That was my favorite chant at the anti-war protest march I attended today for the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. The ironic thing is that the people chanting it happily give their vote to those very members of Congress who claim they’re anti-war and yet allocate more and more funding for it; when there are actual anti-war Republican members of Congress who are brave enough to vote against funding, there should be Democrats– yet there are very few.
One of today’s speakers said she also spoke to a protest march in DC on the first anniversary of “Shock and Awe,” and she would speak every year until it ends. The problem with this attitude is that you have to protest every day until you get something changed. You can’t just have a once-a-year event and expect that to make any type of difference at all.
Many of the speakers got it wrong, as well. One guy– who was actually one of the best speakers overall– asked if anyone in the audience was 18. Since it was a college campus, there were quite a few there who were. He said that we had been at war with Iraq for these people’s entire lifetime, from the Persian Gulf War to our many years of sanctions (under Clinton, although of course he didn’t mention that) to the current quagmire, in which we expected them to be happy to be liberated after we had sanctioned them. This version of events completely ignores the fact that they were ruled during that time by a mass murderer who delighted in terrorizing his constituents, and most Iraqis were actually very happy when we liberated them from Saddam Hussein’s regime– if not at first, within a few weeks– and then they wanted us to leave right away.
When someone acts like the Iraqis were just living idyllic lives in their desert paradise until we came along and ruined it for them, it gives less credence to anything else they might say. The Iraqis were glad to have us come and throw Saddam out; they just didn’t like what happened next, when their country (and its heritage) was looted under our watch, their army was disbanded and insurgents allowed to flourish, oil lines were repaired before their electricity and water supplies, al Qaeda franchises sprang up, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed, and the country divided itself along sectarian lines. While they were glad we came in the first place, they now want us to leave. They are now optimistic about the future, just as they were four years ago, but at the same time they don’t give us any credit for improving things.
That means that we’re either completely ineffective or that the Iraqis don’t appreciate or notice what we do for them; in either case, it means it’s time to let them rebuild their own country just as our own Founders once had to do. The French helped us, but they didn’t rebuild our country for us. That’s a much more powerful argument than simply claiming that America has been Iraq’s one and only oppressor for many years. It’s too bad that speakers at an event against something as obviously misguided as the Iraq War can’t make better arguments than this. One girl even claimed that one million Iraqi civilians had been killed, which is far above even the high estimates that I’ve heard. When people say outlandish things like that, it works against their cause, not for it.
“We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” — George W. Bush, March 19, 2003
Bush said when the war began that he wanted to send the various branches of the military over there so that we wouldn’t have to fight “it” with our police here. The actual result is that our police and firefighters have been sent there, while crime becomes more of an issue over here. It’s something no one has touched on, but which I think is one of the most convincing arguments against the war. It’s causing safety problems in America. National Guard troops which would be guarding the border are sent overseas, which leaves the border wide open for any terrorist group that wants to walk right on over– or hire a poor Mexican to do it for them. The military competes directly with police departments for recruitment of men between the ages of 20 and 30– but the military can offer spectacular bonuses and seems to be winning that particular battle. This leaves some police departments so desperate for new officers that they want to employ non-citizens. Local police departments have a six- to 12-month wait for the ammunition they want, because soldiers in Iraq get first dibs.
“In the meantime,” I told Larry, “local crime goes up, local costs go up, and local police vacancies stay high.”
“All of which goes to show that the late, great Tip O’Neill had it almost right,” said Larry, paraphrasing the former speaker of the House. “All war is local.”
“Our investigation staff operates with not nearly enough personnel, and I’m discouraged by all issues regarding methamphetamine trafficking. These issues have not declined due to [our] lack of officers.” — Fargo, North Dakota police chief Keith Ternes
I don’t know about you, but personally I’m more worried about someone robbing or killing me as I walk down the street than I am about a terrorist attack, of which the chances are approximately nil in the scheme of things. Yet, we take away our police officers to send them to Iraq? I’m more likely to be struck by lightning and about a billion times more likely to be killed in a car crash, even if al Qaeda had the ability to even try to come over here and attack us. Even if you believe in this war for “security” reasons, you should not also be willing to sacrifice actual security in this country for security for a country half a world away.
