By TIM MCDONALD
Local Columnist
March 25, 2008 04:58 pm
—
“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.”
— Gen. Omar N. Bradley
•••
Here we are five years after “Shock and Awe” and where exactly are we? Firstly, let me state unequivocally before anyone writes to me questioning my support for the troops or labels me as being unpatriotic that I have nothing but the highest regard and support for our troops. I also currently have one relative and a best friend serving in country.
I listened to President Bush’s recent address about the war and came away thinking that either the man is so convinced that what he is doing is right (which on a certain level is commendable) or he is downright delusional and needs to be removed from office under the provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Incidentally, that requires the signature of the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet.
To call the activities in Iraq anything but nation building would be denying the fact that the reasons for attacking the country were created. No weapons of mass destruction and no Al Qaeda were in Iraq until we arrived and dismissed the Iraqi army.
No, five years on we have spent a total of $608 billion by conservative estimates. That figure translates to nearly $14 million each and every hour of the day. It means that for every 82,000 people in the United States, one service person has paid the ultimate sacrifice.
When does a nation go to war? What are the justifications for invading a sovereign nation?
It comes down to alliances on the one hand and national interest on the other hand. The 1991 Gulf War was a justifiable action as one nation (Iraq) invaded a sovereign nation (Kuwait) that happened to be an ally and national interest of the United States. That was a justifiable use of military force and the world believed so as well as a coalition force was readily assembled.
The Colin Powell Doctrine based upon the Weinberger Doctrine, devised by Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Powell’s former boss. The Powell Doctrine serves as a logical barometer for making the decision to go to war.
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States. They are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
The fifth point of the Doctrine is normally interpreted to mean that the U.S. should not get involved in peace-keeping or nation building exercises. Powell expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.
While the incursion into Afghanistan was justified under the Powell doctrine, Iraq was not. The challenge is now how to extricate ourselves without collapsing the Iraqis into chaos. The incursion into Iraq was done on the cheap. It was poorly planned and did not include a scheme for what to do with the Iraqi military and Baath party members. If anything, the Bush administration has dishonored the military and their families for not only sending them to an unnecessary battle zone but for poorly supplying the forces and for not supporting the soldiers when they return home.
At $14 million per hour, can we not find money to fully support our returning troops with mental health care? Is it too much to ask of our government to help our soldiers readjust to their home environments? And by mental health care I don’t mean one assessment, one visit with a counselor and guidelines to follow, but ongoing care.
No, whatever the outcome of the 2008 election, the new president of the United States will have to find a way to extricate our troops while leaving Iraq stable. Iraq will become an area not unlike the 38th parallel between North and South Korea. The United States will have a presence of troops for many years to come as a stabilizing force some 38,000 soldiers on guard.
In the meantime, the families and friends of the Indiana National Guard wait anxiously for their return from a deployment without a purpose or a mission other than to supply relief for the regular army. I certainly hope the next administration provides better leadership for the country. For as Gen. Douglas MacArthur said “The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
Tim McDonald is an educator, lecturer and doctoral student. He can be reached at timothy.mcdonald@agsfaculty.indwes.edu
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
Tim McDonald, local columnist