Copyrights reserved by the author. If you are in doubt, please click on 'Copyrights' and read the details.How long can one believe a changing reason for war? By J. G. Fabiano I am confused. Like most of us across the nation we are confused because the reason we went to war in Iraq changes as soon as the previous reason can no longer hold any credibility. We are told we should not go back into the past because the real problem is the present that will define the future. But if the present is perpetually changing does it mean the future will also change or is it the same future our government decided it would be from the beginning of our past. Let me attempt to explain. I have to admit I was over taken by the information our intelligence community gave us on the problem of Iraq and why that nation with its leader, Saddam was a danger to our nation. We were told Iraq was amassing large quantities of weapons of mass destruction they would use against us including nuclear weapons. Right after 9/11 most of us wanted and needed revenge against anyone who dared attack our home. At that time we were also told Iraq had an al Qaeda connection so why shouldn't we go to war with a nation that attacked us. So we went to war and this war went very well. Our military did a wonderful job in toppling a government that wanted to topple us. We swept through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. Our President was seen on an aircraft carrier clearly telling his nation that the mission was accomplished. But, then reality swept into our television sets and the idea the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators simply did not happen. The search for weapons of mass destruction turned up nothing and the first morph of the policy to go to war in the first place began. The real reason we went to war was not to overthrow Saddam because of weapons of mass destruction. We went to war to overthrow Saddam because he was a tyrannical leader who was literally killing his own people. It was also said he was an important part of the 9/11 attacks because of his direct ties with al Qaeda. Many across the country took this explanation as fact and continued to support our government's explanation of why it was important to send our children into war with the possibility of never seeing them again. We were, after all, the moral authority of the world and when we saw tyranny we had to do something about it. But, then we started to watch Iraqi men, women, and children who had nothing to do with the past government of Iraq die. The morphing of why we went to war evolved into another scene that defined the reason we went to war was to bring democracy into the region. How could we argue about that? If Iraq mirrored our system of freedom and democracy we were told it was obvious the entire region would want to do the same. The al Qaeda connection also proved to be false. Since al Qaeda is fundamentalist and Iraq was secular they were natural enemies. It is now a known fact that Bin Laden wanted the overthrow of Saddam almost as much as President Bush did. The morphing continued. Elections passed and a new government was formed. For a little, a very little time, this explanation for a war seemed to be functional. But, then it became obvious the sectarian violence between factions of the Moslem world would overwhelm any attempt at unification under the banner of western democracy. With hindsight this now seems obvious considering they have been fighting each other since the year 400. The morphing of our policy toward this war continued by having our government promise that as soon as the Iraqi military and police stand up to this violence our young men and women can step down and come home. This strategy seemed to be functional for a very short period of time because the violence continued to a point our president opted to not send his young citizens home but rather to surge more into the region. You see the new explanation as to why we went to war no longer included the overthrow of a dictator or the democratization of the area. The policy morph now states we can't leave the region because if we did it would put the entire region into civil war. A civil war our leaders refuse to admit but warn us against. They also state that if we left the region al Qaeda would follow us to our home. They would terrorize us even though we are supposed to have the greatest military in the world. We are told if we left Iraq massive carnage would take place and we would be held responsible. We are told to forget all the explanations for war that was told to us because that was the past and we have to be responsible for the future. Vice-president Cheney tells us that we do not understand what is really going on and we have to trust their judgments. I, like many, take offense by that statement. I do not consider myself or my fellow citizens as not having the capacity to understand policies. I do have the capacity to understand what happened in the past in order to make judgments on what should happen in the future. I am confused. Like most of us across the nation we are confused because the reason we went to war in Iraq changes as soon as the previous reason can no longer hold any credibility. The question I have is why we should continue to believe in this newest morphed explanation when all other explanations proved to be false. The End.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
