|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
The Iraqi War and the Responsiblitiies of a Nation
THE IRAQI WAR AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A NATION
Part I: The History
It was during the crisis of the Sudetenland of northern
Czechoslovakia in 1938 that the German generals planned it. It
would happen quickly and efficiently in the German military way.
It would happen because the former corporal had served his purpose
and helped unite Germany and had outlived his usefulness. It would
happen because this leader had become intoxicated with power and
would lose his perspective and stumble. But most of all it would
happen to him, Hitler, because he had become a dangerous demagogue
they knew the civilized world would not tolerate.
Hitler had threatened to invade northern Czechoslovakia, while
alluding to vague claims of natural German sovereignty over the
area as an excuse for German conquest. The people of
Czechoslovakia and it's military, however, were ready, and morale
was high among the ranks. The men on the field held steady, and
awaited the moral backing of the world to stand fast against their
foe. Their strategic and tactical preparations were immense and
sound. But Chamberlain and Daladier flew to Munich and gave Hitler
what he wanted, the Sudetenland, in an appeasement they hoped would
avert war.
Hitler gained immense prestige all over Europe and around the world
after conquering Czechoslovakia. Nazi sympathizers from France to
the Ukraine supported him. People would sacrifice their freedom,
their moral integrity, and their minds to their own internal
passions in the hope that a superman would provide for them and
their needs. Others felt he could be dealt with and lived with as
part of a new social structure.
The full reality and horror of what eventually happened to Europe
and to the world is history.
Oh! And what about the plan the German generals had? Well, as it
has come out historically, they expected the western world to stand
up to Hitler, at which time they were going to arrest him and try
him as a war criminal to avert a major conflict with the West.
Part II. The Reality.
Is there a plot by Iraqi leaders to overthrow Saddam Hussein? We
may never know. We do know, that unlike Hitler, Saddam has not
made threats about invasion, he just flat out invaded. We know
that, unlike Hitler, he has not respected neutral embassies or
civilians, but has seized them and held them hostage. We know
that, unlike Hitler, he may become nuclear capable. Hussein has
committed acts of war by seizing foreign nationals and property, as
well massive acts of war and terror against the peaceful country of
Kuwait.
The situation was hopeful after the first response by the world to
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait but later turned highly disappointing.
The United Nations and the United States could have, within two
weeks after the invasion, acknowledged Iraq's acts of war against
them by declaring war collectively by the UN and individually by
member countries. Immediate attack against Iraq would probably not
have happened, but Iraq would have known it was possible and
imminent. Would Iraqi leaders then, like the German generals
before, have turned Saddam Hussein over as a war criminal, or at
the very least diffused the situation and sued for peace by pulling
out of Kuwait? We'll never know.
What we do know is this. The lack of nerve by the United Nations
and the United States has heightened the danger in the Middle East.
Like Nazi sympathizers before, Palestinians and other Arabs who
have betrayed their friends in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia now support
a man of power and blood passion and hold Saddam's picture up in
parades. Like the callow politicians of the thirties,
"negotiators" from many countries flock to Saddam Hussein's court
to shake hands with him in a sickening display of appeasement for
hostages, while who knows what pillaging and raping goes on in
Kuwait. Like France and Germany's refusal to send early troops to
Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938 and 1939, countries from Egypt to
Syria to France seem bent on announcing that they would not take
offensive military actions into Iraq. Like two world wars before,
the United States is expected to pickup the pieces.
Should the United States be in Saudi Arabia? Should we be
committing our troops there? Very possibly. But not under the
present commitment philosophy. President Bush says he has made it
clear why we are there. This is nonsense. He has said nothing of
the sort, and is so tepid he fails to define the enemy and how that
enemy is to be made accountable.
President Bush has said our goal is to restore the legitimate
government in Kuwait, to force Iraq out of that country. Why? So
Saddam Hussein can evacuate Kuwait, go home and develop an atomic
bomb, and blow up Miami? Are our troops to defeat the enemy, or
just fill up body bags until we get some kind of pullout and
negotiated settlement? What is the formal commitment of the United
Nations? Why if the cause is so just there isn't an immediate
deployment of UN troops? Why doesn't the President state our
national interests and go to Congress for a declaration of war?
Why doesn't Congress bring our troops home or issue a declaration
of war with specific wartime objectives? Why does not the United
State's government, specifically and legally, advise those who will
do the dying what they'll be fighting and dying for? Are men (and
this time our women in uniform, too) supposed to put their lives on
the line in a war their government is too scared and timid to call
a war?
