U.S. Ends War it Couldn't Win; Leaves Behind Ruined Nation
"This
war's toll of dead and wounded will forever serve as an indictment of those who
unleashed it, spurning the law and international institutions in the name of
values that they betrayed while at the same time invoking them."
The United States has put an
end to a war that never should have begun. And it has done so under conditions
that won't permit a declaration of victory or a concession of defeat, because
the alleged reasons for invading Iraq were false, the strategy on the ground was
misguided, and the objectives were vague and intangible. Since the weapons of
mass destruction that served as an excuse for this war proved to be a
deliberate manipulation, its advocates came to justify it as an attempt to
bring democracy to Iraq. In other words, they tried to hide their vile methods
behind a noble cause
This war's toll of dead and wounded
will forever serve as an indictment of those who unleashed it, spurning the law
and international institutions in the name of values that they betrayed while
at the same time invoking them. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed
in the conflict, in addition to 4,700 coalition soldiers, most of them
American. Furthermore, the United States has spent around $800 billion on the venture,
and Iraq is now a ruined country with little hope of stability.
To put things in perspective,
the frivolity of the decisions that led to this war, contrived during the
Azores Summit between Bush, Blair, Aznar and [European
Commission President] Durão
Barroso [March,
2003], is proof of how easily democratically-elected leaders can unleash a futile
tragedy, putting the world on the brink of catastrophe - particularly when
inspired by a lethal mix of messianic megalomania and ideological fantasy.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
President Obama has ignored
voices calling for prolonging the presence of U.S. combat forces beyond August
31 - the deadline he committed himself to during his election campaign and which
he now looks likely to meet ahead of schedule. Keeping the troops there longer
would not have guaranteed that Iraqi forces would be able to assure the
nation's security - and would only have postponed the moment they would have to
confront a problem that no one else can. The U.S. isn't withdrawing the 50,000 troops
tasked with training Iraq's new military.
Since the March elections, political
forces in Iraq have yet to reach agreement on forming a new government. This is
one of the reasons cited by those in favor of delaying a U.S. withdrawal. But this
can also serve the opposing argument: as long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq,
elected leaders needn't pay required attention to their own immediate
responsibilities. Their country was the victim of a grave act of violence not
even the presence of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein could justify. Whether that
act of violence keeps them from handing victory to those who, after seven years
of fighting Americans, won't hesitate to turn their weapons on Iraqis to
subjugate them again, is now in their hands.
