LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Issue date: 11/1/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
The recent In Motion article "IRAQ: What Now?" portrays a sober picture of the Iraq War. True, Iraq remains in great turmoil. However, emergent, positive trends demand attention.
Following the 2003 US invasion, Al-Anbar Province became headquarters for the Sunni Insurgency and eventually Al Qaeda's launching pad against American soldiers. In his recent television address, President Bush stated that an intelligence report last year "concluded that Anbar was lost to Al Qaeda." Not anymore.
This summer, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution visited Iraq. Self-described in their article "A War We Just Might Win" as having "harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they report that in less than six months, Al Anbar "has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas)… the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda."
Petraeus reports that "Iraq-wide" ethno-sectarian violence is down by over 55 percent from its December 2006 high. President Bush cites that an average of 1,500 enemy fighters per month have been captured or killed since January, oil revenues are distributed to the provinces and Iraqi Forces fight alongside our own to secure the populace.
Petraeus also reports that troop strength could drop to roughly pre-surge levels by summer 2008, thanks to present (and contingent upon future) security gains. Secretary of Defense Gates suggests that the drawdown might continue as progress allows.
In their novel, "Twelve Pillars," Jim Rohn and Chris Widener write of the pain of discipline versus the pain of regret. This is America's dilemma. Staying in Iraq requires sacrifice. However, immediate withdrawal could ignite a bloodbath and a humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda would rejoice because America retreated - surrendered - while turning the tide. Events in Diyala and Al Anbar Provinces reveal "Al Qaeda's Iraq": a Taliban-like state where dissenters are assassinated and enemies are beheaded, a fragmented nation and a regional base for Al Qaeda. Past arguments aside, the war has transformed at least partly into a worthy fight to secure Iraq's future from Al Qaeda's grasp.
A Worthy Fight?
- Reagan Lynn
Editor's note: Lynn is a junior, at the University of Central Florida majoring in Finance
Dan Niemann
In Motion Staff Writer
Reagan, thank you for your response, you have articulated the primary argument for support of the war well.
True, the gains in sectarian violence that General Petraeus spoke about are promising, but according to the September Pentagon report (which was held until General Petraeus spoke to congress) there has been almost no progress on the death toll or number of attacks overall in the country. In fact, to the contrary, May and June of this year (after the surge had been implemented) were two of the most violent months ever since the war started.
When did sectarian violence alone become the primary goal in Iraq, anyway? It's as if the rationale for this war is a magic trick, except that every time the magician fails to pull the promised card, he tries to convince us that he was really looking for this new card all along.
The objective in Iraq has changed from finding WMD, to eradicating Bathist remnants, to fighting the terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here, to national benchmarks, to quelling overall violence and finally to quelling merely sectarian violence. Every transition is seamless and every misstep is swept under the rug.
Also, claims that the progress in Al Anbar Province is primarily due to the surge are on shaky ground. Regional leaders in the province chose to step up and fight off the terrorists that had claimed their region, but that didn't suddenly make them pro-American. In fact, as late as July of this year (long after progress in the province had become a talking point of the administration) one-fourth of all U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were killed in Al Anbar. It can be argued that the progress there instead proves a real possibility that if we withdraw our forces, Iraq may not be left simply as a wasteland to the terrorists.
General Petraeus' analysis is not without merit, but he does currently work for the Bush administration. Other generals such as Major General John Batiste, General Wesley Clark and most recently Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez do not feel the same. Are their voices not to be heard? As retired generals who all worked in theater, they certainly have a more objective view.
Even military members have turned against this war. A recent Military Times poll showed that only a third of troops approve of the President's handling of the war and a recent Zogby poll showed that 72 percent of military personnel actually in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year and more than one in four say that they should leave immediately. I don't know about Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, but the people actually making the sacrifices, for the most part, don't support the war.
I got out of the military in the summer of 2005, after having served five years in memory of my grandfather. My grandfather earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in World War II. He, as did many in his generation, lied about his age in order to enlist at the age of 17 to go and fight for our country.
Lied about his age to enlist at 17! That attitude is a far cry from the response to the war in Iraq. In fact, in my experience, the more staunch one's support for this war, the more stalwart their opposition to the draft is. I think that presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in recent comments about his sons' helping on his campaign being their service to the country, sums up this feeling that the sacrifice should be made--but by someone else.
I argue that this attitude is because, when it comes down to it, none of our vital national interests have ever been threatened by Iraq.
Al Qaeda did threaten our nation interests on 9/11 and that's why you saw such an immediate response from American citizens back then. The faction of Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was non-existent prior to our invasion, but the Al Qaeda that attacked us (the one that has been able to regroup and retain its 2001 strength) was and still is a menacing reality.
