Thursday, December 15, 2011 was a day that many have long anticipated. On that day the United States formally ended its involvement in the War in Iraq. Amid controversy and uncertainty a modest ceremony marked the conclusion of this horribly prolonged conflict. Future generations will undoubtedly debate the merits of a war that was a collection of contradictions from start to finish.
The numbers only tell part of the story.
· Approximately 8 years and 9 months of fighting
· Nearly 4,500 American deaths
· 32,000 Americans wounded
· 100,000 Iraqis killed
· Tens of thousands of Iraqis wounded
· Untold destruction of buildings and infrastructure
· $800 billion dollars spent from the United States Treasury on the war effort
These statistics are cut and dry. There is no debating them. But the real story lies behind the numbers and will continue to stir controversy for many years to come. I wonder, for example, how many people clearly remember why we created this war in the first place.
On March 20, 2003 the United States-led coalition initiated an invasion of Iraq through a relentless round-the-clock bombing attack which President George W. Bush called "Shock and Awe". The premise for this invasion was never clearly established. The Bush Administration insisted that they had evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government had a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). These included, but were not limited to, biological weapons that Saddam Hussein intended to use against the United States and several of the countries neighboring Iraq.
It should be pointed out that this was approximately 1 ½ years after the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush Administration was desperately seeking a dramatic way to respond to that humiliating and tragic event. At the very least, a diversion of sorts that could unify the nation and build a sense of national pride and superiority would be a welcomed change. But the terrorist enemy of September 11 was a very different enemy than any we faced before. They had no national boundary; no sovereignty. They did not have military uniforms that clearly identified them. We did not even know for sure who they were, let alone where they were.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein was well known and quite visible. We already had a strained relationship with him, having engaged in a short-lived war known as Operation Desert Storm in 1990 - 1991. That conflict, led by President George H. W. Bush, had a clearly defined purpose: to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait following their invasion of that nation, and to be sure no other nations in the region would be Saddam's next target.
Now, twelve years and a Presidential generation later, things were a bit different. Iraq had made no aggressive acts toward any of its neighbors. For that matter, Iraq had made no hostile activity toward any nation, neighbor or otherwise, with the obvious exception of rhetoric. Saddam Hussein was given to making all kinds of remarks that were less-than-friendly, especially toward the United States.
The American public was itching for a fight in the wake of 9/11. Still, for all his shortcomings, President George W. Bush understood that the idea of going to war was serious stuff. The people would demand a reason for sending their sons and daughters off to a desert to fight. To be effective, the reason would have to include an eminent threat to us. I have no idea where the concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction came from but there is no denying its effectiveness. Not only did Bush convince the American people we needed to stop this perceived threat, but he also convinced the United Nations General Assembly, who authorized the invasion.
In a demonstration of irony we launched our defense against the Weapons of Mass Destruction stockpiled by Iraq with our own, real-life demonstration of honest-to-goodness Weapons of Mass Destruction. Shock and Awe was just that: the United States shocked the world by their heartless, never-ending display of awesome destruction. Night after horrid night the bombings continued. Baghdad was a constant glow of red and yellow flames enveloped by thick black smoke.
It took a while, but when the Coalition forces finally secured Iraq and the United Nations inspectors had the chance to inspect, what did they find? The answer is: nothing! No WMD's nor any hint of Iraq being remotely close to possessing the technology to produce any in the foreseeable future. This led the three-headed monster known as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld to conclude that there were underground tunnels throughout Iraq in which the WMD's were hidden. Again, a thorough search proved no tunnels existed. Eventually, the Bush Administration was forced to admit that there was no trace of any nuclear, chemical nor biological weapons anywhere in Iraq.
Having been embarrassed in this way the brain trust of Bush Administration developed another theory. We went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was providing a safe haven and training grounds for al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Yet once again having taken possession of the desert domain it was learned that there were no terrorist training grounds, no material support, no connection what so ever.
By now we are looking pretty foolish and downright aggressive in the eyes of the world. In hopes of saving face another angle was promoted. Saddam Hussein was an evil madman who oppressed his people and abused their rights. He was a dictator with no regard for his people. Thus we attacked in order to "liberate" Iraq form their hated oppressor and to bring democracy into the Middle East.
