Give War a Chance

There is talk pretty much anywhere and everywhere about the war in Iraq. There is a protest in Crawford, Texas by Cindy Sheehan who wants to speak with President Bush because she feels that he killed her son. There are many from all political walks of life who want to call Iraq a quagmire (to quote Teddy Kennedy) and much of the left and the media in this country would like it to be the next Vietnam.

As a nation, the United States is built on the tradition that everyone has freedom of speech. That freedom obviously leads to dissent which can (and is) broadcast far and wide in today's instant information age. There is debate about who really supports the troops and how best to support them. There is dissent about Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. You can find justification (or lack thereof) almost anywhere and be convincing in your argument, pro or con. But one thing that even stalwarts of support for the war seem to not have the stomach for is the fact that war, while a part of history, is bad. There have been many wars involving many people and for many reasons. Yet, today we feel that all wars should be quick and painless, but we really never seem to discuss whether they be complete.

I will start out by saying that I support the war in Iraq. I feel that regardless of how we got there, we should be willing to fight now that we are there. I even think we should fight on a bit larger scale. That decision is not mine to make, however, and I am fine with leaving that to the professionals. I am also fine with dissenters although I am very uncertain of many people's motives for their dissent. I think that a completely united front in this country would serve us well. Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush addressed the nation and explained that the overall war on terror would be long. He said that sometimes we would see the results, instantly as we prefer. But, he also said that at times there may be nothing to report and results might seem slow in coming, if not absent altogether. That brings us to today.

There seems to be a fair amount of debate about how we only hear the bad things about Iraq. Death and destruction sell and mayhem will always trump footage of the day-to-day lives of any people who are going about their routine business. That is probably why the evening news always reports something bad about Iraq. And since Vietnam, the "glamour" of war is certainly absent in Americans' lives. Not to call war glamorous, but the unified patriotism is not what is was in say, WWII. But why? Was war not terrible then?

I have read that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden specifically feel that America is weak. He [allegedly] has made these comments based on years and years of our being weak in response to attacks on us. Going back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, that case could definitely be made. Perhaps our devastating military supremacy is technologically overpowering, but perhaps our will to fight is every bit as underwhelming as the radical Islamists feel it is. And to go a step further, perhaps our ability to dissent is the very thing that those same radicals wish to capitalize on; to bring the political extremes in a free society to blows, so-to-speak, and to undermine our ability to fight by dividing and dissolving the support of the conflict we are engaged in. Like it or not, we are at war and the stakes are much, much too high to not take it seriously.

Politicians, demonstrators, and armchair quarterbacks all seem to want the quick victory that our military power can produce. But we want those things without collateral damage. We want them with no American casualties. We want them with a low price tag. Bombings in other countries serve to separate us from our allies and any nations brave enough to fight for freedom. The political forces against war rise up and demand that we "cut and run". Demonstrators in this country do the very same. Many of our elected officials clamor for an exit strategy and most of the media broadcasts these messages. We are being defeated before our very eyes, but no one seems to see that.

This war, the war on terror, is not like WWII. It is not against specific nations, yet the enemy is still after the same thing, world domination. The USA is one very large obstacle in the way. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, the "insurgency" seems to be backed (at least in part) by the very terrorists that we want to defeat. Still, we argue over the reasons for the war, why we are still there, what it has to do with 9/11, and whether America is safer now. You may have (and argue) your opinion on those issues all you want. As I said previously, I support the war in Iraq because I see it as a small part of the war on terror...a battle at the beginning of that war. I believe that this war will be a long and protracted conflict. Unfortunately, I think it could last beyond my lifetime. I even think that, if we are not careful and dedicated to winning, it could end up in the streets of America yet again and with more frequency. And while I will fully defend the right of anyone to offer a dissenting opinion, I think that we should clearly think about and understand what giving up on the war could mean and what the consequences of surrendering this fight could lead to in this country...perhaps not tomorrow, but far into the future. Had we given up in WWII, what would that future...today...have left for us?

Let us stay the course and fight for freedom on any battlefield necessary in order to preserve our way of life, including the option of dissent. Give war a chance.