The Battle's Won,
But Not The War

by Michael Sammons

Oh Captain! My Captain! Our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won.

                                                            —Walt Whitman

On Monday, July 29, 2003, Reuters news service reported that yet another U.S. soldier was killed in Baghdad. In case you’ve not been counting, that brought the number of U.S. troops killed in action since major combat in Iraq was declared over on May 1, to the harrowing sum of (brace yourself) 50.

Ever since the morning of April 9 when Americans saw on television the toppling of Saddam statues and the defacing of posters, murals and billboards bearing the tyrant’s image, the U.S. has suffered an average of 1 military death per diem. Crazy, is not it? And we thought this war was over. Well, apparently it’s not.

Some might say we should have expected something like this. War ain’t easy. And in a place as confused and corrupted as Iraq, we should have expected that things would be, to say the least, difficult.

History has told us that combat is only half of what the act of going to war entails. After all the fighting, the victor who just leaves the scene will prove to be remiss. There is an inherent obligation in victory. While
there’s no universal authority to say it’s got to be that way, as humans, we’ve managed to build up our morals and our sense of ethics in such a way that we feel obliged to help the less fortunate among us.

If you’ve ever won a fistfight, then you’ve felt at least some small fraction of remorse for the adversary you’ve just conquered. As seems to happen most often, two
former foes become great friends, each party respecting the vigor and courage of the other.

There’s a lot to admire about the Iraqi people. To maintain an existence amid poverty and seemingly hopeless oppression, as most Iraqis have done, is
a trait to be admired to no end. But the loss of one American every day -- is it worth it? Probably not.

The problem here, however, is that we can’t just pull out -- not yet. The U.S. would look like a milquetoast if it just packed up and went back home. We’ve little choice but to stick around until order is established in Iraq.

Furthermore, while the loss of even one U.S. citizen is terrible, what President Bush needs to do right now is to send in more soldiers and step up the effort to stabilize things there. What we’re dealing with in Iraq is nothing short of guerrilla warfare, and it simply cannot be allowed to win. If it does, we will have to descend upon Baghdad again. No one wants that.

However, I think it’s safe to say that what everyone does want, is that we find those fiends who’ve caused us so much trouble. Bush needs to find Saddam, Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. Oh, and what about those weapons of mass destruction? The Bush camp has jumped around the weapons issue for too long now. We want some proof, even if it doesn’t matter so much anymore. Well, mark my words, those WMD wont stay MIA for too long. They will be found.

But, until our great Captain succeeds in finding and dealing with the evildoers, he will continue to struggle with the possibility of losing our support. The death of Saddam’s sons has won the President some time, but not much.

Soon enough, we’ll all be calling on the Chief. Can’t you just hear it now? I can. The entire nation, perhaps in unison, “Oh Captain! Our Captain! When will this fearful trip be done?”

----

Why More American Troops Should Not Die in Foreign Lands
A respectful response to
The Battle's Won, But Not The War.

by Thom White

There's a famous quotation in which Dean Acheson described American intervention in Vietnam thusly: "It is worse than immoral. It's a mistake."

Such can equally be said about the USA's conquest of Iraq in 2003. Mr. Sammons' main point appears to be that more Americans should be sent over to 'pacify' Iraq and to make manifest for all who love or despise our nation that, once America undertakes something, we don't quit.

Should we sacrifice a generation of American youth to the uncertainties of foreign wars that make the nation no safer? Shall we blindly offer up more American blood to the Patriot's Altar and charge further in search of phantom rewards? Do we commit more young lives to this endeavor even if their efforts succeed an invasion based on fraudulent threats, televised misinformation, and total disregard for former American principles of national sovereignty?

If this be an immoral invasion, with a foundation of falsehood and phony fears -- and of course, the indispensable ingredient, short-sighted greed -- how can we have a moral occupation?

But morality is irrelevant in post-modern, post-Christian times like these, and self-reflection has been a touchy subject in America since the terror murders of 2001. Americans are more interested in the bottom line of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those more inclined by the economic consequences ($$$) of American hegemony in Iraq ought to know that every day of occupation is DRAINING wealth from Americans. Iraq will never be a profitable venture.

It is not as if the Iraqis are paying any tribute to Americans. The deal is simply: we conquer, they become our dependents. Wealth is on a one-way trip from the US Treasury (we, the working people's money) to Iraq, and back into the military-industrialists' bank accounts scattered across the globe.

The ONLY people who benefit are countries & companies directly involved in making money off Iraq. Everyone else in America, living their own peaceful lives, PAYS for the army that must occupy. Yes, WE have to pay the $4 billion a month. This isn't funny money and, one way or another, the transnational banks who created this money, and who have no intrinsic loyalty to Americans, are going to demand its return.

