Stay what course?

We can't turn Iraq into the USA

By Tom Kovach

This is a scary column. Regular readers know that I am a patriotic American, was career military, and am a staunch political conservative. For all those reasons, and others, it scares me that I got the title of this column from the latest buzz phrase of the Democratic Party. But, just as it was in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, sometimes even the Hippies can be right. (Remember their chant? "Hell no, we won't go! We won't fight for Texaco!")

Back in May of this year, I wrote, "It's time to tell our troops, 'Good job, and welcome home!'" Why did I write that? Because our country had then accomplished the last of the goals that President Bush had stated as justification for invading Iraq. Since then, I've developed a phrase that explains why I maintain that position: there is a huge difference between "cut and run" versus "mission: accomplished."

The goals for invading Iraq were: a) prevent the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) against us or our allies, b) end the brutal oppression and torture of the Iraqi people, c) terminate the regime of Saddam Hussein (as both punishment for his support of terrorists against us, and to liberate the Iraqi people), and d) install a properly-elected replacement government. Along the way between "c" and "d," we also did the Iraqis the favor of rebuilding much of the infrastructure that we (or Saddam) had destroyed during the invasion (or before). Well, we did all that. "Mission: accomplished." Fight over. Right?

Apparently, in the mind of President Bush, not right.

He seems to think that we have an obligation to remain in Iraq until they become just like the United States of America. But, there is at least one key problem with that concept. More than a thousand years of history indicates that the people of that region do not want to become like the United States. Period! If we have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," and if we want the Iraqis to be like us, then shouldn't we respect their decision — even if we think that it's the wrong decision? (Before you answer the question, remember that England had to come to a similar understanding in the wake of the American Revolution.)

So, we are at a crossroads of our national activity in Iraq. If we leave, we will run the risk that terrorists will come and attack us on our own soil. Guess what? If we stay, we still run that same risk. If we leave, we run the risk that the country will destabilize. Hello! Take a look at what is happening in Iraq now — months after the installation back in May of the "unity" government that prompted me to change my position on the war in the first place. They are on the verge of civil war. Right?

Well ... yes and no. The Iraqis are going to back to the condition that they understand as "normal." For the past 1,400 years, the people of that part of the world have been fighting and killing each other — over a single question of their own religion. (The question is: who should be in charge of Islam? Should it be the blood descendants of Muhammad, or certain appointed leaders? That is the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites.) Each side believes wholeheartedly that they are right. Each side believes that the people on the other side are apostates that deserve a swift trip to Hell. Each side believes that they will earn a swift trip to Paradise by sending the people on the other side to Hell. Each side believes that their trip will be even swifter if they kill more people during their "holy" month of Ramadan each year.

So, let them kill each other; but, not us.

Yes, I know that sounds harsh. But, compared to the alternative, it actually shows them some measure of respect — at least, as they understand the term. They don't want to be interfered with. And, if we are to follow our own standards, we shouldn't interfere. Whether we like it or not, that is their way of doing things. If some other country on this planet should suddenly decide that we in America aren't doing things right, does that give the other country a right to invade us? (Before you answer the question, just think back to the riots in the street after almost every major sports championship for the past several years. Both the winners and the losers have riots in the streets of their cities. One side "protests" the outcome of the game by turning cars over and setting them on fire. The other side "celebrates" the outcome of the game by turning cars over and setting them on fire. What if some other country decided that "civilized" people just don't behave that way [they'd be correct], and so decided to invade the USA to "help" us restore order?) Sometimes it helps to look at the mirror, instead of the TV screen, before making a decision.

Thus, the key difference between whether we stay in Iraq or leave Iraq is not in what happens to the Iraqis. The key difference is in what happens to the Americans.

I've never "officially" been in combat. (I have, though, been in several fist fights [some of them against gangs], had loaded guns pointed at me at close range, been shot at, been injured in parachute jumps, had two bones broken during martial-arts training, had people try to run over me with cars, and one man tried to strangle me. I'm still here. I also once made a military decision that likely sent an Iranian citizen to his death. That's a whole other story....) Because I've never officially been in combat, some people might try to claim that I'm "not qualified" to have an opinion on whether we stay in Iraq. If that's the case, then more than 75% of our Congress is equally unqualified. In reality, every American citizen has a right to an opinion on this question. The key is to have an informed and rational opinion.

And, the key to an informed and rational opinion is this: where do we need our troops right now — guarding Iraq's borders, or guarding America's borders? Another consideration: what is the most effective way to fight terrorists? For years prior to the invasion of Iraq, we have done well by using our Special Operations Forces (SOFs) and the paramilitary operatives of our Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Even if we withdraw our conventional forces from Iraq, we will not "cut and run" from the fight against terrorists. To say so is misleading at best.

Just think how secure our borders would become if we put all 130,000 plus troops from Iraq along all of our borders — including our airports and seaports. Just think how difficult it would become for terrorists and drug smugglers to penetrate our country. Just think how troop morale would improve, knowing that they were doing a lot more good in protecting their own families. Just think how quickly the casualty rate would drop. (For a small glimpse into the world of military amputees, see my column "Blood Brothers", and visit the Web site of the Wounded Warrior Project.) Just think how much our costs could be reduced.

Just think of how we would finally be complying with our own Constitution.

A legal point needs to be made here. Although I agreed with the reasons presented for the invasion of Iraq (and still agree), there was a major problem with how we got into this war. That problem has been glossed over by both of the Big Two political parties, and by the "mainstream" news media. The problem is that we never had a "declaration of war." The Constitution requires one. It does not come from the president. It comes from the Congress, at the request of the president. Instead of requesting a "declaration of war," as required, President Bush requested "authority to enforce United Nations sanctions." From a legal and political viewpoint, there is an enormous difference between those two actions. Although justified from a pragmatic viewpoint (there were caches of WMDs, and Iraq has provided material support to terrorists), our invasion was illegal from a Constitutional viewpoint.

When I was in the Air Force, we had a first sergeant in one unit that said something quite memorable. While lamenting the lack of discipline, compared to his pre-Vietnam days, he said, "The NCOs in the Air Force didn't lose their authority. They gave it away." The same can be said of our Congress. They didn't lose their authority to decide whether our country invades another country. They gave it away. But, the Constitution of the United States remains the same; whether our government obeys it is another question. It is up to the people of this country, come Election Day, to install candidates that will truly "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

We have accomplished our mission in Iraq. Our porous borders at home need to be secured — immediately! Our troops are getting killed and wounded to defend a violent culture that doesn't want to change. Our continued presence in Iraq violates our own principles of freedom and sovereignty, as well as our own Constitution. We need to ask ourselves some tough questions about the meanings of freedom and respect. We need to ask ourselves what American interests are served by remaining in Iraq. (If we need the free flow of oil, and we do, then that needs to be part of the discussion. Dancing around key issues doesn't help. But, why send troops to protect pipelines in Iraq, while we refuse to drill for oil beneath our own feet and beneath our own waters?) We need to ask what our post-invasion, post-new-Iraqi-government goals are. (And, if we can't answer that question, then what the hell are we still doing there?) Currently, unless there is some larger goal that remains hidden from the public, there doesn't seem to be a goal at all.

When someone says that we need to "stay the course," we need to ask ourselves, and that person, "Stay what course?"

© Tom Kovach