Like those brave Czech soldiers awaiting the Nazi blitzkrieg, our
soldiers, sailors, and airmen stand ready in this decade to put
down a dictator and world threat in the Middle East. Will this
nation abandon them morally like the world did to those brave Czech
soldiers, or will they give them the maximum amount of legal
commitment, a declaration of war and right to the destruction or
adequate surrender of their enemy?
The situation is a potentially explosive one in the Middle East,
but even more so in the United States. Can our country survive
another Korea, where men were forced to die for hills and valleys
that were later traded away at the bargaining table? Can we afford
another high cost, high tension, forty year commitment like Korea,
where U.S. troops must be prepared to die for an unqualified
objectives? Can the United States survive another Vietnam, where
again a President did not obtain a declaration of war, and Congress
did not publicly state what our objectives were, but wasted lives
and wealth for goals not stated or defined? Can the United States
drop another fifty thousand lives like in Vietnam without the moral
and legal constructs of law and expect this country to survive as
a nation?
It has been said that the United States will never fall from an
outside force, but only from corruption from within. Many
Americans now sense but to not fully realize the gravity of the
current Middle East crisis. What could and should have been a
serious international problem that could be solved in a prompt and
resolute manner has degenerated into a half-baked attempt to solve
a grave problem without dealing with it directly. The facts are
clear, and so are the questions. What is unclear is why there is
a lack of fortitude, and perhaps outright lack of courage, by the
President and Congress, and whether they will come to grips with
the Iraqi crisis in time.
Iraq has committed acts of war, and is presently engaging in acts
of war by its invasion and occupation of Kuwait and its holding of
foreign embassies and hostages. Iraq is functionally at war with
Kuwait and functionally at war with the United States and other
nations whose people it holds. The President has engaged in an act
of war by sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to a foreign
land on a war footing. Yet, the United States, the international
community, and even the press refuse to call it a war, and
emissaries flock to Baghdad to work out some kind of "deal." How
flushed and emboldened Saddam Hussein and his henchmen must feel!
The major question the United States faces is "Is it worth it?"
Should the United States have any military commitment right now in
Saudi Arabia? Perhaps not. Perhaps it is not worth it. Perhaps
we should allow Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria, Egypt and all those
other areas to their own devices and let them worry about their own
protection. Perhaps we will pay a higher price for oil, but can
deal with other suppliers in Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, and
Alaska. Perhaps Kuwait must be sacrificed for its own lack of
defense preparations and to the cultural volatility of the Arab
world. Perhaps we should pull all our troops out and send in some
of our diplomats to recover the last of our hostages -- a good
trade for Hussein, the multi-billion dollar oil fountain of wealth
in Kuwait for holding some hundreds of Americans for a couple of
months.
Part III: The Consequences.
The questions above are good ones, they really exist, and these
choices are hard. But that doesn't excuse Congress from ducking
it's responsibilities or the President from violating the
Constitution. The President commits an act of war by sending
divisions and divisions of men to a war front in a foreign country,
but he doesn't want to go to the people, define our ultimate goals,
and get the legal backing of a declaration of war the Constitution
requires. There are tens of thousands of Americans, right now,
with their rifles and cannons pointed at Iraqis, risking imminent
death, and Congress says it's not yet time to call a special
session and decide why they are there!
The President should take his leadership responsibilities seriously
or be impeached. Congress should take its responsibilities to the
nation and especially to those risking their lives seriously and
either give our troops full legal backing or a return trip home, or
accede to a reality of Congress' own gross malfeasance.
It is ironic that a strong stand, a declaration of war collectively
by the United Nations and individually by the United States and
other member nations, with a demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait
and Saddam Hussein be retired from power, could result in a
withdrawal from Kuwait and a restructuring of power in Baghdad
within days! Justice could be upheld and hostilities averted. It
will remain to be seen if the current President and Congress are
ones that are remembered in history books as those who burned
American lives and destiny in a far-off desert by vacillation, or
became a truly august body and faced the hard decisions boldly and
decisively.
* * *
The reader's actions can also be of a decisive nature, and your
inaction, or action, could make the difference. Objective analysis
and comment, yea demand, to your representatives is your
responsibility and destiny as a citizen.
Also, spread the discourse. Download this commentary and upload it
to other BBSs. Add separate, additional critiques and comments.
Hopefully the spread of reason and resolve will impact events far
away in the most positive manner.
-TJG
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
