Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Iraq sidetracked our necessary war on terror

Mr. Smith assures us he is no fool. I can only point to his self-professed sources of information, and seeming inability to distill my salient points as evidence to the contrary. I’m also at a loss as to the need to shout support for my brothers in arms whilst opposing the policies of the silver-spoon, draft-dodging, AWOL-from-the-ANG current inhabitant of the oval office. If Mr. Smith wants a copy of my DD 214, I’ll be happy to forward him one.

To repeat, for those of you who mistake blind adherence to presidential directives for patriotism: Invading Iraq has not influenced radical Islam in any way, shape or manner.

Radical Islamists in the form of al Qaeda operatives are the enemy with whom we should be grappling. Having 150,000 troops in Iraq, even if they are just building Habitat For Humanity houses, is a waste of precious resources. A recent paper published by that hotbed of liberalism, the Army War College, draws precisely that conclusion.

We need to find Osama Bin Laden and kill him in a very gruesome way. We need to assure those countries who offer sanctuary to anyone who is planning to attack the U.S. or its interests that we will destroy them and show little interest in re-building them.

Iraq was not a radical Islamic state nor was it giving sanctuary to al Qaeda. It wasn’t a nice place and Saddam was the worst of the worst, but he was not a real threat to us.

William Safire goes on about Libya coming around because we invaded Iraq. Well, he’s probably right, but that doesn’t seem like a great rate of return.

Those 150,000 troops could be combing the Afghan countryside and scouring Western Pakistan to find the real threat, instead of sitting in the shooting gallery around Tikrit.

I know one thing here: The men assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 would be appalled if they could see what has happened.

We have a president invading another country on false pretenses. We have a Congress that failed to ask the right questions or insist on accountability. We have a public so apathetic that they don’t demand straight answers from the man sending their sons into harms way.

We have evidence from Bush’s own former treasury secretary that he was interested, from day one, in the forced military occupation of Iraq; that he seemed not to hear argument to the contrary. We have innuendo from the intelligence community that he ignored intelligence data that seemed to contradict his pre-conceived notions.

This whole business reeks, and the most unpatriotic move we can make is to support it unquestioningly. The military will always do their duty. It is we who have failed them.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.