OPINION & EDITORIAL
America must stay the course
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert Thelen III:
Related Stories:
- Column distorts troop funding bill (April 11, 2007)
- Despite commonly held belief, Iraq-Vietnam comparisons don't add up (August 31, 2007)
- Insurgents fueled by U.S. policy (October 3, 2006)
- Referendum fair gauge of opinion (March 30, 2006)
- Lessons from Fallujah's catastrophe (November 11, 2004)
by Robert Thelen III
Thursday, September 23, 2004
As the war in Iraq begins to drag on and the death toll surpasses 1,000, some people are beginning to question our long-term involvement and deployment in Iraq. Many anti-war activists point to the chaos in Fallujah and Sadr City, using it as an example of why the war in Iraq was wrong in the first place and why it is a mistake to continue our operations there. These individuals are near-sighted and do not see the big picture: Iraq is at the forefront of the war on terror.
Doubtlessly, some out there are rolling their eyes and are thinking that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism, but they are wrong. Although the connections between Saddam and al Qaeda are blurred, recent homicidal bombings in Baghdad and Fallujah have the calling cards of al Qaeda, which has taken responsibility for many of them. In the past year and a half, Iraq has become a magnet for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the region. Hundreds if not thousands of insurgents have entered Iraq from Syria, Lebanon and beyond, and the U.S. military and Iraqi police force are fighting them in the streets of Iraq. Why did bin Laden give Spain, Italy and Poland an ultimatum to get out of Iraq? It is because that is where the fight against terror has gone. Our greatest threat to life and liberty is now in the heart of Iraq, and we must make every effort to disarm and discourage them from committing attacks against our interests, which now include Iraq.
Thankfully the terrorists are no longer fighting in New York against innocent people. This time they are in Iraq up against our Marines, the way it should be. Fallujah and Baghdad have become the battleground in the war on terror, and here our technological superiority is negated by the close confines of urban warfare and innocent bystanders. U.S. Marines are dying in Fallujah because of the run and gun, cowardly homicidal bombing technique of al Qaeda and its followers.
The terrorists have no problem killing 22 innocent Iraqi children in a school bus or dozens of innocent market-goers in order to kill and wound a couple U.S. soldiers. This is because al Qaeda is fighting a media campaign and with some, it is working. Al Qaeda and their Ba’athist accompanists are trying to invoke the “Somalia response” from the American public. This refers to the death of 16 U.S. service members in Mogadishu, Somalia, and the American public’s quick cry for a complete withdrawal from the region, which happened in the following months. The key to the Somalia Response is the American public. The terrorists know that with every GI killed and wounded, America will lose some resolve, and the terrorists figure that sooner or later we will give in. Al Qaeda knows they do not have the resources to beat the U.S. military in a face-to-face battle (see Afghanistan), so they are going to attack a force far more powerful and fickle than any military: our public opinion. Public opinion is a dynamic creature, and it drives public policy. If the war becomes unpopular, if the American public loses its stomach, then the troops will be withdrawn and the U.S. will lose credibility in the region. Their technique is reliant upon a low number of high fatality bombings, which rip through the media’s headlines and create doubt in the mind of the average American.
The war on terror is being fought in Iraq against the same group that killed 3,000 in America Sept. 11, 2001. Although the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda were weak before the invasion last year, there is no doubt they have been responsible for multiple mass murders in recent months. The battle has been taken to them, and we must win and stay the course until we do so. Osama bin Laden knows the importance of Iraq, and so must we. More Americans will lose their lives in the war against terror, but their sacrifices must not be in vain. Many things are feared in the Middle East, and democracy is one of them. Totalitarian governments and extremists have much to lose in a system of government that favors the welfare of the many. We must stay the course in Iraq as long as it takes to create a strong self-governing democracy, and we cannot let Al Qaeda’s media techniques cause us to lose our resolution.
Robert Thelen III (rthelen@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and business.
Josiah (September 23, 2004 @ 5:41am):
Your article is all well and good, but had this situation been accounted for, perhaps the job in Iraq would not be what it is today.
I think we are seeing the effects of bad assumptions about not only our enemies, but what will lead us to victory. Are we to believe that the only way to defeat terror is to wait it out? Your moot point that the war on terror front has moved to Iraq is obvious to everyone, however your argument for continuing on the present course is not very convincing.
