Staying the course
lush address expressed need to continue fighting in Iraq, but at what expense?
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Tuesday, April 20, 2004
P erhaps noticing support
was waning, President
Bush held a news confer
ence this past week to reiterate
his belief in the mission of
spreading democracy to Iraq.
Bush’s passion and conviction
regarding the war shined
through despite numerous
loaded questions that
reporters launched to
undennine the president on nation
al television, asking him to apolo
gize for the 9-11 attacks, further
explain the weapons of mass
destruction misinformation and
to comment on his declining
public approval ratings.
Nevertheless, the president held
his ground.
Overall, the speech had only
one purpose: to articulate that
America shall stay in Iraq “as
long as necessary and not one
day more.” Though this mes
sage shows conviction, it raises
a red Hag concerning long-term
implications, the most salient
being that U.S. soldiers will
occupy Iraq for years to
come, but not as soldiers;
they will be more like authori
ty-limited policemen.
Under ideal circumstances, this
would pose no problem. After all, recall
that Japan and Germany cooperated
with coalition forces following World
War II. Iraq, however, has been cut from
a different cloth. Given the assistance —
or more appropriately the lack thereof
— from the Iraqi people, Americans
should prepare themselves for countless
evening news reports citing casualty
after casualty of U.S. soldiers.
Bush also laid out the conservative
timeline for the transition of power in
Iraq. On June 30, despite all the clear
omens that the political environment is
not ready, the sovereignty of Iraq
returns to the Iraqi people.
Subsequently, elections for a
national assembly that is to draft a new
permanent constitution will occur in
January 2005. Then, finally, by Dec.
15, 2005, Iraqis will elect a
permanent government, an
event the president claimed
“will mark Iraq’s transition
from dictatorship to freedom.”
Of course, U.S. troops will
provide the security for this
transformation. As the president
Nicholas explained, the Iraqis need
davis Americans there to fight off the
enemies of freedom.
However, Americans should question
how long that will take.
The president acknowledged that the
attacks are perpetrated by three main
factions: Islamic extremists, terrorists
infiltrating from other countries and
remnants of Saddam’s regime.
Overall, the speech
had only one purpose: to
articulate that America
shall stay in Iraq 'as long
as necessary and not one
day more/
But this million-dollar question
remains: How can U.S. soldiers discern
an extremist, a loyalist or a plain old
Muslim terrorist from the democracy-
loving, “peaceful” Iraqi Muslims? The
harsh truth is that they can’t.
As mentioned before, Iraqi people
provide negligible assistance to troops,
and the enemy is undistinguishable
from peaceful citizens. Translation: A
secure Iraq is unattainable unless the
Iraqi people help their liberators identi
fy the enemies of freedom. Without that
assistance from Iraqis themselves, U.S.
soldiers must patiently wait around to
catch a bullet or fall victim to a suicide
bomber before the enemies become
clearly identifiable.
“None of these acts are the work of a
religion; all are the work of a fanatical
political ideology,” Bush said.
Kerry’s Iraq policy relies too
heavily on global assistance
merica doesn y t need U.N. blessing to do right thing
Truly, everyone wants to believe that,
but until cooperation becomes evident,
America’s motto should be, “Oh yeah,
prove it.”
If the president intends to keep the
soldiers in harm’s way for years, even
after the election of a permanent gov
ernment and with only limited authori
ty, some changes must occur. For
example, if terrorists continue to slip
through the border, the president must
send more American forces to quell the
threat or contact the respective govern
ments of the extremist countries and
demand compliance in patrolling their
own borders.
“Failure in Iraq would be unthink
able,” Bush said. This is true. Hopefully,
the president will take a harsher stance
against the opposition to prevent unnec
essary American casualties.
Throughout his speech, the presi
dent did everything to keep from
implying that Iraq is a hotbed for
chaos. Nevertheless, when sovereignty
transfers and the three contentious fac
tions assume control Americans should
realize that, at anytime, the interim
government might fall victim to grid
lock, perhaps leading the way to civil
war; America will have even more
years in Iraq.
Some may scoff at this, but the asser
tion is not far-fetched.
Clearly, America must stay the
course for, as the president proclaimed,
retreat would only empower the terror
ists and “every enemy of America in
the world would celebrate, proclaiming
our weakness and decadence and using
that victory to recruit a new generation
of killers.”
Bush seems to be an honest man who
truly believes in the mission this country
has embarked on. His resolve remains
unwavering, and his determination for
success deserves applause. Nonetheless,
Americans must prepare for a long
arduous stay in Iraq and, unless some
drastic changes transpire in that region,
many more soldiers will be lost.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
MAIL CALL
’n an often misquoted proverb,
John Hey wood wrote in 1546,
‘Would ye both eat your cake
and have your cake?” As Hey wood
vas implying, the truth is that in
some situations, you can’t have a
thing both ways — and recent
remarks by Democratic presiden
tial nominee John Kerry regarding
the war in Iraq seem to suggest a
failure to understand this concept,
le believes that America should continue
the war in Iraq, but that we should also
have international support in doing so.
This belief is in direct opposition to
vhat the majority of the international
community has said for the past two
years regarding Iraq — it wants to stay
aut. Kerry needs to realize that Iraq is
either the right thing to do — as he said
in his vote to go to war last year — or
that it’s not, regardless of the global
community’s involvement.
