January 13, 2006
View From Lodi, CA:
Would Bush Rather Save Lives In Iraq – Or Save Face?
By Joe Guzzardi
Mention the
War in Iraq to anyone and watch him shake his head.
People over the
age of seven know that the course in Iraq chosen and
pursued without veering one inch by President Bush will
ultimately cost the lives of ever more Americans and
Iraqis.
And, worst of all, the war will
achieve
next to nothing…if even that.
From December 15th, the
date of the still undecided election in Iraq, through
January 11th, 498 Iraqis and 54 Americans
were killed.[Attack
at Iraq Police Celebration Kills 29, Associated
Press, January 9, 2006
And since the war began in 2003,
the Department of Defense has
confirmed 2,210 U.S. deaths.
Is
Bush aware, as most Americans are, that more deaths
are futile? What goes through Bush’s mind, I ask myself
over and again, when he
hears those body counts? Is Bush completely inured
to the mounting death toll? Do the deaths of young
American men and women mean less to him than saving
face?
Judge for yourself by watching a
CBS News video of Bush’s address to the World Affairs
Council in Philadelphia on December here:
Bush: 30,000 Iraqis Killed In War
When a reporter asked Bush for his
estimate of Iraqi casualties, Bush replied:
"I would say 30,000 more or
less have died as a result of the initial incursion and
the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about
2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."
I watched the tape several times; I urge you to do the same. Bush
appears matter-of-fact, indifferent and detached. What
Bush does not seem is caring or concerned.
Maybe Bush keeps everything inside. But if you ask me, Bush’s grief and
anguish should have been visible in his response. How
about a comment that began with, "My heart goes
out to the families of everyone who has lost a loved
one…"
In a way, Bush has gotten what he asked for. Do you remember his July
2003 challenge to Iraqi insurgents to, "Bring
them on"?
Apparently, they listened. American soldiers are locked into a no-win
battle against insurgents. The deaths have no end in
sight.
Bush is a strange and frightening man who takes
council from no one. He ignored warnings from the State
Department about postwar insurgencies. And Bush
disregarded information from the Central Intelligence
Agency and the governments of England, Germany and
France that indicated Iraq never sought uranium from
Niger. [French
Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence, Los Angeles
Times, December 11, 2005]
As for Bush’s promise that the U.S. would
hunt down Osama bin Laden and capture him
"dead or alive", that’s a long-ago dashed
dream.
Bin Laden, the symbol of the War on Terror, most likely enjoys sanctuary
from Afghans in Pakistan, where he is considered a hero.
For the dwindling number of Americans who still support the way in which
Bush handles the war, even they can't be pleased
about its cost.
A news item released over the
Christmas holiday may have escaped the attention of
many. According to a
report, Nobel prize winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz a Columbia University economics
professor, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University budget
expert, say the Iraq war will ultimately cost
between $1 and $2 trillion.
Stiglitz and Bilmes write that the U.S. government continues
(purposely?) to understate Iraq’s total cost.
In his syndicated VDARE.COM
column, Paul Craig Roberts, an Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, stated
that Stiglitz and Bilmes underestimated the war’s
cost.
This is the same U.S. government that belittled Bush’s economic advisor
Larry Lindsey when he suggested that the war would cost
Americans $200 billion. The White House insisted
instead that Iraqi oil reserves would pay not only for
the war but for the country’s subsequent reconstruction.
Since it is unlikely that neither American citizensn or 2006
Congressional candidates will tolerate Bush’s do-nothing
game plan too much longer,
now is the time to change course.
Writing in the January 8th Washington Post, former
national security advisor to president
Jimmy Carter,
Zbigniew Brzezinski,
recommends in his column, "The Real Choice in
Iraq," that Bush
"break out of his
political cocoon,"
"widen his
circle of advisors,"
and "redefines,"
the goals in Iraq with the intention of
"disengagement" by the
end of 2006. [The
Real Choice in Iraq," Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Washington Post, January 8, 2006]
Brzezinski’s point is that American’s real choice in
Iraq is not "hang in
and win" or "quit
and lose." Instead, Brzezinski claims that the
options are "persist
but not win" or "desist
but not lose."
Winning, as defined by Bush, is not
attainable. Therefore, persisting in the status quo
mode is useless.
But ending the war by
December 2006, especially as the Iraqis are making
noises that they want us out, is the right and honorable
thing to do. [Top
US Commander Admits Iraqis Want Foreign Troops Out,
Morocco Times, December 26, 2005)
Most importantly,
exiting Iraq will save
American and Iraqi lives.
Joe Guzzardi [email
him], an instructor in English
at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly
column since 1988. It currently appears in the
Lodi News-Sentinel.