Fact is, we need the UN community to help fight the global problem of terror. From the beginning, Bush has not been able to recognize that and by downplaying diplomacy, law and order, he has taken power away from states and given terrorists the power to be not only successful, but also influential. In other words, has the Iraqi invasion in its present form made the world safer? Does holding the world at the brink of war every time there is a terrorist attack make terrorists more or less powerful?
By ceding the authority of nations to form treaties, negotiate, and work together, Bush has become a willing partner in the jihad (it takes two to tango) thus giving it an authority of its own.
So your reasoning for supporting Bush on Iraq is becoming more and more vague. In a battle between civilization and terrorist, civilization has the upperhand in the form of rules, laws, and order (although Bush/Cheney seem to despise this powerful arsenal). Unfortunately to many people, the loss of control of Iraq, doesn't do much to convince them that we are winning the war on terror. It leaves the US in a position of begging for support or continuing in a stubborn refusal to admit it was wrong and change its course. Either way, the terrorist can notch up a point. Do you really believe that terrorists don't actually want a war? Basically, we are giving them exactly what they want.
The only hint of pulling out of Iraq, has been given by the Bush administration not by Kerry. I would like to direct everyone to an article by Robert Novak (you may remember him from the story about ambassador Joesph Wilson's wife).
Quick Exit from Iraq
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Perhaps, you should seriously consider who you really support when you talk of staying the course in Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq is not an option, but changing the dynamic of the war on terror is essential.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 12:04pm):
"The key to the Somalia Respone is the American pubic."
For God's sake, pin this story to your editor's desk with the offending word highlighted. Something like that should not be lived down easily.
On second thought, pin one to your desk to. Freudian slips like that should not be lived down easily either.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 12:22pm):
"this time they are in Iraq up against our Marines, the way it should be...U.S. Marines are dying in Fallujah because of the run and gun, cowardly homicidal bombing technique of al Qaeda and its followers."
What a demented sense of honor you have, Mr. Thelen. After all, that's what Marines are for, isn't it? To be sent into hot zones to be killed in cowardly fashion. Just like you say, "the way it should be".
I'm sure there are a few indiginous cultures that feel that WE are quite cowardly for using the "technological superiority" you cite to bomb the s*** out of THEIR great and noble military with run-and-gun air tactics.
"protecting our interests in Iraq..." WHAT interests? I thought that months ago we were berating the sheer nerve of the French for having business dealings with Saddam for oil. Now, all of a sudden, OUR creation of future business interests in Iraq is honorable and right because we spent billions of dollars and over a thousand lives supplanting a stable, but brutal, government for an unstable, appointed government that can't even police it's own country?
"The war on terror is being fought in Iraq against the same group that killed 3000 in America Sept. 11 2001." Wrong. There may or not be Al Qaeda involved. If you wanted to prove there were, give some evidence. You gave none. What we ARE fighting in Iraq now are disenfranchised Sunnis, fanatic Shiite clerics and their followers (Mohammed Al-Sadr comes to mind), and, yes, terrorists that may well come from many other groups than solely Al Qaeda. There is no one bad guy. And that one bad guy will never go away.
If we buckle down to the point that we seek to eliminate ALL terrorists in ALL parts of the world, we could only achieve this by restricting ALL areas of human existence. (Otherwise, there'd always be a window of opportunity.) Last time I checked, that's called fascism. Not freedom.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 12:40pm):
Last time I checked there wasn't any evidence linking any Baathists to 9-11. I live in NYC and no, I do not feel any safer walking the streets knowing that we will "stay the course" in Iraq. I am more concerned with some splinter cell blowing up my 70 story office building that I work in.
Jeff (September 23, 2004 @ 1:45pm):
In all, I thought this article was nothing more than poorly worded rhetoric. "Staying the course" in Iraq? Are you kidding me? Things are getting worse over there! There are areas now where our troops won't even venture (to protect the U.S. death toll until the election). Sure, now we KNOW that there are terrorists in these regions, but we aren't doing anything about them! Regardless of who you are voting for, SOMETHING has to change.....
Next time you should try doing a little more research and try a little harder to hide how clouded your vision is about what is actually happening in Iraq.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 1:49pm):
I totally agree with Robert Thelen III's viewpoint that, although Al-Qaeda was not involved in Iraq prior to the US invasion, they are present now; therefore, we must remain steadfast in our war on terror.
