Another Chapter In A History Of Ineptness

Why are we still here?

Posted: June 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

"What are we getting into here?" asked the sergeant
from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, stationed
north of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but
every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it
worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals
want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

The questions that sergeant put to a Washington Post
reporter are ones our commander in chief had better
begin to address.

For less than three months after the fall of Baghdad, we
have lost almost as many men in Iraq as we did in three
weeks of war. One U.S. soldier is now dying there
every day.

"Mission Accomplished," read the banner behind
President Bush as he spoke from the carrier deck of the
Lincoln. But if the original mission – to oust Saddam and
end the mortal threat of his weapons of mass destruction
– is "accomplished," why are we still there?

What is our new mission? What are the standards by
which we may measure success? What will be the cost
in blood and treasure? When can we expect to turn Iraq
back over to the Iraqis? Or is ours to be a permanent
presence, as in postwar Germany and Japan?

If that sergeant does not know what he is doing there, it
is because his commander in chief has left him, and us,
in the dark. And if the president does not begin soon to
lay out the case for why we must keep 150,000 men in
Iraq, the American people will begin to demand they be
brought home. Already, one poll shows that 44 percent
of the nation finds the present level of U.S. casualties
"unacceptable."

This is not 1963. Americans no longer have the same
patience or trust in government we had when JFK took
us into Vietnam. We are no longer willing to have
Americans die in open-ended wars for unexplained
ends. Dean Rusk's familiar mantra, "We are there, and
we are committed," is no longer enough.

When the United States lost 241 U.S. Marines in the
bombing of the Beirut barracks 20 years ago, and 18
Army Rangers in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in
Mogadishu, Americans demanded we get out. Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton hastily did.

As has been written here many times, Americans are
lousy imperialists. We are uninterested in ruling and
reforming other peoples if they appear to want us out of
their lives. Nor are we willing to shed American blood
for visions of empire dancing in the heads of Potomac
pundits.

This week, six British soldiers were killed – three
executed – after surrendering to Iraqi civilians enraged
over intrusive house searches that they believe
dishonored them and their women. This was in the Shia
region of southern Iraq, which had been thought to be
pacified.

One is reminded of Yitzhak Rabin's remark after the
invasion of southern Lebanon had ignited the peaceful
population there: "We have let the Shia genie out of the
bottle."

On their visit to Baghdad, Sens. Lugar and Biden
warned the U.S. Army might have to remain in Iraq five
years. But Americans are not going to tolerate five
years, or even two years, of guerrilla war without a
better explanation as to exactly what vital interest of
ours requires us to stay in Iraq and fight this war.

Moreover, there is every indication the security situation
is getting worse. The incident in the south is but one
example. The heavy-handed but natural reaction of U.S.
soldiers to being ambushed and sniped at and killed
every day is another. Invading homes searching for
weapons, rousting out and roughing up Iraqi men, and
patting down their women is a sure way to antagonize a
fighting people.

Lest we forget, among the "Intolerable Acts" that led to
our own revolution was the "Quartering Act," where
Bostonians had to provide shelter for British troops sent
to pacify the city after Sam Adams' tea party down at
the harbor.

We are told the United States cannot walk away from
Iraq now, or it would descend into chaos. That may be
true. But if chaos is one alternative, another is a no-win
war such as Israel is today fighting against the
Palestinians. And the chances of that are daily rising.

A recent U.S. strike in the west turned up the bodies of
Saudis and Syrians who had come to fight Americans,
as their fathers went to Afghanistan to fight Russians.
Moreover, U.S. pressure on Iran to permit inspections
of its nuclear facilities – or U.S. pre-emptive strikes –
would surely be answered by the kind of Iranian aid to
and instigation of the Shias in Iraq that Teheran gave to
Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Hezbollah, after years of
guerrilla war, drove the Israelis out of their country.

President Bush had best begin devising an exit strategy
for U.S. troops, before our enemies succeed with theirs.