Roberts: Another costly, fruitless year in Iraq
Article published Dec 22, 2006
news-record.com
During World War II, the U.S. government produced a series of influential documentary films titled "Why We Fight." Directed by Hollywood's Frank Capra, the films, using newsreel footage, were designed to explain to the American public why our troops were being sent oversees to fight the Germans and Japanese. The "Why We Fight" films were cogent explanations for justifying the war effort.
If the Bush administration produced a "Why We Fight" film about the Iraq war, chances are the American public wouldn't buy it, literally or figuratively, because Bush has lost credibility. The public has become so disgusted with Bush's handling of the war that his approval rating has plunged to 28 percent, according to one poll.
Most Americans, in fact, can't tell you anymore why we're fighting in Iraq. That's because Bush's reasons for invading Iraq have shifted like the sands of Arabia. The rationales have changed from destroying WMDs, to fighting terrorism, to instilling democracy in Iraq to, well, whatever....
Meanwhile, the Iraq war has lasted longer than the U.S. fought in World War II with no end in sight. Nearly 3,000 U.S. military personnel have died, and thousands more have been wounded, including some left blind and without arms and legs.
And the Iraqi people? Their casualties range from tens of thousands to nearly 500,000, depending on who's counting. The war has also generated a colossal refugee crisis. Those who can afford to leave Iraq are doing so at the rate of nearly 3,000 per day. They usually slip across the border to Jordan and Syria, where they are unwanted and where they are straining the economic and social structures of those countries.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reported last month that 1.6 million Iraqis had fled their country. Refugees International, a Washington-based group, calls the refugees the "fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world."
And while we're reviewing the war, let's not ignore the damage it's done to international good will. It will take years to mend fences with friends and allies whom Bush arrogantly dismissed as inconsequential if they didn't go along with us.
Bush also refuses to heed the Iraq Study Group's advice, which has urged his administration to talk directly with Syria and Iran, both of which could help quell the Iraqi insurgency. James Baker, co-chairman of the group, reminded Bush that previous presidents talked directly to Soviet leaders during the 45-year Cold War, but Bush has already nixed that advice.
And while we're reviewing the consequences of the war, let's not forget the financial cost. Answer: $2 billion per week and rising.
So where do we go from here? President Bush is ignoring the advice of top Pentagon generals and is said to be leaning toward "a surge." In plain English, that means Bush is thinking of sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to augment the 147,000 who are there.
Colin Powell, the former secretary of state and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppression of this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work." Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East who is retiring, also opposes a "surge."
Those with long memories recall how President Lyndon Johnson kept sending more troops to Vietnam to dig us out of that hopeless quagmire. At one point, U.S. troops numbered more than 500,000, but to no avail.
In his year-end press conference this week, Bush finally conceded that the war is not going well. He said he will soon announce a new course of action. Public opinion is intensifying for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- not a surge. But Bush, who has never fought in a war in his life, is a notoriously stubborn man with a deaf ear.
Rosemary Roberts writes a Friday column. She can be reached at rmroberts@triad.rr.com.
Copyright © 2006
The News & Record
and Landmark Communications, Inc. |
