The assault to take Fallujah away from the terrorists is underway. My prayers are with our troops and their Iraqi allies.
A while back, Michael Moore asked Bill O'Reilly if he was willing to sacrifice his children in Iraq. Bill couldn't answer the question, mostly because it was the wrong question. The families of the soldiers and marines who died in combat didn't sacrifice their children any more than I would sacrifice mine. We have an all volunteer military which means that each and every man and woman over there has chosen to be there. The decision, and the sacrifice, is theirs.
It is up to us to make sure that their sacrifices are not wasted, and it is on this point that good people can disagree vehemently. Do we have a national interest in Iraq? Does our national security rest on having a stable democracy in Iraq? I won't rehash the arguments for and against because anyone reading this page is sufficiently interested in current affairs to already know them. The simple fact is that many of us, a majority as indicated by the election, believe that the operations in Iraq are in our national interests, and a necessary for our continued security. Having made that determination, it now becomes incumbent on the Commander in Chief to use the amount of force needed to achieve our objectives quickly, and with minimal loss of American lives, while striving to minimize collateral damage and non-combatant casualties. However, also demonstrated by the election, a sizeable minority disagrees with that determination, and want to bring our boys back home. This creates a situation where well meaning protests may result in higher casualties for both sides.
Here's the problem. Let's say the President and his SecDef and the Joint Chiefs have drawn up a battle plan that meets the objectives outlined above. And let's say that the battle plan will involve significant American casualties, as it more than likely will. If the President presses ahead with this plan, despite the objections of those who want us out of Iraq, he risks being called stubborn, inflexible, imperialistic, etc. If, on the other hand, he modifies the plan, say pausing the offensive for negotiations to show compromise with those citizens opposed to military force, he risks failing to reach the objectives, or achieving the objectives at a cost of higher casualties. Between going in full strength or not going in at all, the worst choice is to go in half heartedly. I can remember the story of a bar fight my dad got into. (One of many in his life. He got into a fight in nearly every bar in Knoxville, including the Gathering Place at the Regas.) His brother in law was trying to keep him out of the fight, and grabbed him, pinning his arms at his sides. You can guess how well that worked out. He wound up with a beer stein imprinted on the bridge of his nose. A somewhat more relevant example would be when our embassy in Iran was overtaken,and the hostages taken. At the time, the marine guards were carrying unloaded rifles in an attempt to appear less aggressive and to reduce the chances for an incident.
So, when you write your posts about the battle and the men who die in it, when you talk to your neighbor James, or Doris at the coffee shop, when you take to the streets in protest, just remember that if your protests have any effect, it will almost certainly result in additional casualties, for our side and theirs. No matter how well intentioned and sincere your protests are, they can have the effect of pinning our soldiers' arms at their sides just when they need them most.
MOst of those who are against the war say they support our troops; please show that support by letting them do the job they're there to do as quickly and safely as possible.
Posted by Rich at November 9, 2004 1:30 AM | TrackBack