So?
[editorial in the Times-Standard]
The U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 4,000 this week -- only a few days after the war entered its sixth year. Both figures are mileposts in a journey that is seemingly without end.
The White House says President Bush bears responsibility for “focusing on succeeding.” The Democratic presidential candidates say they want to bring the troops home, but so far haven't offered a vision on how to do so. The Republican presidential candidate thinks we might be waiting till the next millennium, and the vice-president -- asked about the two-thirds of Americans opposed our continuing presence in Iraq -- shrugs and says, “So?”
So . . . what does that say about us? That relatively few of us seem to care about those 4,000 dead as long as they aren't in our family, let alone the 30,000 American wounded, maimed or left ill? And the Iraqi death toll, estimated at anywhere from 100,000 to 600,000 or more -- so?
So . . . the “surge” of 30,000 more troops into Iraq a year ago has resulted in a dramatic lessening of attacks around Baghdad -- but violence in the provinces goes on unabated. Iraq's economy and social life remain shattered. Millions are displaced, with no clean water and sporadic electricity.
The surge's purpose was to provide breathing room to allow the Iraqis to “stand up” so U.S. troops could “stand down.” But sectarian reconciliation has gained little ground in the last year, and the country's
commitment to the rule of law and political institutions is less evident than ever.
The American commander there, Gen. David Petraeus, says the social fabric of Iraq will take years to heal, and that cannot begin without national reconciliation. Iraq's defense minister says his country can't take over internal security until 2012. And being able to defend its borders? By 2018. . . maybe.
So what? So this war (or occupation, really) already has lasted longer than either world war, and is second only to World War II in cost. The price tag is heading toward $1 trillion (thousands per American), even as our economy crumbles.
President Bush said Monday that those 4,000 dead servicemen and women “laid the foundations for peace” in the Mideast. Even the most optimistic of us have difficulty seeing peace in the future. We can't even agree what “peace” would look like -- or “success” or “winning,” for that matter.
But we know what a stalemate is, and Iraq and the U.S. are in it. Both countries need a vision for ending that stalemate. Both need true leadership. So . . . ?
So . . . what now in Iraq?
Times-Standard Editorial
Article Launched: 03/26/2008 01:32:19 AM PDT
The U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 4,000 this week -- only a few days after the war entered its sixth year. Both figures are mileposts in a journey that is seemingly without end.
The White House says President Bush bears responsibility for “focusing on succeeding.” The Democratic presidential candidates say they want to bring the troops home, but so far haven't offered a vision on how to do so. The Republican presidential candidate thinks we might be waiting till the next millennium, and the vice-president -- asked about the two-thirds of Americans opposed our continuing presence in Iraq -- shrugs and says, “So?”
So . . . what does that say about us? That relatively few of us seem to care about those 4,000 dead as long as they aren't in our family, let alone the 30,000 American wounded, maimed or left ill? And the Iraqi death toll, estimated at anywhere from 100,000 to 600,000 or more -- so?
So . . . the “surge” of 30,000 more troops into Iraq a year ago has resulted in a dramatic lessening of attacks around Baghdad -- but violence in the provinces goes on unabated. Iraq's economy and social life remain shattered. Millions are displaced, with no clean water and sporadic electricity.
The surge's purpose was to provide breathing room to allow the Iraqis to “stand up” so U.S. troops could “stand down.” But sectarian reconciliation has gained little ground in the last year, and the country's
commitment to the rule of law and political institutions is less evident than ever.
The American commander there, Gen. David Petraeus, says the social fabric of Iraq will take years to heal, and that cannot begin without national reconciliation. Iraq's defense minister says his country can't take over internal security until 2012. And being able to defend its borders? By 2018. . . maybe.
So what? So this war (or occupation, really) already has lasted longer than either world war, and is second only to World War II in cost. The price tag is heading toward $1 trillion (thousands per American), even as our economy crumbles.
President Bush said Monday that those 4,000 dead servicemen and women “laid the foundations for peace” in the Mideast. Even the most optimistic of us have difficulty seeing peace in the future. We can't even agree what “peace” would look like -- or “success” or “winning,” for that matter.
But we know what a stalemate is, and Iraq and the U.S. are in it. Both countries need a vision for ending that stalemate. Both need true leadership. So . . . ?
So . . . what now in Iraq?
Times-Standard Editorial
Article Launched: 03/26/2008 01:32:19 AM PDT