<<...the essential view of the protesters (and probably the majority of Americans) is that the U.S. and its allies should take all possible steps short of war to squeeze Saddam's regime so tight that survival is all but impossible; and that, above all, the United States should be leading a real, all-out war against the forces of Al Qaeda, wherever they may be...>>
Strategic Advice From the Public
By BOB HERBERT
Columnist
The New York Times
February 17, 2003
Maude LeFrem, a woman in her 60's, put on a brave face as she waited for a train at the Broadway-Nassau subway stop in Lower Manhattan. She, too, had heard the rumors. The terrorists were coming. They had their eyes on the subways. Chemical weapons. Any day now. Any moment.
"I know what they're saying," she said. "Everyone's praying. We don't really know what will happen, but prayer can change things and I believe that. What am I doing different? I'm praying more, that's all."
It seemed toward the end of last week, with rumors circulating the city like a virus and cops with machine guns patrolling Grand Central Terminal, that the only available response to the hideous issues of the day for people like Ms. LeFrem — people outside the power elite — was resignation. You could pray. You could sink into the slough of denial. You could do whatever to try to fend off the paralyzing anxiety. What you couldn't do was change anything.
The duct tape fiasco underscored the helplessness of the citizenry — in New York and across the nation — against the phantom-like forces of terror. And few people believed, despite the ambivalence (or outright opposition) of ordinary Americans to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that anything could be done to divert the Bush administration from its rush to war, and its potentially catastrophic aftermath.
And then, on Saturday, democracy got a desperately needed boost. With temperatures in the 20's and icy winds skimming off the rivers that frame Manhattan, a frosty assemblage of demonstrators for peace and sanity materialized. The protesters kept arriving until their numbers reached 100,000, 200,000, and still they came, chanting, singing, and linking arms symbolically with a huge and remarkable wave of fellow demonstrators across the U.S. and around the globe.
It seemed to me that the most important aspect of the U.S. protests was the demand that on this crucial issue of war the Bush administration pay at least some heed to the views, wishes and feelings of the American people.
And I think the essential view of the protesters (and probably the majority of Americans) is that the U.S. and its allies should take all possible steps short of war to squeeze Saddam's regime so tight that survival is all but impossible; and that, above all, the United States should be leading a real, all-out war against the forces of Al Qaeda, wherever they may be.
Walt Rostow, one of the ultimate hawks on Vietnam, died last week. He, along with many others, suffered from an optimism about the use of U.S. military force in that conflict that bordered on delusion. In an obituary Saturday, The Times's Todd Purdum quoted Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, an under secretary of state and attorney general in the Johnson administration, who had argued with Mr. Rostow over the efficacy of U.S. bombing.
"I finally understand the difference between Walt and me," said Mr. Katzenbach. "I was the navigator who was shot down and spent two years in a German prison camp, and Walt was the guy picking my targets."
President Bush and his hawkish advisers speak blithely about a U.S.-led invasion leading to a garden of democracy blooming in the desert soil of Iraq. I wouldn't reach for my gardening tools too quickly. What the administration has been unwilling to tell the public is the truth about some of the implications of war with Iraq — first and foremost, the bloody horror of men, women and children being blown to smithereens in the interest of peace, and then the myriad costs and dangers associated with a long-term U.S. military occupation.
As late as last week the administration tried to give the impression that the U.S. could be in and out of Iraq in as little as two years. That's a case of optimism as dangerous as Walt Rostow's.
As former Senator Gary Hart said in a conversation last week, "Most thoughtful people who don't have a bias here think there is no short-term exit strategy." More realistic, he said, is a U.S. occupation of 5 to 10 years, or longer.
Mr. Hart, who was co-chairman of a special commission on national security that issued early warnings about the nation's vulnerability to terror attacks, then mentioned the concern expressed again and again by ordinary Americans worried about war with Iraq. "Are we prepared," he asked, "for what I believe are inevitable retaliatory attacks? The answer, I think, is no."
nytimes.com |