By this reasoning, I think we should invade Syria, Iran, North Korea, and the Sudan. Although Al-Qaeda may not have any current direct links with these countries, they sure will after we invade.
I also think we should reinstate the draft: conservative college journalists should get first priority to defend freedom by serving in various infantry divisions in the aforementioned places......
Honest Johnson (September 23, 2004 @ 2:06pm):
You can argue that we should "lure" terrorists who would otherwise attack New York into Iraq, so they can kill our soldiers (who aren't trained to deal with these sort of attacks, and are often national guardsmen, but hey, YOU don't have to worry about it). You can also argue that we should stay the course and try to build a more stable and hopefully democratic Iraq.
You should note, though, that these arguments don't easily coexist. Which is it?
We created the damn mess ourselves. What's more likely, that Saddam would be involved in a terrorist plot on our soil, or that the variety of radical groups that currently occupy the "no-go" zones in Iraq will?
Sara Gittings (September 23, 2004 @ 2:45pm):
Just as the war appears to be dragging on, along with it goes some more useless macho man rhetoric from the right.
First off, if horrific acts of daily violence initiated by the acts of bad foriegn policy from the most powerful nation in the free world isn't cause to question the legitimacy of the war, I don't know what is.
And while it is true that Iraq is now "at the forefront of the war on terror", I see more than a coincidence in the fact that rungs of terrorist insurgants started showing up there approximatly the same time we pre-emptively invaded with the support of a misled majority of Americans. It doesn't take much to find a cause and effect relationship here. You can thank your president for the magnet of terrorism.
As for credibility lost in Iraq if we pull troops, I have to laugh. In the last year and a half the credibility of the U.S. has disintegrated in the world's view, and naturally, if I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't hold the troops that bombed my house and my neighbors' homes in an attempt to get at a few suspected terrorists in high esteem either.
What I found most troubling about this article, which is simply watered-down rhetoric borrowed from the President's speeches in March of last year after our military FAILING (see Afghanistan and the yet uncaptured Osama bin Laden), are the sections thanking the heavens that all of this terrible bloodshed is overseas, as if the many thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in this politically motivated quagmire are worth the sacrifice if Americans can still sleep at night because it wasn't their house that was blown up.
As for Americans dying in vain, one should first look to the President as an example. He has attended zero services for any of the 1000+ troops who volunteered their lives for his lies. Talk is cheap, and asking Americans to simply "stay the course" isn't working anymore.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 3:03pm):
"Staying the course" must work, otherwise we will be weaker in the world's view and open game for terror.
Freedom Fighter (September 23, 2004 @ 3:05pm):
We must stay the course for the good the world!
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 3:13pm):
Mr. Thelen is absolutely right in asserting that the war in Iraq is part of a much larger picture and essential component in the grander scheme that is America's war on terror. We must not constrain our ability to react by abiding to absurdly narrow definitions of terror. The truth is stark and simple: terror is anyone, anywhere, willing to act against American interests by killing civilians. This encompasses the lowliest al Qaeda minion, as well as "statesmen" and dictators who give comfort to these unsavory elements. To divert from the course now would be to surrender to an enemy that makes no distinctions between civilian and military. We Americans must reconcile ourselves to these truths and adhere to a proactive policy rather than frantically searching for a way to stick our heads in the sand.
The Wookiee (September 23, 2004 @ 3:20pm):
Mr. Thelen has it absolutely right. To turn back now would be to surrender to an enemy that doesn't know surrender itself. Indeed, the only way to win the war on terror is to eliminate almost entirely the terrorist cells, which the administration is seeking to do. We must be proactive, rather than seeking to stick our heads in the sand.
Respect (September 23, 2004 @ 3:24pm):
"but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful."
Apparently some people chose not to follow directions. Although some comments posted here obviously have a genuine desire to express points and respectfully disagree (or agree), most seem to be vague, unplanned and spiteful responses designed to personally attack Mr. Thelen and not his opinions.
"A demented sense of humour", "useless macho man rhetoric", "try a little harder to hide your clouded vision"... just a few lines that clearly show how emotions can get the best of people and how actually thinking about what you want to say is much more effective than running to the keyboard and spouting out your own rhetoric in a fit of opinionated rage.
