Now that thousands of American troops have entered Iraq, the face of the war debate has changed. Americans must now show support for the country’s troops, not because they support the war, but because they appreciate the fact that fellow human beings are placing themselves in harm’s way for a war they might not fully support themselves or even understand.
When a country’s top officials make decisions, someone has to execute those decisions, even when they are wrong. The men and women serving in Iraq represent the bravery President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney never had: both men side-stepped their obligation to the United States as young men during the Vietnam War. Bush’s national guard unit was not called to duty, but he took a yearlong leave of absence just in case. And Cheney received multiple deferments so he would never have to stand on the front lines.
The support the country needs to demonstrate for the troops, however, should not be converted into blind jingoism and approval of the Bush administration.
The war’s start does not mitigate the need for its justification. Why the United States is focusing the brunt of its anti-terror efforts on Iraq (suspected terrorists) versus al Qaeda (known terrorists), and why the United States is attacking Iraq (which possibly holds nuclear weapons material) instead of North Korea (which constantly flaunts actual nuclear facilities), are questions the administration has chosen to answer with distracting propaganda rather than satisfactory, specific details.
Bush and Cheney’s own motives have been called into question by suspicious business practices. Halliburton Co., the company whose former chief executive officer was Cheney himself, has been awarded a lucrative contract to rebuild oil refineries in Iraq. Halliburton will not say how much the contract is for, but it’s safe to say business is booming, especially since they were also awarded a contract to rebuild oil refineries after Bush senior’s Persian Gulf War. The two men may be shy about fighting for their country, but they are not shy when corporate interests are at stake.
The only way the United States is projected to end the war and complete its objectives in Iraq is by sending ground troops into Baghdad and moving through urban populations street by street. History indicates urban warfare has one of the highest casualty rates of any type of fighting. And with Hussein’s Republican Guard likely to use chemical and biological weapons on troops who near Baghdad, the war could be more harmful to U.S. forces than the American public expected. The best Americans, Iraqis and even those who oppose the war can hope for is a quick resolution without heavy casualties and with humanitarian aid to help Iraq recover for long after the war is over.
Those who have protested the war from the beginning should not relent: though advocating against war in Iraq seems like a dead issue because the war is already well under way, Bush should not have the satisfaction of a complacent, defeated public. Protesting the war while it is in progress with the same energy as before it started will send a clear message of discontent Bush will have to deal with before starting another war or bidding for reelection.