By JJ Bowman
Associate Editor
Southern California fire watching may have surpassed “The Joe Schmo Show,” “Newlyweds” and “Kobe vs. Shaq 2: Rape of Honor” as the best reality television. The intensity of the fires and the anguish involved for people fleeing their houses-turned kindling has produced incredible drama.
The fires even managed to overshadow one of the ugliest attacks in Iraq since major combat ended May 1. Suicide bombers killed 35 and wounded more than 200 others Monday in a series of attacks that targeted the Red Cross and Baghdad police stations.
Smaller scale attacks on U.S. soldiers and other international peacekeeping interests have become routine since the president launched his G.I. George action figure aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln to announce the toppling of Saddam’s regime.
Body counts and blown up buildings have led many to the conclusion that coalition forces have become bogged down. On the other side, soldiers, journalists in Iraq and targeted deputies of defense have pointed out the progress made, particularly outside Baghdad. Unfortunately for them, a bridge blown up will always be more interesting news than a bridge rebuilt.
Opponents pounced on the president over the new Iraq quagmire. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle — clearly not sidetracked by Southern California’s apocalyptic orange glow — chastised the president for noting the progress made in Iraq despite the surge in violence. Apparently, Daschle wanted speeches like FDR’s fireside chats during the Great Depression entitled, “Most of you will die of starvation,” or Abraham Lincoln’s stirring address at Antitum, “This Union is doomed, DOOMED!”
Bush bears a good deal of responsibility for the disappointment many express. Although he had been steadfast in his notion that the War on Terrorism would take much time, his fighter-suit speech aboard the aircraft carrier May 1 dispelled the mentality. He did mention the difficult work ahead during the speech, but it’s tough to remain concentrated on the task at hand when Top Gun (or Hot Shot) has your back.
Despite varying interpretations of the progress, leaving Iraq now would be disastrous. Saddam probably still lives, and the sight of him whacking a picture of Bush with the sole of his shoe as he reenters Baghdad would destroy the credibility of the United States. Plus, it would destroy hope for Iraqis and make the French happy.
Destroying totalitarianism to provide anarchy would embarrass this country and endanger the world. The $87 billion for the people of Iraq is a worthwhile investment in the future of Iraq, the future of the United States and the future of the world.
This comes as a hard pill to swallow for people who opposed the war from the start. Those who demanded we wait for an imminent threat rather than react to a “grave and gathering” danger feel justified that Iraq couldn’t have attacked the United States even if Saddam so desired. Now they, and many others who did not want this mess may be vindicated.
In order to be vindicated, however, they must see no improvement between the lives of Iraqis today and their situation during Saddam’s reign. This isn’t one of those bets that should give anyone a warm sense of satisfaction. The United States and the coalition forces can pull off one of the greatest humanitarian causes of all time. Although it may be difficult to say in our postmodern world that our freedom would be better than Saddam’s dictatorship, a free Iraq will be an immeasurable improvement.
Instead of explaining how we should never had invaded, opponents of Bush (particularly those interested in taking his job) would be wiser to suggest superior alternatives in the effort to win the peace. However, they seem more interested in rooting for Bush — and us — to fail.
October 30, 2003