This being said, several of the posters made excellent points to the contrary of Mr. Thelen and that's what having a response section is all about. However, if you want an exit point for your frustration and a chance to personally attack someone whose ideas differ from yours, you came to the wrong place.
Anonymous (September 23, 2004 @ 3:52pm):
The world is a safer, better place without Saddam leading Iraq. Period, end of story!
And, for all of you nagging and whining about all the problems just remember, this is not the first time the US has liberated a country. Two pretty good examples are Germany and Japan who just so happen to be two of the world's richest and most successful economies. Good thing we didn't pull out of there after only 1 1/2 years. In fact, we still have military bases in each country today. Huh, go figure...
Jon (September 23, 2004 @ 4:33pm):
Have fun helping "to stay on course" first hand when Bush reinstitutes the draft after he's re-elected. How else would we "stay on course" when we don't have nearly enough troops to do all the things that Bush wants to do.
Bob (September 23, 2004 @ 4:43pm):
Jon - That is fear mongering if I have ever seen it. The only politician to mention the word Draft is a Democratic congressman from New York. The Pentagon has no place for conscripts and largely prefers volunteers. You are using fear and lies to try to scare the students of this campus to vote a certain way. There will be no draft and to say otherwise without at least ONE source from the President or ANYONE from the Pentagon is just a deceitful lie.
Josiah (September 24, 2004 @ 1:53am):
"The world is a safer, better place without Saddam leading Iraq. Period, end of story!"
How? It must be a great story, you can find it in the fantasy section of your local library.
Oh yes, the mocking caveat (perhaps, this will explain his/her assertion):
"And, for all of you nagging and whining about all the problems just remember, this is not the first time the US has liberated a country. Two pretty good examples are Germany and Japan who just so happen to be two of the world's richest and most successful economies. Good thing we didn't pull out of there after only 1 1/2 years. In fact, we still have military bases in each country today. Huh, go figure..."
Um, I don't see how we liberated those countries, they were decimated and wanted us there. We didn't enter WWII until we were attacked, provoked. Our purpose for rebuilding Germany and Japan was money. Big profits. I guess in that sense, the "liberation" of Iraq could be similar. Perhaps if we are lucky, we will have a base in Iraq too, because someone has got to guard all of that beau-ti-ful black oil.
Did Saddam attack us? Was he going to? Who provoked us? Alas, it would appear that these questions, merely mount to whining to you so I will take a different direction of argument. Should we believe the 9/11 commission report that found no evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Because you know, the 9/11 report found no evidence that Bush was involved in 9/11 either. Huh, go figure...
Here is a fun point that many of you hawks will enjoy. It has to do with the media coverage of Iraq. Perhaps, the media (this includes you, btw, Robert Thielen III) would be better able to provide progress reports in Iraq if there were some measurable or defined outcomes. Instead, the American public has only one way to judge success, when terrorism is defeated. Because of this lofty expectation it is natural that attacks would grab headlines, I mean, isn't that why we are there, to stop the attacks? This has nothing to do with bias in the media, but it has everything to do with Bush's effectiveness as a leader (Robert, feel free to write your next article about the positives in Iraq, just a warning though, if I hear about another school opening in Iraq, I am going to puke).
Bob (September 24, 2004 @ 10:06am):
Do you have a problem with 1100 schools opening in Iraq, 300 Hospitals remodeled, clean food and water to everyone...not just Sunnis, and a constitution that gives people rights, instead of being tourchered for believing something different than Saddam? Your right, no progress.
Anonymous (September 24, 2004 @ 11:38am):
Josiah,
To say Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the world is totally naive. I was in Kuwait after he invaded his neighbor. I have again been in Iraq after we liberated the Iraqis from his hold. I've seen what this man did to his own people. I've also seen the way the average Iraqi looks at the soldiers I lead and I can tell you they are happy we liberated them. Now that I am back in the states I can understand why you think things are so bad over there because all you see on the news is the attacks in one area of the country. Of course there are problems as there are with every conflict I've been involved in, but we are winning...don't doubt that. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad the Americans are there. Yes, they want us to leave, but not before they can feel safe from the savages you seem to think were caused by President Bush. These savages are the same people that continue to keep the vast majority of the Middle East in the dark ages. The same people that killed my brothers in Beirut 20 years ago, killed fellow airmen in Kobar Towers after the Persian Gulf war, and yes the same killers that ATTACKED the US on 11 Sep 01. I personally don't care if Saddam and Bin Laden were working together. But that mentality is what we are destroying every time we kill another radical and every time we open another school.
