The fallout – Are we safer today?
Fifth in a series analyzing the reasons we go to war with
some groups and not others
To read the articles in order go to these links:
1. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/06/24.html
2. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/01.html
3. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/08.html
4. http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/07/10.html
The Bush administration and its defenders tell us we
are safer today because we’ve gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and disrupted
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We are not. We are less safe than before the Iraq
war? How can this be when Iraq has been
neutralized as an enemy. How can we be less
safe since there is a friendly government in Afghanistan? Indeed many say it is a good thing that we
are battling terrorism in Iraq and not on our own soil. At home in the U.S. we
are now protected by the department of homeland security.
The original war plan called for
500,000 troops. This was the plan that, under the prodding of Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld was cut down to an original force of 105,000 which grew to
135,000. In order to maintain the troop level, the government has been forced
to call up reserve units, many of whom are now on their second tour. Soldiers who’s time is up have been hit with
“stop loss” orders requiring three months additional service in Iraq. We don’t
know how long they will really be held, but is there any sign of a letup in the
fighting? 5600 Americans who have completed their military obligations and who
are not in the active reserve haave been called up from the ready reserve. It is a legal part of the original
enlistment contract. but was a practice
reserved for emergencies and little used in the past. It is an admission of
inadequacy. We are told the military is having no trouble filling enlistment
quotas. Yet, there is talk of reinstituting the draft. In the original plan of 500,000, where would we have gotten those troops?
Rumsfeld’s insistance on a smaller force was supposed to be based on the need
for speed in the buildup and new tactics and weaponry which would be more
effective then a big force. I
charge
that it is very likely Donald Rumsfeld knew he couldn’t approach that
level of
commitment of American soldiers because we didn’t have them. So, with
an administration itching to go to war, he forced General Franks to
come up with a minimal approach to an invasion. He was fond of
saying that he understood that less troops meant greater risk and he
was
comfortable with the tradeoff.. I'm sure he was. After all, he has a
very nice office in Washington.
Now we have a military that is
streched far too thin. We cannot respond
to another provocation in the world. If North Korea were to move into the South, how would we
fight them? If China were to move
against Taiwan, could we meet our obligation to protect it? There are other
vulnerable places in the world, such as the Phillipines. They have had a
low-intensity guerilla war for years. Recently there have been reports they are
being helped by Al Qaeda. What if the guerillas get strong enough to attack the
government directly. Could we meet our treaty
obligations to help defend that government?
Would we go to Nuclear weapons, because we have not the troops to oppose
provocation by North Korea, China or Iran? Of course Iraq itself is under
constant attack and our troops under grave risk. Hardly a day goes by withut an
American soldier dying. Hardly a week goes by without the kidnapping and
execution of some unfortunate civilian worker.
Every Arab government, every poll
among the Arab people says their prime
problem is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They use it as an excuse
to
withhold support even though they fear the terrorists as much as we do.
They label us an enemy for supporting Israel. I think their
hatred of Israel masks other unexpressed motives. I will explore these
in future articles. Certainly they still dream of eliminating Israel,
but they could settle for a decent
outcome on the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the administration can’t find
the
energy or resources to even engage the problem. We are not safer
In Afghanistan, President Karzai
has stated that he needs help to hold
elections because the countryside is ruled by warlords. We stabilized and
protected only the capitol city of Kabul. The warlords rule the rest of
Afghanistan. This would be the second time in the last 30 years that we turned
Afghanistan over, for our own purposes, then left that poor country to its
fate. In the meantime, Osama Bin Laden
is still hiding and operating in territory along the Pakistan/Afghanistan
border. We have not got the capacity to
attack him there. We have small numbers of Special Forces chasing him. So far,
no luck. We are not safer
At home we have the highly touted
new Department of Homeland Security (I will refer to as DHS). This department
issues warnings of terrorist attacks, but we are never told what we
can do. What is the true meaning of their color coded warning system? They have strengthened procedures for
getting on an airplane, but trains and boats, reservoirs, lakes and forests
have no protection We have porous borders between Canada and Mexico. We are not
safer
We don’t know whether the DHS would
know what to do, but clearly the administration has not given them enough money
to protect our trains and ports, our reservoirs and communications. We are completely vulnerable and the
government itself expects an attack against designed to disrupt our election in
the fall. We are not safer.
All along the Bush administration
has followed an extreme right wing agenda.
this week, he used his radio address
to attack gay marriage. On
a day after
he has left us nearly defenseless against a ferocious global enemy and
his DHS is warning of attempts to disrupt the election, he is
worried about gay marriage. His tax
cuts, unprecedented in time of war, have made it impossible to do more. While
they claim the economy is improving, the total job situation has not. A
weakened economy does not help a country fight a war. We are not safer
We had an enemy in Saddam Hussein.
Eventually, we might have needed to remove him. Our insistance that we proceed
with war quickly even without the help of our traditional allies, even without
the aproval of the U.N. Security council has led to a disaster. It is possible we could have overcome even
those disadvantages, but we did not because we planned only for the takeover.
We gave no thought to what would happen after.
The administration spent so much money on its tax cuts that we
could not
afford the number of troops required to keep order. We didn’t have
the
varieties of trained specialists needed to manage a defeated, bombed
out country with a population that does not speak English. We are left
with a supposedly sovereign Iraq governemt. We
don’t know whether they will be able to hold elections although they
are
promised around the new year. There is
a strong possibility of civil war with
American troops caught in the middle.
We solved one problem and created another. We are not safer
I wanted to write this series as
just an analysis of the war. I can’t do it without becoming somewhat political.
For those of you who hope for an immediate withdrawal, there is no good choice, Bush or Kerry would continue in Iraq. George Bush has backed us into a corner and
we will have to fight our way out. Nader, of course will leave us entirely defenseless and invite further
attack, but if you believe war is wrong no matter the reason, he is your man. Please
remember that a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush.
John
Kerry will have a new chance to get real help from our traditional allies and
to get us once more under the umbrella of the U.N. We all know war is a messy unpredictable business and expect to
struggle sometimes. But the Bush administration has been
so incompetent, he has lost his chance.
John Kerry will probably continue the American presence in Iraq, but he
won’t relish it. He will be searching for peace and at the same time he will
have to find ways to restore American credibility. Bush can’t do that because he
has become personally uncredible snd unwelcome around the world. The philosophy of might makes right has
failed miserably. They thought that the show of American power in Afghanistan
and Iraq would make everyone roll over in obedience to us. It didn’t
happen. In the 21st century
it won’t happen. We are not the Mongols and George Bush is not Genghis Kahn
though he tried to be.
After 9/11 he seemed inspiring and a
lot of people, including yours truly, thought we had the right president for the times. It turned out to be only words. His “Mission Accomplished” speech on the
aircraft carrier took all credibility
away. It is time for him and his band of would-be conquerors to go. We are not
safer
Mel Polatchek
4:53:54 AM 
|