In order to pay off these debts over the next decade, the U.S. government will likely print more money (like after the Vietnam intervention went bust), create massive inflation, drive down the value of the dollar, and make economic affairs in the USA a real pain in the ass for everyone, especially for those who had bothered to save. Their paper money will soon be worth peanuts on the dollar.

An anonymous mind in a news forum described succintly how this operation is wasting our money:

In 2001 the United States economy consumed ~19.4 million barrels of oil per day. At the current price of ~$25 that comes to a shade over 177 billion dollars spent on oil in the United States. Now, of that oil a little over half is imported. Of the half that is imported about one quarter comes from the Middle East. (Over half of our imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.)

So, we taxpayers funded a military to the tune of ~279 billion dollars in order to protect "business interests" that only amounts to ~23 billion dollars to the U.S.? Do you consider that wise? Whose investment are we protecting here?

I should add to this that President Bush has proposed a 'defense' budget of 343 billion dollars for the next budget. That's not a typo, that's over a third of a trillion dollars.

We don't need to "abandon" our business interests in the region, but the risk posed by those investments should be borne by those reaping the profits, not the U.S. taxpayer.

American taxpayers are now going to spend over $50 billion per annum to 'rule' Iraq. Along with the young servicemen losing limbs and lives, the Iraq folly could bankrupt our already debt-ridden economic system. This potential outcome is little considered by Americans of today but, for those who read between the lines of government-controlled information seeping from the warzone, this unfolding episode has already made clear why we should never have soiled ourselves with wealth-draining, immoral empire.

-----

A Final Rejoinder
Forget not the horrors of Saddam.

by M. Sammons

While it's true that the mission in Iraq practically begs for moral scrutiny, it seems that Mr. White has failed to see that it's simply too late to question the effort. It's done. The train's left the station... and this train keep a rollin' all night long.

Too, it's true that the mission is costing us. Everything costs. Nothing comes easy. White, however, contradicts himself when he looks at the economic factors involved in the Iraq occupation. White sees that a large part of the war and the continuing occupation is the result of greed. By "greed" I assume that White is referring to the Benjamins that seem to
almost attach themselves to the ol' black gold.

It's clear that by conquering Iraq and taking over every part of that country involved in the production and distribution of oil, the U.S. economy will benefit.
Presently, gasoline is going for anywhere between $1.48 and $2.00 per gallon. It seems like good policy to look for a way to abate some of that cost for Americans. Now, enough about the economic ramifications of the occupation.

White must understand that it's pointless to continue the debate. What White's article did was find what White thought were flaws in the government's Iraq policy. That's no great accomplishment. Most people see that this is a money-driven, testosterone-fueled pissing contest between Bush and the rest of the globe. And, in my last article, I in no way suggested that more American lives be lost in this mission. But, what needs to be done must be done. And we can't bail out right now, despite what Mr. McCain recently said about the mission.

It seems unlikely that Iraq will ever be a real democracy, nor ever on par with America and other first-world countries. But we're there now and our work is cut out for us. Every suffering or slain American counts. But so too every other person in the world, including Iraqis. If for no other reason than that we've disposed of a tyrant, an evil, torturing, murdering, shameless, perverted, and all around bad tyrant, we did, in fact, have a reason to engage Iraq.

People, average human beings, were suffering in Iraq. The media continues to report that the Iraqi people aren't happy with the way things are going at the moment in their country. Reports of Iraqis saying things like, "Things were better under Saddam" are often heard by Americans. However, no matter how you look at it, the disposal of an oppressive dictator is a good thing, and the Iraqis will soon realize that once the dregs of those brainwashed Saddam supporters have finally died off, or at least, fucked off.

In case you've forgotten, allow these Saddam-sponsored atrocites to remind you of how bad things once were for the Iraqi people:

Wikipedia: Human Rights Violations in Iraq

----

Reader Comments

Mr. Sammons is missing the point I'm afraid. It really isn't that difficult to make out but for some, brainstorming to the point of confusion becomes ritual. One word to support opposition to his main focus of demonizing Saddam, and that word is Sanctions.

Nothing about sanctions against Iraq in the past decade has been mentioned here. No talk about the atrocities done by the U.S. Government against Iraq after the first onslaught of bombings. No mention of how because of sanctions there has been lack of anesthesia in hospitals, where limbs have had to be sawed off. And that in these hospitals deformed babies have been and continue to be born with cancers due to depleted uranium with a half life of over 4 billion years, while diseases and illnesses due to lack of clean water are killing people by the thousands. No mention of how the first war absolutely destroyed the country's infrastructure.

Iraq is full of poison, famine and disease now. It's easy for you, Sammons, to say, "no matter how you look at it," because you are looking at it from a two-dimensional perspective. The Unites States is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children under the age of five. Go ahead. You be the judge. But you might want to do your homework first, or simply gain a conscience.

                                  -- Andrea Marshall, New York, NY

Citizine Home