BCT Editorial – 2/1/05

This page was last updated on February 5, 2005.

Bitter harvest; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 1, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy just doesn’t get it when it comes to the presence of American troops in Iraq.

“Whether Americans like it or not, their nation must have a presence in that Middle Eastern nation for a number of years if the Bush administration is sincere in its commitment to building a free and democratic Iraq. Sunday’s election certainly presented the administration and the American people with a good reason to stay the course.

“In a speech last week, the Massachusetts Democrat called for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to be accomplished as early as possible in 2006.”

[RWC] The Times failed to note the speech was borderline treasonous. Don’t take my word for it; read the speech for yourself. Among other things, three days before the election Kennedy was telling terrorists they were winning “the hearts and minds of the [Iraqi] people.”

“The Associated Press reports Kennedy’s five-point plan included a greater role for the United Nations, increased diplomacy in the Arab region and completing the training of an Iraqi security force before the end of the year.”

[RWC] Other than turning tail and running, we are already doing everything Kennedy “recommended.”

“The main problem with Kennedy’s proposal - and it’s one that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s plan suffered from - is that it is unrealistic. When it comes to the Bush-induced invasion of Iraq, we broke it and we bought it. Why would the United Nations and the Arab world be willing to clean up the mess we have made, especially given the diplomatic arrogance and hubris of this administration?”

[RWC] The Times keeps repeating the “we broke it and we bought it” line. When was Iraq not broken? Was it when about one million Iraqis and Iranians died during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s? Was it when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988? Was it when Hussein invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990? Was it when Hussein set fire to Kuwait’s oil fields? Was it when Hussein killed thousands of Shiites during the 1990s? Was it when Hussein plotted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in the 1990s? Was it when Iraq served as a safe haven for terrorists? Was it when Hussein paid rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Please, Times, tell us when Iraq was not broken.

I reject the idea that we made a mess. I get a kick out of the repeated use of “arrogance” and “hubris” to describe the United States.

The editorial conveniently ignores the fact that no Arab country would want to help regardless of the situation. Other than complete chaos in Iraq, the last thing Arab countries want is a democracy in their midst.

“Although Iraq has been, rightly or wrongly, compared to Vietnam, the two conflicts are different in one stark way - the invasion of Iraq was a war of deliberate choice. The Bush administration picked this fight, and the president’s decision had the support of a majority of Americans, especially the jingoistic sunshine patriots who were all too willing to question the patriotism of those who doubted the wisdom of Bush’s rush to war.”

[RWC] The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that Americans are actively trying to undermine our efforts. Vietnam was not “a war of deliberate choice?” Are we to believe the hundreds of thousands of American servicemen showed up in Vietnam by accident? Did John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson think they were only participating in war games?

I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t question anyone’s patriotism based on lack of support for the war. I wasn’t hot on the idea myself, but felt it was the right thing to do given the information available. I don’t recall a “rush to war.” On top of the 10+ years Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions, the run-up to the Iraq War took more than 12 months.

“That support stayed high as long as America’s premier military was rolling over Iraq’s third-rate army. However, the shooting didn’t stop after their mission was declared to be accomplished; nor did the dying, the wounding and the maiming end.”

[RWC] It was the same as at the end of World War II. I don’t like it, but wars rarely stop on a dime. We also need to remember we’re no longer fighting the Iraqi Army. We’re fighting terrorists who have increasingly turned to killing Iraqi civilians.

I don’t know who declared our mission was accomplished, but it was not the Bush administration. Liberals like to claim a “Mission Accomplished” sign intended to signify the USS Abraham Lincoln’s mission was accomplished meant the overall mission was accomplished. They ignore the fact that the speech given by President Bush under than banner acknowledged a lot of hard work was ahead.

“Our president’s decision to invade Iraq has come at a heavy price for Americans and Iraqis. In terms of men, money and material, the occupation of Iraq is costing America more than its liberation.

“We - and this is a collective matter - created this situation. And because of that, the American people have no choice but to do the honorable thing and to see it through to the bitter end. The election enthusiasm shown among Sunday’s voters, especially the Shiites and Kurds, shows why there can be no turning our backs on the Iraqi people.”

[RWC] A “bitter end?” It can be a bitter end only if we fail, and we won’t fail.

“For that reason, we also would oppose Bush if his exit strategy boils down to declaring victory and getting out. Our young men and women must not have died in vain in Iraq as they did in Vietnam.

[RWC] Read closely and you find the Times puts itself in a nice position. No matter what happens, the Times would be able to say “I told you so.” It sounds like the same tactic attempted by John Kerry.

“We have sown the wind. For better or worse, we must now wait to reap the whirlwind.