I find it a little hard to swallow this pill, however. How can we say that we delivered Iraq from the horrors of oppression when we killed over 100,000 citizens, wounded 10's of thousands more, and left the infrastructure in ruins? Who are the true oppressors?
Saddam Hussein was, in fact, an evil man. I will not deny this. But if Jesus taught us anything it is that the ends do NOT justify the means. Driving Saddam from power by virtually destroying the entire nation is not justified. In fact, in light of the so-called "Arab Spring" that has dominated 2011 one wonders what would have happened in Iraq if we had left the Iraqi people deal with their fate on their own terms. Would Saddam Hussein have been toppled from power by a non-violent - or at the very least a much less violent - internal resistance movement? We will never know.
It is difficult to compare the Iraq War with World War II yet a few observations stand out. WWII lasted about six years, the last four involving the United States. The total number of casualties is generally considered to be in the neighborhood of 62 million, though some sources put the figure closer to 70 million. The United States alone lost over 416,000 soldiers. Clearly we are talking about a very different kind of war. Nevertheless, VE Day (Victory in Europe) and VJ Day (Victory in Japan) were highly celebrated and ceremoniously marked. In comparison, December 15, 2011 was strikingly quiet and unassuming as it closed the door on a war that, for the United States, lasted more than twice as long as WWII. Personally, I am glad. I welcome the fact that this war was ended with little fanfare and hoopla. We as a nation have little to be proud about regarding our involvement in Iraq. We went to war under false pretenses and we kept up the charade for nine years. We completely destroyed a sovereign nation that had presented absolutely no threat to us at all. Once we came to realize that mistake, we were in it too deeply and had too much egg on our faces to correct the course. So we played it out to the end, much to our shame.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this war's conclusion is the attitude of the Right Wing politicians. Senator John McCain, a true Hawk if ever there was one, declared just a few days ago that he still believes Saddam Hussein was on the verge of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. U. S. Representative Michelle Bachman stated in the last Republican Presidential Debate that she would indeed authorize a pre-emptive strike against Iran if she had any indication that Tehran posed a threat to our security. Therein lies the true legacy of the Iraq War.
Pre-emptive strike. We, the United States of America, can now wage all out war against any nation that we deem to be a potential threat to our security. We do not need any hard evidence. A mere suspicion will suffice. The "enemy nation" does not have to do anything hostile or aggressive in order for us to justifiably annihilate them. We only need to find - or create - some top secret report that says, in effect, that these guys don't like us.
Is this honestly what we have become? Are we going to forget about the basic premise of our judicial system: the conviction that one is innocent until proven guilty? This same reasoning tells me that I am justified to go out and kill the guy living down the street from me simply because I believe there is a very good chance he might try to rape my wife some day. Never mind the fact that he has never said anything to anyone in my family. Nor has he ever set foot on my property. In fact, he has not done anything at all. I just don’t like the way he looks at us when we pull into our driveway.
In 1945 George Orwell published the allegorical book Animal Farm. In it the farm represented a mythical country; the farmer was the tyrannical dictator/monarch who ruled with an iron fist; the animals on the farm represented the working class citizens whose rights were routinely ignored. What really stood out for me in this book was the way in which the animals, who staged a successful revolt against the farmer and took control of the farm, ultimately became the very thing they revolted against. The pigs in particular, who were the equivalent of the Communist Party leaders, moved into the house once occupied by the farmer and his family. One of the most dramatic moments in the book came when some of the other animals realized that the pigs were even walking around in two feet - just like the humans who once ruled before them. The story was intended to demonstrate how the Communist revolutions of the early and mid 20th Century failed to live up to their lofty ideals by taking on the essential corruptions and deceptions of the system they replaced.
The thing that bothers me today is this: are we becoming the image of our enemy? Has "Pre-emptive Strike" become our new mantra? Have we learned nothing from the past nine years? Or has the desert sun caused us to become delusional?
G. D. Gehr
December 19, 2011
Comments invited below
No comments:
Post a Comment