Following the 2003 US invasion, Al-Anbar Province became headquarters for the Sunni Insurgency and eventually Al Qaeda's launching pad against American soldiers. In his recent television address, President Bush stated that an intelligence report last year "concluded that Anbar was lost to Al Qaeda." Not anymore.
This summer, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution visited Iraq. Self-described in their article "A War We Just Might Win" as having "harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they report that in less than six months, Al Anbar "has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas)… the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda."
Petraeus reports that "Iraq-wide" ethno-sectarian violence is down by over 55 percent from its December 2006 high. President Bush cites that an average of 1,500 enemy fighters per month have been captured or killed since January, oil revenues are distributed to the provinces and Iraqi Forces fight alongside our own to secure the populace.
Petraeus also reports that troop strength could drop to roughly pre-surge levels by summer 2008, thanks to present (and contingent upon future) security gains. Secretary of Defense Gates suggests that the drawdown might continue as progress allows.
In their novel, "Twelve Pillars," Jim Rohn and Chris Widener write of the pain of discipline versus the pain of regret. This is America's dilemma. Staying in Iraq requires sacrifice. However, immediate withdrawal could ignite a bloodbath and a humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda would rejoice because America retreated - surrendered - while turning the tide. Events in Diyala and Al Anbar Provinces reveal "Al Qaeda's Iraq": a Taliban-like state where dissenters are assassinated and enemies are beheaded, a fragmented nation and a regional base for Al Qaeda. Past arguments aside, the war has transformed at least partly into a worthy fight to secure Iraq's future from Al Qaeda's grasp.
A Worthy Fight?
- Reagan Lynn
Editor's note: Lynn is a junior, at the University of Central Florida majoring in Finance
Dan Niemann
In Motion Staff Writer
Reagan, thank you for your response, you have articulated the primary argument for support of the war well.
True, the gains in sectarian violence that General Petraeus spoke about are promising, but according to the September Pentagon report (which was held until General Petraeus spoke to congress) there has been almost no progress on the death toll or number of attacks overall in the country. In fact, to the contrary, May and June of this year (after the surge had been implemented) were two of the most violent months ever since the war started.
When did sectarian violence alone become the primary goal in Iraq, anyway? It's as if the rationale for this war is a magic trick, except that every time the magician fails to pull the promised card, he tries to convince us that he was really looking for this new card all along.
The objective in Iraq has changed from finding WMD, to eradicating Bathist remnants, to fighting the terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here, to national benchmarks, to quelling overall violence and finally to quelling merely sectarian violence. Every transition is seamless and every misstep is swept under the rug.
Also, claims that the progress in Al Anbar Province is primarily due to the surge are on shaky ground. Regional leaders in the province chose to step up and fight off the terrorists that had claimed their region, but that didn't suddenly make them pro-American. In fact, as late as July of this year (long after progress in the province had become a talking point of the administration) one-fourth of all U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were killed in Al Anbar. It can be argued that the progress there instead proves a real possibility that if we withdraw our forces, Iraq may not be left simply as a wasteland to the terrorists.
General Petraeus' analysis is not without merit, but he does currently work for the Bush administration. Other generals such as Major General John Batiste, General Wesley Clark and most recently Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez do not feel the same. Are their voices not to be heard? As retired generals who all worked in theater, they certainly have a more objective view.
Even military members have turned against this war. A recent Military Times poll showed that only a third of troops approve of the President's handling of the war and a recent Zogby poll showed that 72 percent of military personnel actually in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year and more than one in four say that they should leave immediately. I don't know about Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, but the people actually making the sacrifices, for the most part, don't support the war.
I got out of the military in the summer of 2005, after having served five years in memory of my grandfather. My grandfather earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in World War II. He, as did many in his generation, lied about his age in order to enlist at the age of 17 to go and fight for our country.
Lied about his age to enlist at 17! That attitude is a far cry from the response to the war in Iraq. In fact, in my experience, the more staunch one's support for this war, the more stalwart their opposition to the draft is. I think that presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in recent comments about his sons' helping on his campaign being their service to the country, sums up this feeling that the sacrifice should be made--but by someone else.
I argue that this attitude is because, when it comes down to it, none of our vital national interests have ever been threatened by Iraq.
Al Qaeda did threaten our nation interests on 9/11 and that's why you saw such an immediate response from American citizens back then. The faction of Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was non-existent prior to our invasion, but the Al Qaeda that attacked us (the one that has been able to regroup and retain its 2001 strength) was and still is a menacing reality.
Be the first to comment on this story