Tuesday, August 21, 2007
A GOOD WAR?
We notice some republican pundits and columnists making claims that a few positive signs from one province in Iraq will soon make their democrat adversaries terribly embarrassed for having criticized the war at all. Quite optimistically they say that making the war a political issue will backfire on the democrats by 2008.
That raises an appropriate question. Should the “surge” yield some further positive results in some parts of Iraq, and if troop death rates would drop below the almost three-a-day average from hostile activity there, would this have been a good war? If, within the next year, Iraqis would manage to get together and settle their political and sectarian differences so that civil violence is diminished, would this become a good war? Would taking out Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, then prove better than going after Ben Laden as the focus of our response?
The questions and the answers become a bit deeper than the right wing pundits would like us to believe. Is a pre-emptive war, based upon what some other national leader might do and not what they have done, really a good national policy? When a war is justified to Americans and to the world by false interpretation of faulty intelligence, can it really turn out good? When our publicly declared reasons for war and our strategic goals constantly shift, will redefined “success” make a good war?
The question arises as to who has carried the burden of the war, and who has profited from it. We have had nearly 4,000 young men and women killed in Iraq and more than 25,000 maimed. The war has been fought mainly, and sacrifices made primarily, by lower and middle income citizens. With no draft, there is no egalitarian war burden. Citizen reserves and families have paid a high price.
There has been little war sacrifice from higher income groups, either in sons or in wealth. There has been no war tax. In fact, higher income persons have had tax reductions, while the burden of war debt has been incurred by the whole population. Some corporations have profited from the war. There has been a “war prosperity” at the top, not shared at the worker level.
Reasoning that this has somehow been a “good war” is specious, regardless of any shift in the degree of “success” toward some ever-changing goals. America has wasted her soldiers and her substance on an unnecessary war, while neglecting other problems at home and abroad. Military experts say that our armed forces and reserves have been shattered by repeated tours of duty in a hostile and unpleasant environment. Homes and lives of military reserve personnel have been disrupted, sometimes torn asunder. The war issue has divided the nation, making us increasingly angry with one another.
This war has turned our reputation from positive to negative throughout the world. We are less able to do good, less able to forge peace compacts, and less able to exert moral influence in critical areas. We have less military or economic strength to meet other threats posed in the world.
If next year, next month, or tomorrow, conditions were to change suddenly, if “victory” were declared again, and if we began withdrawing all forces from Iraq -- this four-year war would still be a disaster for us.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
That raises an appropriate question. Should the “surge” yield some further positive results in some parts of Iraq, and if troop death rates would drop below the almost three-a-day average from hostile activity there, would this have been a good war? If, within the next year, Iraqis would manage to get together and settle their political and sectarian differences so that civil violence is diminished, would this become a good war? Would taking out Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11, then prove better than going after Ben Laden as the focus of our response?
The questions and the answers become a bit deeper than the right wing pundits would like us to believe. Is a pre-emptive war, based upon what some other national leader might do and not what they have done, really a good national policy? When a war is justified to Americans and to the world by false interpretation of faulty intelligence, can it really turn out good? When our publicly declared reasons for war and our strategic goals constantly shift, will redefined “success” make a good war?
The question arises as to who has carried the burden of the war, and who has profited from it. We have had nearly 4,000 young men and women killed in Iraq and more than 25,000 maimed. The war has been fought mainly, and sacrifices made primarily, by lower and middle income citizens. With no draft, there is no egalitarian war burden. Citizen reserves and families have paid a high price.
There has been little war sacrifice from higher income groups, either in sons or in wealth. There has been no war tax. In fact, higher income persons have had tax reductions, while the burden of war debt has been incurred by the whole population. Some corporations have profited from the war. There has been a “war prosperity” at the top, not shared at the worker level.
Reasoning that this has somehow been a “good war” is specious, regardless of any shift in the degree of “success” toward some ever-changing goals. America has wasted her soldiers and her substance on an unnecessary war, while neglecting other problems at home and abroad. Military experts say that our armed forces and reserves have been shattered by repeated tours of duty in a hostile and unpleasant environment. Homes and lives of military reserve personnel have been disrupted, sometimes torn asunder. The war issue has divided the nation, making us increasingly angry with one another.
This war has turned our reputation from positive to negative throughout the world. We are less able to do good, less able to forge peace compacts, and less able to exert moral influence in critical areas. We have less military or economic strength to meet other threats posed in the world.
If next year, next month, or tomorrow, conditions were to change suddenly, if “victory” were declared again, and if we began withdrawing all forces from Iraq -- this four-year war would still be a disaster for us.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
