|
|
|
|
8/31/03 How Much Security Can A Free People Have? Recent attacks on U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians have been treated by most media outlets as the result of poor preparation or insufficient attention to existing problems trying to settle the situation in Iraq. Democrats (especially the crowd campaigning to face Bush in the next Presidential election) have often said more money and more or different forces are required. I have yet to see any specific suggestions. All this has to be kept in perspective. If the Iraqi people expect us to create a situation for them in which terrorism is impossible, they are living in a dream world. No one can believe that the New York Times and the BBC (and their clones) actually think any nation in the world can ever give itself that kind of security while maintaining a free society and a democratic government. They might as well argue that you can change the lunar cycle without either changing the laws of physics or altering the orbit of the moon. The enemy in Iraq has one goal: continue to attack all sides and attempt to foster the impression that the effort has been a failure. They don't want a democracy in Iraq, and, like Palestinian terrorists, they know that all they have to do to derail the peace process is never to allow peace to happen. So the first response to anyone who says that five to seven U.S. military deaths per week and the ongoing sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure and terrorism against Iraqi civilians indicates that we are nowhere close to restoring normalcy is this: show me a country that exists in a state of normalcy that would make it impossible for determined war criminals, saboteurs, and terrorists to inflict such small wounds to active military units and such isolated but terrible attacks on innocent people. That alone should shut them up. France couldn't (or wouldn't) stop attacks on synagogues all over its countryside. Russia fell prey to Chechen terrorism. Britain has only quieted its terrorist conflict with the IRA by striking a generous deal with them (which is still teetering to this day). 9-11 need only be mentioned. Indonesia, Morocco, India, and a host of other nations has suffered similarly in recent weeks and months. Can anyone expect us to help Iraq become a state more viable than India, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Indonesia, Morocco, or the United States in just a few months? Japan and Germany did not become viable so quickly after the end of WWII, and there were not (as far as I know) any significant elements trying to turn back the clock by murdering women and children. Neither of them, in turn, has yet made itself immune to attacks by determined terrorists or crime syndicates. The only difference is that Iraq is currently a flashpoint, like Israel, and these attacks will doubtless persist until all those interested in perpetrating them have been captured or killed. Would more troops help? Perhaps, but not necessarily (and the generals say they do not need more troops). More troops present more targets. For example, we might beef up escorts for the many convoys that run across Iraq every day. That means more scouts, who can be targeted and killed from a distance even as they are trying to determine where the enemies are. More troops in the line merely puts more personnel between the people most likely to be attacked (the outer defensive ring) and the convoy itself. Daily reports show our troops succeeding in finding, capturing, and killing those who have perpetrated such acts, so there doesn't seem a need for more troops in that endeavor (and again, generals do not say they need more troops). There is little reason to think that more troops (unless we had a couple of million, and even that might only slow the bleeding) will have a material impact on the situation. What about more money? Money for what? Paying people off? We're offering millions of dollars for Saddam's head. I don't see what else we might do. Offer millions for the heads of people planning attacks? As I said, we're already tracking those people down. Of course, those who have such brilliant plans in mind should be providing them, not throwing around generalities and leaving people like me to try to figure out the details for them. There is no magic bullet, and the liberals' motives are questionable, since they have to work to contain their visible glee every time something terrible happens that they can use to suggest that Bush can't run foreign policy effectively. They suggest more troops are needed because if Bush sends more troops they hope that will increase dissension in the ranks and make him out a poor commander-in-chief. They suggest more money is needed because they want to make out his tax cuts as being responsible for the problems we are having in Iraq. It's just politics. The liberals are the back-seat drivers of our political system. They don't have to figure out which way to turn, they just sit back and wait for a problem, then suggest it wouldn't exist if the driver hadn't turned where he did. But since we didn't take any other path, and since they don't have to be specific about what path they would have taken, they have nothing to offer but a sop for the Bush-haters who think he's trying to destroy the world when he offers prescription drug coverage for seniors. It is time for them to put up or shut up. The truth is, terrorists and determined war criminals with nothing left to lose will always be a danger in any free country (generally more so the more recent was the liberation). If the Iraqis want to live under a totalitarian regime rather than have to face those who hate freedom and democracy, they will probably end up there no matter what anyone else does. If they want freedom, they have to live with the risks, and more of them need to realize that it is in their own interest to help us destroy the war criminals and the terrorists, that those are our common enemies, and that therefore, by the old adage, we are the best friends a free Iraq could hope to have. Modified: 09/10/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|