I remember fondly my days as a Madison student. I enjoyed debating world events with Democrats and Republicans. But, reality hit me in the face once I joined the military. You can live in your idealistic "fantasy world" where you think the US and President Bush are the enemy, but we have many enemies out there that don't sit a negotiating tables to discuss their problems with us. They just kill! Thank God we have a President that understands this and is willing to act to defend our country.
Oh, and by the way, you mention maybe we will have a military base in Iraq to protect our interests. Well, since you are relatively uninformed, we've had bases in the Middle East for years. And Saddam routinely attacked US and British aircraft protecting the No Fly Zones of Northern and Southern Iraq. Yes, the UN approved Operations SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN WATCH so, in essence, he was attacking the UN. So to say he has not attacked us is just ignorant.
Anonymous (September 24, 2004 @ 8:08pm):
Hey, whoever is the anonymous person above, please e-mail me at rgthelen@badgerherald.com.
Thanks,
Bob
Josiah (September 25, 2004 @ 3:20pm):
To Robert T.,
Thank you for giving the brighter side to Iraq. I have no problem with 1100 schools opening, or 300 hospitals remodeled, etc. I do have a problem with the 22 children mentioned in your article who were killed while riding a bus either to or from SCHOOL. Is this progress? Why don't we concentrate on security. Honest Johnson, put it best, you can't foster democracy in Iraq and make Iraq the front of the War on Terror. No wonder we can't get things straight, the war on terror, under Bush, is a disaster that works against itself. I don't see any clarified goals which is a point you neglected to argue.
To anonymous,
First off, I never claimed Bush was the enemy. I claimed he was an ineffective leader in the war on terror. With that said, let's debate your post.
1. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
A convincing argument in 1991 as to the threat of Saddam. It's 2004, what was he going to invade?
2. " The vast majority of Iraqis are glad the Americans are there. Yes, they want us to leave, but not before they can feel safe from the savages you seem to think were caused by President Bush."
I think this quote is interesting, because I never claimed Bush created savages (btw, Native Americans we called savages to justify taking their land, just a bit of history for you), my critique is that he is doing the right things to stop them, you seem to be arguing a straw man, but like you point out, this isn't the world of Oz. Argue the facts of what Bush has accomplished or at least address my arguments. I hear about schools opening, then see footage of explosions, American deaths, hostages, it makes me want to puke. Electricity is rationed, 4 hours on, 2 hours off. Address and debate my points. Tell me how Bush is doing more than the minimum in the war on terror. Defending America is the first thought of every President, the question is, how are they doing it, is it successful or do I have to wait and ignore what is going on? If you would like to Downplay the CIA's report on Iraq, be my guest. If you want to hail 1100 schools a victory over terrorism, lets make sure kids are not still dying from the attacks.
3. "I personally don't care if Saddam and Bin Laden were working together. But that mentality is what we are destroying every time we kill another radical and every time we open another school."
I am not sure what you mean by this. What mentality? Also, saying it doesn't make it so, I don't see how you are proving this statement. I believe it was Dragnet's Friday who says, "Just the Facts". If you think I am picking on Bush, I want you to know, I voted for him in 2000. Just back up how we are winning, if the 'key' to the war on terror is schools and death, then tell me why. Perhaps this is too much to ask from someone in the real world.
4. "And Saddam routinely attacked US and British aircraft protecting the No Fly Zones of Northern and Southern Iraq. Yes, the UN approved Operations SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN WATCH so, in essence, he was attacking the UN. So to say he has not attacked us is just ignorant."
Well, I am sold. We managed to stop those attacks, the world is much safer.
Anonymous (September 26, 2004 @ 6:29pm):
Robert Thelen - Republican Party hack.
My god, you suck as a writer, you regurgitate the party line on Iraq, you don't know a fucking thing, my god. How do you look at yourself in the morning? Does it hurt your eyes because you're so pathetic?
Worst. Article. Ever.
You fucking suck.
