THE DAY before the war in Iraq began more than four years ago, The Gazette said in this space:
Wars that are waged badly or for the wrong reasons tend to be identified in cultural memory with the name of the person deemed most responsible for them... .
A war that acquires a name like that leaves a cloud hanging over the nation for decades.
In much of the world, it is assumed today that a war with Iraq would be “George W. Bush’s War” — waged because he and his advisers want a war to demonstrate American military and political supremacy in the 21st century. That perception — widespread even in the United States — is behind much of the resistance in the United Nations to U.S. attempts to get backing for military action... .
In spite of these suspicions, and in spite of the unresolved doubts of many, the president has convinced a plurality of the American people that going to war without U.N. backing is justified... .
The polls indicate that if the war went badly, much of the support would vanish and the president would be leading the country in fighting a war that too many voters don’t want. It would become George W. Bush’s War.
But the truth is that, however the war goes, it will be an American war, waged with the permission, if not the unalloyed consent, of the American people. And it will be fought not by the politicians, the pollsters or the public, but by the soldiers.
The soldiers would not be fighting for Bush or Big Oil, but for their country and because many of them believe that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein is an honorable and necessary task.
It is the president’s responsibility, in what may be these last hours of peace, to be sure that he is not mistaken in choosing this war at this time.
It is his responsibility to make sure he is not sending American soldiers to wage George W. Bush’s War.
Four years later, Iraq has become, indisputably, George Bush’s War. As more troops are poured into Iraq in a dicey attempt to gain control of just the city of Baghdad, it is now possible, with perfect hindsight, to look back over the years of political arrogance that led the United States to this place. George W. Bush and his people, who had the will to go to war, had neither the will nor the wit to win that war.
But this is still America’s war. Blaming Bush does not end the sacrifice of our soldiers or the suffering of the Iraqi people.
The day after the war began, The Gazette published this:
A decisive victory is the least this nation can promise to the men and women — may they be kept safe — who are fighting this war in the name of the United States of America. And with that victory, the promise that this war will never have to be fought again.
This nation is also making a promise to the people of Iraq, who have endured decades of war, brutality and betrayal and now must endure another war. This war must bring them a lasting peace and the rights and security of a free people.
The United States must keep these promises, and that is a heavy responsibility.
Can either of those promises still be kept?
If they cannot, then this nation has done a terrible thing.
emrys56 (anonymous) says...
It is becoming evident that the Bush administration's principal objective in starting this war was permanent bases in Iraq. With permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world, the United States could exert hegemony over an oil-rich region -- a very desirable outcome from the administration's viewpoint. The administrations has yet to achieve this objective, and it is becoming increasingly unlikely that it will do so in the short term. If the next president is a Republican, then we will likely push on to achieve this objective; if he/she is a Democrat, then the possibility of a pull back remains open. This will be the major decision that each voter will have to make in 2008 -- to be an imperialist or not to be.
June 5, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChuckNorris (anonymous) says...
The war in Iraq is a difficult one to call I understand that. There are many pros that could come of this, regaurdless of what we achieve, the biggest differnce is in the Iraqi peoples lives. I know this first hand as I am in Iraq right now. It does not matter why we came here or who supported us, all that we need to know now is that if we leave now these people will die. There is no question about that, I myself will stay here as long as it takes to help them. I do not care about the price of gasoline, ride a bike. When you put your pockets over the value of life then perhaps you should look at yourselves as doing wrong. Maybe I'm confused, but my friends and family memebers who I have watched die here have not died for gas or oil, but in the hopes that their sacrifices will be for the greater good of an oppressed people.
June 6, 2007 at 1:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Polls also indicated that 70% of the U.S. supported the invasion.
As John Mccain said last night. This is our war. We may not like how it's being conducted, but the responsibility for what happens in Iraq is ours.
As Mccain also said last night he didn't find himself saying that the Balkans was Bill Clinton's war when we went in unilaterially in the 1990's.
ChuckNorris
Thanks for your service. Despite what some say,it's not about oil or imperialism. Ask the people of Germany, France Japan, Italy, South Korea, Eastern Europe, Vietnam. Ask them about the Marhsall Plan. Ask them about revitalization of the Japanese and South Korean economies. America paid for all that after we payed in blood to stop aggression. If we were the imperialist aggressors some accuse us of being, they'd now be part of a vast American empire. But, truth be told, they are now some of our most vocal critics, with their own prime ministers, presidents, and legislatures. Some who were our enemies are now our friends. That''s not imperialism!
I pray that some day we'll be able to say the same about your service in Iraq. Keep the faith!
June 6, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )