Why are we still here?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 30 June 2003 | Pat Buchanan

[Cacophonous]

"What are we getting into here?" asked the sergeant from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, stationed north of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

The questions that sergeant put to a Washington Post reporter are ones our commander in chief had better begin to address.

For less than three months after the fall of Baghdad, we have lost almost as many men in Iraq as we did in three weeks of war. One U.S. soldier is now dying there every day.

"Mission Accomplished," read the banner behind President Bush as he spoke from the carrier deck of the Lincoln. But if the original mission – to oust Saddam and end the mortal threat of his weapons of mass destruction – is "accomplished," why are we still there?

What is our new mission? What are the standards by which we may measure success? What will be the cost in blood and treasure? When can we expect to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis? Or is ours to be a permanent presence, as in postwar Germany and Japan?

If that sergeant does not know what he is doing there, it is because his commander in chief has left him, and us, in the dark. And if the president does not begin soon to lay out the case for why we must keep 150,000 men in Iraq, the American people will begin to demand they be brought home. Already, one poll shows that 44 percent of the nation finds the present level of U.S. casualties "unacceptable."

This is not 1963. Americans no longer have the same patience or trust in government we had when JFK took us into Vietnam. We are no longer willing to have Americans die in open-ended wars for unexplained ends. Dean Rusk's familiar mantra, "We are there, and we are committed," is no longer enough.

When the United States lost 241 U.S. Marines in the bombing of the Beirut barracks 20 years ago, and 18 Army Rangers in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, Americans demanded we get out. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton hastily did.

As has been written here many times, Americans are lousy imperialists. We are uninterested in ruling and reforming other peoples if they appear to want us out of their lives. Nor are we willing to shed American blood for visions of empire dancing in the heads of Potomac pundits.

This week, six British soldiers were killed – three executed – after surrendering to Iraqi civilians enraged over intrusive house searches that they believe dishonored them and their women. This was in the Shia region of southern Iraq, which had been thought to be pacified.

One is reminded of Yitzhak Rabin's remark after the invasion of southern Lebanon had ignited the peaceful population there: "We have let the Shia genie out of the bottle."

On their visit to Baghdad, Sens. Lugar and Biden warned the U.S. Army might have to remain in Iraq five years. But Americans are not going to tolerate five years, or even two years, of guerrilla war without a better explanation as to exactly what vital interest of ours requires us to stay in Iraq and fight this war.

Moreover, there is every indication the security situation is getting worse. The incident in the south is but one example. The heavy-handed but natural reaction of U.S. soldiers to being ambushed and sniped at and killed every day is another. Invading homes searching for weapons, rousting out and roughing up Iraqi men, and patting down their women is a sure way to antagonize a fighting people.

Lest we forget, among the "Intolerable Acts" that led to our own revolution was the "Quartering Act," where Bostonians had to provide shelter for British troops sent to pacify the city after Sam Adams' tea party down at the harbor.

We are told the United States cannot walk away from Iraq now, or it would descend into chaos. That may be true. But if chaos is one alternative, another is a no-win war such as Israel is today fighting against the Palestinians. And the chances of that are daily rising.

A recent U.S. strike in the west turned up the bodies of Saudis and Syrians who had come to fight Americans, as their fathers went to Afghanistan to fight Russians. Moreover, U.S. pressure on Iran to permit inspections of its nuclear facilities – or U.S. pre-emptive strikes – would surely be answered by the kind of Iranian aid to and instigation of the Shias in Iraq that Teheran gave to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Hezbollah, after years of guerrilla war, drove the Israelis out of their country.

President Bush had best begin devising an exit strategy for U.S. troops, before our enemies succeed with theirs.

[Cacophonous]

It may be that President Bush's victory party on the Abraham Lincoln - proclaiming Mission Accomplshed - might have been better timed for a later date.

[pcx99]

Bucannan is an idiot.

The US casualties since the war ended, while tragic, are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. It is nearly as safe being a US soldier deployed in IRAQ as it is being a civilian in any western country. The ONLY difference is that the news loudly trumphets EVERY SINGLE CASUALTY and yet they will not do the same for each death (murder, accident, etc) in the US.

As for why we're there? How about an armed military presence on the border of every state sponsor of terrorism in the middle east (lebanon and egypt through israel) save for lybia.

How about giving us an option other than military with saudia arabia through the use of economic sanctions by flooding the world with cheap oil.

How about giving us the option to go into Iran and making up the oil lost in Iran by turning on the Iraqi pumps?

How about the ability to scare syria into putting preassure on Hammas and pushing Israel and the Palestinians closer to peace?

How about the ability to rip out all the anti-semetic and anti-us crap in the Iraqi textbooks?

How about the ability to build a truly western society that will cause internal strife and division in all the mid-east anti-american dictatorships as the populations stop focusing on israel and start wondering why they don't have it as good as the iraqis.

How about the ability to stiff france on the oil contracts?

The ability to create a friendly government that knows how mid-eastern terrorism works and can infiltrate the networks easier than we can **AND THEY WILL BE OUR FRIENDS BECAUSE WE MADE THEM**

It's just absolutely amazing how people slam their eyes wide shut and parrot WMDs & American Casualties and absolutely REFUSE to see how important an asset Iraq is on the war on terror -- you know that little thing where we're trying to shut the bad guys down and remove their bases of support (like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran which we now border and so have military clout and through Iraq's oil economic clout).

But don't let this distract you from my main point that buccanan is an idiot.

[leadpenny]

Why are we still here?

This should turn into a very long thread. I wish I knew enough to have an answer but suspect it lies somewhere in the 'International Participation' department.

[Cate]

Uh, did Buchanan read somewhere that war is easy and tidy? I don't think so. Our soldiers are following the Commander in Chiefs orders and completing the task assigned to them. The big push is over, but its going to be YEARS before we are totally out of Iraq. Any country that has been liberated has faced the same time frame. For crying out loud, a good analogy is a step mom entering the house for the first time. It takes awhile for all parties to get used to a new leadership. Oh, and Rome wasn't built in a day. hmmm.... this article must have pushed all my buttons :)

[Eagle Eye]

The US casualties since the war ended, while tragic, are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. It is nearly as safe being a US soldier deployed in IRAQ as it is being a civilian in any western country. The ONLY difference is that the news loudly trumphets EVERY SINGLE CASUALTY and yet they will not do the same for each death (murder, accident, etc) in the US.

Do you realize how bone-headed that sounds? On what basis are you determining that those deaths are 'statistically insignificant'? Do you mind showing your work on that stat problem? Are you only measuring actual deaths for your 'apples to apples' comparisons?

Are you suggesting that the troops don't deserve hazard pay becuase they are "nearly as safe being a US soldier deployed in IRAQ as it is being a civilian in any western country" ?

Why do I suppose you are typing this from you nice, cozy Barkalounger with a 'cold one' nearby?

If you polled the troops would they say that they are as safe as any western civilian?

[Eagle Eye]

Oh, and Rome wasn't built in a day. hmmm

Good to see someone else noticing that we are building Rome version 2.

[Cacophonous]

Buchanan's point is that the Commander in Chief has been unclear as to what the long-term mission is; perhaps because it is so hard to define when fighting a bunch of people that won't act in a civilized manner.

Speaking strictly for myself, my whole objections to this war were identical to my objections to Clinton's actions in the Balkans, and what they would have been had I been conscious during the Vietnam era.

Long term plans have not been defined. Are we going to maintain a presence into perpetuity? Then the President should come out and say it; of course, that would probably not get him re-elected.

If not perpetuity, then how long?; rather, what conditions have to be met in order for the US to bring the boys back home?

The original mission - remove Saddam - has been accomplished. It doesn't appear the next/newest mission has goals to measure accomplishment. Is it when terrorism is wiped out? At what point do we consider terrorism wiped out? What about the terrorists in SE Asia, the South Pacific, South America, Ireland....?

Maybe the mission should be to wipe out Islam. Fine; then make that the mission, give the troops a goal, and defined endpoints.

[WhiteGuy]

Why are we still here?

---

Thats easy..............

Oil

[Cacophonous]

Oh, and Rome wasn't built in a day.

hmmm Good to see someone else noticing that we are building Rome version 2.

It's a damned poor way to build an empire.

[tkathy]

How can you dishonor women who have no honor?

[Cate]

I believe that President Bush has given clear definitions of how long we are going to remain in Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan. Until the government is stable enough to function on its own, we will be there guiding the growing new government in the day to day functions. If we were to suddenly pull out of Iraq today, the remaining opposition would quickly move in and take over. The citizens of that country are so shell shocked by the leadership of Saddam, it takes time to help them adjust to a new government and more freedom. It is not easy, but our President has never said this would be an easy endeavor. And I do think many long term plans have been made, but we, the general public, do not necessarily need to be sitting in the leaderships back pockets while these plans are enacted. My son was sent to Iraq last week, and as far as I understand it, the rotation for their duty is around 8-9 months. And I am sure that other soldiers will follow him when his time is done.

[tkathy]

Why are we here? That's easy. The world economy.

[Cacophonous]

Oil

See, I've long advocated oil as a justification for war; to me, there is nothing more patriotic than a war to win resources (or riches, or land, or whatever) for the Homeland. At the suggestion, though, I get accused of not being patriotic. I guess because the notion is not sycophantic to President Bush, who apparently is not interested in securing oil. Baffling to me.

Empires don't fight altruistic wars of "liberation", they fight wars of conquest. They get stuff.

If we are going to be an empire, let's start acting like one. If we are not, we need to get the hell out. But we need to piss or get off the pot.

[Cacophonous]

The world economy.

I hope you are being facetious; I'd rather it were over oil for America, than some Marxist ideal such as the "worl economy".

Sadly, you may be right.

[pcx99]

http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_iraq_05_25.html

---

U.S. officials said nearly 20,000 troops would arrive in Iraq over the next few weeks. This would increase the U.S. force level to about 163,000 troops. Currently, about 145,000 U.S. soldiers are deployed in Iraq.

---

Add to that another 40,000 british troops and you have a very conservative 200,000 troops deployed in the country.

Since hostilities have ended there have been 56 deaths ( http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jun/06282003/utah/70611.asp ) over two months. That works out to an average of 1 death per day.

By contrast the current death rate for people under age 65 in the US is 2.1 deaths per day per **100,000*** people (so double that to 4.2 deaths per day per 200,000) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR03/lr5A1-3.html

Granted this is just a quick and dirty number crunch using google to confirm the statistical insignificance of the number of casualties post ending of "major hostilities" but you get the general idea.

No I'm not claiming the troops in Iraq do not deserve combat hazard pay and I'm CERTAINLY not trivializing the sacrifices of our brave men and women in the field. And I absolutely positively am not discarding their sacrifice and achievement by joining the coalition of the whiners who wish to use WMDs and statistically insignificant casualty numbers to get us OUT of IRAQ when the war on terror demands that is exactly the spot we need to be.

Nuff said.

[Cacophonous]

Until the government is stable enough to function on its own, we will be there guiding the growing new government in the day to day functions. If we were to suddenly pull out of Iraq today, the remaining opposition would quickly move in and take over.

I guess we will install Democracy whether the majority of the people want it or not...

[Cacophonous]

That's the stupidest analysis I've ever seen. You win the "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" Award. If you wish, I will personnaly purchase a one-way ticket to Iraq for you, so can be safer. Hell, I'll even spring for first class seats. Baghdad is lovely this time of year.

[Eagle Eye]

But we need to piss or get off the pot.

They aren't going to love us anyway, so why annoy them with BS? Does anyone really believe that the residents of the mideast countries think that this was for anything but oil? Most of Iraq's neighbors weren't thrilled with Saddam, but they are less thrilled with a lingering US presence.

[Cacophonous]

How can you dishonor women who have no honor?

I can be pretty thick sometimes; I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Could you be a little more specific?

[pcx99]

Well since you can't be bothered to say why it's stupid I can only conclude that you're too stupid to be able to explain why its stupid, which means -- aside from the fact that your post means nothing at all -- you should probably go back to the democratic underground and get a nice group hug from all the people who think tactics like that should work.