Over there

During WWI and to some extent WWII there was a popular song that went like
this "Over there, over there, the Yanks are coming the Yanks are coming, and
we won't be back 'til its over, over there." Did the nation as a whole and
the media spend years regurgitating the reasons for being in those wars, for
being "over there"? The answer is no, once the decision had been made, once
the die was cast, the nation supported the war effort. Now, perhaps because
the reasons for the war in Iraq have been questioned so many times, support
for the "war" has waned. But, in fact the casualties compared to previous
wars are minimal (1,300 compared to 50,000 in Vietnam). Of course, each
death and injury is a tragedy, but let's have a sense of proportions.
To accuse Condoleeza Rice and Pres. Bush of lying, when absolutely no one
knew the truth about WMDs and all the Govts. of the world accepted that
Saddam Hussein was developing them, as exemplified in constant UN
resolutions, is in itself dishonest. Given the existing circumstances the
attack against Iraq was the prudent thing to do.
Now the US is there and must remain until "its over, over there." Any kind
of precipitous withdrawal would be a disaster. In any case, after his
inauguration speech yesterday, Bush could hardly withdraw short of some
stable democratic type of Govt. in Iraq. There are two possibilities, that
the Sunni insurrection, for that is basically what it is, will be defeated
and will die down after the elections next week. Or, if the Shia win big
and take over the Government, the Sunnis will either boycott the election en
masse or decide to fight the Government even more strongly after the
election, then the US will have no choice but to oppose them. This could
have serious consequences because other Arab (Sunni) countries may take this
as an anti-Sunni (Muslim) war by the US and may become less cooperative or
antagonistic to the US effort. But, as of now there is no choice but to see
it through.
People are concerned that Bush wants to "invade Iran." I am sure that this
would be a last resort. Bush wants to deal with the Iranian threat of
nuclear weapons diplomatically, as the EU has been trying to do. But,
failing that, and if the threat from Iran becomes real, what will the
critics say "Oh, how can we believe you, when you got the WMDs in Iraq wrong
last time." Should we stand by and accept the threat without serious
action. I don't think so. And if the US decides that it must face the
threat (absent any Israeli action) should people once again find excuses to
carp against the decision.
I compare the situation to that existing in 1981 when Saddam Hussein was
known to be developing atomic weapons, hidden under a lie of "peaceful
uses." Not only was the US not alert to the threat, but the French and
Russians were actively supporting Saddam. When PM Begin was told that the
point had come when a decision had to be made, either strike now or accept a
nuclear threat from Saddam, Begin chose the right course, and dispatched
planes to destroy the Osiris reactor in Baghdad. It was very lucky for
subsequent enemies of Saddam, including the US forces, that Begin decided
this. We are in a very similar situation with regard to Iran now.
It is possible that the US will first focus on Syria, because its a much
easier nut to crack (17 million people as opposed to 66 million in Iran).
And it's known that both Syria and Iran are feeding arms and insurgents into
Iraq as well as to Hizbullah and the Palestinian resistance. But, given
these threats isn't it better to have US forces on the ground there (on both
sides of Iran) rather than having to start from scratch.
But, that aside, Bush has now embarked on a campaign to foster Democracy
around the world, and those regimes that are a threat to democracy, Syria,
Iran and N. Korea, the remainder of the "axis of evil," must be opposed in
one way or another, until "its over, over there." By denying them
cooperative enclaves and access to nuclear weapons only in this way can
international terrorism be defeated. It will be a long and hard fight, but
at least the US is in it for the long haul.