 |
|
|
WON'T LISTEN...
|
When will Congress finally
Declare 'A War on Error'?
|
Prof. Gordon Greb, the senior member of our writing group, is not happy about Pres. George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq for a "surge" he hopes will turn the war there toward victory. He believes The President refuses to listen to the American public and the Congress. Here are his thoughts about the war, which he expressed first in this column he wrote in 2003 and posted on his own personal website on March 29, 2003--nine days after the Iraq war began. It details his serious opposition to what is now widely regarded as a disastrous military adventure by the U.S. You will note that nowhere in this column does Prof. Greb say "I told you so!" |
By PROF. GORDON GREB
of TheColumnists.com
We need to know the truth about any new policy undertaken by our government when we go to war. For some reason the current administration is not truthfully telling us the bottom line, which is–what will we need to pay?
I can remember when America used to enter wars and win them with the respect of the rest of the world. While incomplete, here are a few tidbits from the past for citizens of our country to remember (since Bush, Inc. doesn’t want to do it.)
For instance, what kind of a war is this under our one-party government of a Republican-controlled White House and Congress? Do the American people have on their hands a formally “declared” war, according to the U.S. Constitution, or is this “an open ended, unlimited war” which Congress has simply given away?
Last but not least, how will the American people know when we’ve been “victorious” and that we can celebrate peace? Or is there under these circumstances no possibility of Americans ever realizing an “end to war” because the so called enemy is hidden, unknown, and sleeping in our own society, requiring it to be monitored, investigated and rooted out in a totalitarian and continuous police state?
There was a time I can remember about 60 years ago in America when “war” involved everybody and our cooperative efforts had one principal aim--unite to win the war, end it as soon as possible and establish peace.
War was a burden we all shared. This meant
giving everyone responsibilities involved in this great sacrifice,
such as accepting the fact that war is costly, requiring as it
did in World War II, such things as the following:
Higher taxes.
Wage and price controls.
No business profiteering.
Rationing of gasoline, sugar, and other vital supplies.
Political bipartisanship (as President Roosevelt appointed both
Democrats and Republicans to key positions of responsibility
in government).
And the drafting--“for the duration”--of rich and poor
alike into the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Corps, etc. till the
day of “unconditional surrender.”
Today’s war [which began March 20, 2003)…arriving as it did with the Academy Awards, seems like an old John Wayne movie. It was planned by the producers to open out of town, to last perhaps only a week or so, and to be welcomed by cheers and happiness on all sides.
While at first the stock market shot up, lately it has started to come down. While casualties were light at the beginning, they’re beginning to mount. While the war seemed to be “free” the latest news is that it may cost a lot more than anybody anticipated or was willing to admit.
What bothers me most about Bush’s War (and that’s going to be the name of it) is that this time we are doing it alone. The Minister of War (Donald Rumsfeld) uses the term “coalition” for our go-it-alone Anglo-American military effort whereas in World War II our New Deal President had such a grand alliance its victory led to the foundation of the “United Nations.”
The question nobody seems to be thinking about these days is–if our war in Iraq goes wrong and we need help–who is going to give us that extra assistance during or after the conflict?
The Bush administration thumbed its nose at the United Nations, NATO, and “Old Europe” in choosing to engage U.S. military forces entirely on their own. Our military-minded tub thumpers say repeatedly that the United States is the world’s only Super Power! They have plans to use our costly weaponry and resources to turn us into a new Roman Empire. But for whose benefit?
One of these planners–Richard Perle–is reported to have formed his own company, to pocket wartime profits. Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton company is said to be doing extremely well. But this is not making TV news headlines these days.
Till now the United States’ role in the world was largely that of an impartial umpire, not an empire. In l906 Teddy Roosevelt helped resolve the conflict between Japan and Russia. Later Nixon settled our differences with China and Reagan saw the end of the USSR. Recently Clinton was on his way to mending the conflict between Israel and Palestine peacefully through negotiations, not war.
But fanatics want to smite their enemies. So right-wingers assassinated Yitsha Rabin and set in motion events which allowed military leader Ariel Sharon to convert a visit to the Temple Mount into reoccupying Palestine by tanks and guns. Now the chances for peace are even slimmer between these suffering peoples.
Now, too, in the United States our own home-grown hawks are adopting Sharon’s own misguided plan. And under their influence our own Warrior King George II is trying to use military might to defeat troublesome Iraq, its hated leadership, and “liberate” its people with an occupying army. This imposition of force gave Israel no peace. So why should anyone want to plunge America into the same kind of mess?
For his Iraqi war, Bush still seems ahead in the polls. But most people elsewhere in the world do not agree with what he has done and view his unilateral action as arrogant. Isn’t it troubling that our former allies like Canada and Mexico do not see us as liberators but invaders in Iraq?
Consequently I wonder whether this Bush policy will get us the same heartfelt sympathy the next time suicide bombers attack our cities and kill innocent people? We had world support after 9/11 and traded it away for a doctrine of preemption.
Thus have Bush and Company shocked and awed the world! So far Donald Rumsfeld hasn’t alienated the British people and put our “coalition” with Tony Blair into question. But don’t hold your breath. It’s questionable now whether Bush’s policy allows us to go it alone.
How can we fight a great war without paying for it? How can Bush eliminate the Inheritance Tax and return millions of dollars to the rich while incurring billions in war debt? Does the tax-cutting President really think he is supporting our troops?
This certainly wasn’t the way we won World War II. Of course, Arthur Andersen wasn’t keeping the books. I doubt if we can have a "war-without-end" without the horrendous bills finally coming due. We can’t use a charge card forever.
Yes, I’m even beginning to wonder
whether my vote will be counted in the
2004 election.
©2003 by Gordon Greb. This column first posted on this website
Jan. 15, 2007.
(Professor Emeritus Gordon Greb – writegg@yahoo.com --was a World War II U.S. Army volunteer. His father served in World War I and his great grandfather in the American Civil War.)
You can comment
on this column online. Please address your message to either
"The Editors" or Gordon Greb. To send an email, click
here and don't forget to mention Gordon's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|