the world's and our oil supply - not a pretty picture. Entering into the equation is the belief that now Iran, Iraq's neighbor and longtime enemy, is working on their own nuclear program. Things could really get ugly. Besides, if America bails out now, we will lose whatever credibility we have left in the world, and over two thousand soldiers will have died in vain.
But here's the sad reality. Sooner or later, we probably will pull out. The whole democracy thing will come into play. Bush's popularity ratings are steadily declining and antiwar sentiment is growing. Americans will vote for the Democrats who will bring the soldiers home. The question is, how many more thousands of soldiers will die before that happens?
We made a huge committment to the people of Iraq. If we don't honor it, no one should ever believe in us again. So what do we do? Here's an idea. Let the people of Iraq be the ones to release us from the committment. Have a nation-wide referendum on whether or not they want the Americans to stay or leave. (American soldiers would provide unprecedented security for the elections.) If they vote for us to stay, we are honor-bound to be there for however long it takes to bring stability to their government. If they vote for us to leave, we can do so in semi-good conscience, leaving them to their own devices and allowing them to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. Of course, if things get really out of hand and the stability of the region is threatened, we might have to come back, but hopefully we would do so with the support of the rest of the world. It's not a perfect solution, but we all know there is no perfect solution. This is a mess.
Since I have absolutely no say in what happens and little means of influencing what happens, this exercise is probably a waste of time, but it feels good to think it through on paper. Maybe I'll write my congressmen a letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment