2003 Column Archives
Wrong When Right
By John Sammon
May 4, 2003, 15:19

It’s humorous that flag-waving pro-war proponents, some of whom think wrestling on TV is real; also think they’ve been proven right by the outcome of the war. They now expect those against it to eat crow. As usual in such cases (Murphy’s Law), the war if anything, raised more questions than it answered. 

Instead of eating crow, those against are more against than they were before.

First of all, whether a war goes bad or good doesn’t prove who’s right. Whichever way events go, they could have just as easily gone the other way.

If Iraq was such a threat to the world, how come our forces rolled over them in 18 days? Why weren’t weapons of mass destruction used? Thank God they weren’t, but why not? The Iraqis had at least a year to prepare.

And no, abandoned barrels of mustard gas lying in a field doesn’t make Iraq a threat to the world.

Bush is acting like everything is now hunky-dory, it’s all settled. It’s a happy ending.

Despite the total unknown whether the government we set up in Iraq will work.

Despite the back-alley guerilla Palestinian-like war that is even now starting (on the day Bush claimed combat over, American soldiers were hit with grenades from an unknown attacker).

Despite the fact it’s unknown how long a million of our troops will remain in Iraq.

Despite the fact that driving off the Republican Guard was only “Phase One” of the struggle. A much more difficult type of war is ruling a country in turmoil and winning the hearts and minds of a multi-ethnic hostile society.

International terrorism has not been defeated and never will be by a conventional war and occupation of territory. Terrorism is mobile, able to reshape itself and reappear elsewhere. We need to combat it in a more imaginative guise than the old-fashioned World War Two-way of occupying space, tying down a million troops.

Whoopee Dee! We can go back to business as usual and forget about Iraq. We won.

According to polls, most Americans don’t care that weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. Why not? It’s my country, right or wrong, right?

Until weapons of mass destruction are found, Bush will focus instead on the political aspect of bringing freedom to Iraq.

Despite the fact that China, our big trading buddy, is run by criminals who are numero uno in the Guinness Book of Records for slaughtering people. Bush never calls them war criminals like he does Iraq. How come? North Korea? We’re going to seek a diplomatic solution, because we don’t want to anger China. They’d take longer to beat than 18 days.

Double standards go on and on.

Might makes right, right?

Look at the list of countries where we’ve intervened over the past 15 years, a who’s-who of the poorest in the world, places where a refrigerator is considered a miracle, Somalia, Grenada, Afghanistan. You’ve got to be really poor, with no air force or navy, for us to take you on.

We attacked, for the first time in our history (save Grenada), another country first, based on the supposition they might do something bad.

Now Bush is proposing a hefty tax cut, at the same time he’s running up an $800 billion war, occupation and rebuild-Iraq bill. Is he nuts? Does he need to be confined to a rubber room? No. This tactic is clear. The tax cut is a bald-face appeal to voters in a reelection year, kind of a similar spin on Dad’s read-my-lips-no-new-taxes false pledge. Bush will leave the bills when they come due to his successor.