Doing the right thing is often a lonely
course of action, and it should never
require the validation of others. Kerry,
however, seems to want other countries to
hold his hand and tell him that being in
Iraq is OK. “Never has the United States
of America been held in as low a regard
internationally as we are today,” Kerry told
MJC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday.
‘We're not trusted, and this administration
is not liked."
But why should the United States care
if it’s liked? Does that have any bearing on
vhether what this nation does is right?
/hile Kerry would never come out and
say that international validation is a pre
requisite for American decision-making,
his desire to bring in U.N. and NATO
forces into the Iraqi reconstruction seems
:o suggest exactly that.
Supporters of his plan for Iraq may
rgue that this is not an issue of needing
loral support, but a more pragmatic
MIKE
WALTERS
approach to the present struggle to
keep order in Iraq. “Removing that
'Made in America' label can send a
message to Iraqi military and
police that it's time to do their jobs
— not because America is telling
them to, but because the world
stands ready to help them secure a
stable Iraq,” Kerry said.
However, it’s a valid criticism
that the Iraqi military and police
aren’t doing their jobs now. It’s clear to
everyone that the present security exist
ing in Iraq is largely the work of
American troops. However, if Iraqis want
to police themselves and be responsible
for their own security, they have to match
that desire with the work and the man
power it takes to do so. The presence or
absence of American or international
troops is independent of Iraqis lining up
words with actions.
Doing the right thing is
often a lonely course of
action, and it should never
require the validation
of others.
“The idea that somehow if there were a
U.N. flag instead of a coalition flag, that
these thugs would not be attacking, is ...
just a little bit naive," National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice told ABC’s
“This Week.” Believing the insurgents
would have a more pleasant attitude
toward U.N. rather than American troops
ignores the fact that insurgents bombed the
U.N. building soon after the official fight
ing ceased.
Further, is the world really “standing
ready to secure a stable Iraq” as Kerry
said ? Spain, one of the few countries that
had committed troops to Iraq, announced
Sunday the immediate removal of its
forces. Though Spain claims that its deci
sion is the result of the United States not
bringing the United Nations in to help, this
is a weak excuse. When a country decides
that war is moral and deserving of sending
their sons and daughters into, then it does
n’t matter who else is there. This is clearly
not a vision that Kerry shares.
Like many other countries, Spain lacks
the moral courage required to properly
identify evil and commit to the destruction
of it. It’s quite natural for Kerry to want
the support of the international community,
but the sad fact is, for the time being,
America may be quite alone in fighting
terrorists abroad.
“Our diplomacy has been about as arro
gant and ineffective as anything 1 have
ever seen and I think if you ask people all
around the world, I think that is exactly
what they would tell you,” Kerry told
“Meet the Press.”
If he calls U.S. diplomacy ineffective
because America doesn’t have more inter
national support in Iraq, he may be right,
but if a country refuses to believe that
regime change is a good thing, there is
nothing Americans can say to force them
to face the facts. Saddam and his sons
slaughtered thousands in their dictatorial
rule of the nation, and their removal gives
Iraqis a chance for freedom that they
haven’t had in decades. As for its reputa
tion of arrogance, well, if doing the right
thing — even when it means doing it
alone — is now called arrogant, America
should never fear calling itself that.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Campus debate on Iraq war today is
between 'the ignorant and the zealot'
In response to Nicholas Davis’April 14 column and an April 15
mail call: ,
As an Aggie studying abroad this year, I found it extremely
appalling that A&M students are subject to such ignorance and
blatant inhumanity in their daily reading. Mr. Branagan's and Mr.
Davis' respective articles highlight an unsavory reality at our great
University: the campus debate today is between the ignorant and
the zealot. Present in each piece were a slough of fallacies, fac
tual errors and a ubiquitous ethnocentrism.
Mr. Branagan began his letter by labeling Davis a “cowardly
liberal.” This is humorous I'm sure to those who read Davis' arti
cle. Aside from the blatant misnomer, this ad hominem is all too
common these days in the media where people attempt to dis
credit an idea based upon moral, religious, political, et al.
beliefs. Apparently it works in reverse for the "noble" George
Bush. I'm at a loss for understanding the use of that term unless
in reference to divine right. But, certainly, nobility is stronger
than being a cowardly liberal (one point for Branagan).
Branagan then buttresses his argument further by describing
the terrorist threat — another label thrown around carelessly —
as the force of darkness. Are we talking about Bruce Campbell
movies? Branagan then lets us see a bit of his own darkness
when he suggests he would rather see dead Iraqis over dead
Americans by liberating Iraq into the ground. This is making me
nauseated, so I'll state the facts.
Although there is much to question concerning why
Americans are in Iraq, why we weren't better prepared for post
“shock and awe,” and how this will adversely effect our domes
tic economy in the midst of tax cuts (Reaganomics didn't work
the first time around), we are in Iraq whether we like it or not.
Branagan is correct in asserting that we must now stay the
course. We helped create this mess, and as we were taught as
children we must now lead the cleanup! For the record, a sta
ble, credible and economically sound Iraq will be an important
pillar in a region where "terrorism" is engendered by unemploy
ment, political marginalization and current U.S. policy making
— all issues we must address in order to fight "terrorism," even
if it means "cowardly liberals" and "noble" Republicans holding
hands together.
Thank goodness we are finally going to ask the United Nations
to help out. This will be George Bush’s true test of “nobility”: admit
ting mistakes and asking for help to correct them.
Johnathan Stever
Class of 2004
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200
words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone num
ber. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style
and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed
McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014
Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net