Have you heard something along these lines from a war hawk? It a common belief. We must 'stay the course' and 'solidify our resolve' and allow more deaths, otherwise all the sacrifices will be in vain.
Perhaps, but what does that then say about Vietnam?
Doesn't that mean that Mr War Hawk believes that our Vietnam soldiers died in vain?
Not a very patriotic thing to say, is it? Why does he hate Vietnam Vets so much, that he thinks their deaths were meaningless? Would he dare say that to a Vietnam War Widow?
Jingoisting recriminations aside, some people need a primer in how peace is made. Peace is not gained through war. It is gained through diplomacy. War is a sometimes necessarry step to set the stage for diplomacy.
There will always be those who says peace can be created with only diplomats. There will also always be those who say it could all have been done with soldiers. Both people are wrong.
Soldiers make war, plain and simple. They can only make peace by completely exterminating the other culture. Diplomats can make peace, but without the backing of soldiers, they have no power.
So what about Iraq? Bush took the wrong approach: he tried to do everything with soldiers. Many people died in the conflict to set the stage for the peace process. Many continue to die. Most US citizens believe that at this point, too many have died.
Bush waited FAR too long before sending in the diplomats. When they finally arrived, they were second rate idealists, unable to speak the language, understand the culture, or comprehend how difficult the task actually was.
So now what's the answer, send MORE troops? Perhaps, but only if they are needed by the diplomats as a part of a coherent plan with realistic goals that enforces peace. I am unconvinced that such a plan exists.
Another option is to pull out now. Allow Iraq to fall into civil war, and let the factions attack each other. Then we can try the diplomatic approach at a later date: when we have a president or congress that understands its power.
Does that mean the soldiers died in VAIN? Of course not. They did what was necessarry to set the stage for future peace. But the time for diplomatic solutions is long past, and the longer we try to do it with brute force, the more people will die. You simply cannot keep aimless soldiers in a hostle population for long: atrocities are inevitable, and they delay peace, which results in even more deaths.
The soldiers will only have died in vain if Bush continues to refuse a coherent diplomatic solution to the problem. Only Bush can prevent peace in Iraq. Only Bush has the power over whether our soldiers die in vain.
At the moment, many families are wondering if Bush will allow their loved ones to have died in vain.
I join them in imploring Bush to not allow that to happen.
