There was the drum beat, and we Americans took ourselves to war, a struggle that seems to be ever more difficult and which has claimed the lives of 500 troops and countless Iraqis. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
War, that horrible, cataclysmic event. War, an act we will second guess at least through the current presidential election and probably beyond.
War, that hoped - for last resort action which, as the pacifist Bertrand Russell nobly said, we should walk 20 miles before taking up such a cause. War, that terrible word. And yes, we were justified in going there, into that possible abyss.
We had no other real option.
The current hand-wringing over U.S. involvement — along with Britain and a rather rag-tag group called the "Coalition of the Willing" — stems primarily from the inescapable fact that no WMD has not been found, and probably never will be.
Saddam Hussein played a poker hand, and, instead of holding aces, he didn't even have two of a kind. He apparently felt he had to bluff -- including keeping inspectors out of Iraq in contravention of agreements — to uphold his regional dignity and power.
He lost. big time, and ended up crawling out of a hole into captivity.
However, in reality, the war never should have been about WMD, that being only one element in the mix of very practical reasons to pre-emptively remove a bully from regional influence. This, even though Saddam had previously used chemical weapons on his own people.
In my view, the Iraqi War was and is about the future, not the past.
It is about the consequences of Sept. 11, 2001, the most traumatic event of my lifetime, one that foretold an ever more dangerous world, whether from suicidal extremist or from the poison ricin placed in a U.S. Senate post office.
It is about dirty bombs. It is about young women blowing themselves and others up, whether in Tel Aviv or in central Moscow. It is about letters tipped with anthrax. It is about the black market bazaar in ingredients for nuclear weapons.
It is about the future, and the potential for terrorist disasters on a scale few of us can comprehend. A man who would destroy buildings would not hesitate, if given the opportunity, to destroy a city.
It is about North Korea, gaining nuclear know-how, and about Iran pursuing a similar agenda. It is about keeping Syria in line, and about Libya making the wise decision to forego an embryonic but possible nuclear capability.
It is about winning -- or at least neutralizing -- the war on terrorism, which is both an actual, physical battle, as well as a psychological one. In two years, two wars were fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and there were clear winners, even in the mess of the aftermath.
It is about lessons, and letting all know that civilized might must overcome fanatical might. This is something that is difficult for many, including our European friends, to understand. And this is where America and its president have failed. They get an "A" for tactical warfare and an "F" for strategic diplomacy.
The fact, America should have spent more time gaining consensus. America should have been inclusive from the outset. It should have stated its case clearly, and in broader terms, and not just the histrionics of WMD, whether real or imagined.
As the Democratic presidential primaries ramble through the winter season, I am heartened about the possibility of replacing President George Bush, for I am
1. a Democrat, and 2. hold the belief that Bush was a good "snapshot" president.
Over the long haul, however, I believe he will be a disaster. The fact is, as presidential material, President George W. Bush can't fill former President George H. W.Bush's flight suit. He hasn't the maturity, the experience, the temperament or the wisdom.
However, on 9/11/2001, a country rallied around him. He built a reservoir of goodwill, given willingly from a traumatized nation. On Feb. 3, 2004, polls showed that he had squandered much of that good will. His approval rating dipped below 50 per cent.
Bush should be judged on his inability to be a uniter, and to make a forceful case to the world for America's actions. He should be judged -- regardless of which side one comes down on the deficit issue -- on his domestic agenda.
He should not be judged negatively on going to war with Iraq. That was the right decision.
|
