[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Buchanan: For What, All These Wars? "I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. ... I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies." As President Obama sent this letter of apology to Hamid Karzai for the burning by U.S. troops of Qurans that were used to smuggle notes between Afghan prisoners, two U.S. soldiers were murdered in reprisal. Saturday, a U.S. colonel and a major working in the Interior Ministry were shot dead by an Afghan protesting the desecration of the Islamic holy book. All U.S. officers have been pulled out of the ministries in Kabul. Sunday, seven U.S. troops on base were wounded by a grenade. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. John Allen, commander in Afghanistan, have also offered their apologies. Remarkable. After fighting for 10 years, investing $500 billion, and losing nearly 2,000 dead and many more wounded and maimed to save Afghanistan from a Taliban future, America is issuing apologies to the regime and people we are fighting and dying to defend? And how has Obama's apology been received? Abdul Sattar Khawasi, a member of Parliament, stood with 20 other members to declare, "Americans are invaders, and jihad against Americans is an obligation." He urged mullahs to "urge the people ... to wage war against Americans." In what other war would we have tolerated this from an elected leader of a government we had sent an army of 100,000 to protect? Undeniably, the soldiers who burned the Qurans blundered. Yet there is no evidence that it was malicious. If vandals desecrate a Bible in America, burning and replacing the holy book would not be regarded a valid excuse for mayhem and murder. If Afghans cannot understand this mistake and have no other way to express their rage than rioting and ranting, "Death to America!" what kind of raw material are we working with in building a Western-style democracy in any foreseeable century? Two pertinent questions needs to be put. While keeping Afghanistan free of the Taliban is a desirable goal, what vital U.S. interest would be imperiled should the Taliban take over again, now that al-Qaida is largely gone? What price in blood and billions should we expend on what appears a dubious enterprise at best -- creating a pro-American democracy in a country that seems mired in some distant century? It is time we took inventory of all of these wars we have fought since the Army of Desert Storm restored the emir of Kuwait to his throne. That 1991 war was seen as a triumph of American arms and a model of the global cooperation to come in establishing the New World Order of George H.W. Bush. But the savage sanctions we imposed on a defeated Iraq and the planting of U.S. bases on Saudi soil that is home to Mecca was a casus belli for Osama bin Laden. Ten years after the triumph of Bush I, he brought down the twin towers. This atrocity caused us to plunge into Afghanistan to dump over the Taliban and eradicate or expel al-Qaida. We succeeded, then decided to stay on and build a nation. After 10 years, what have we accomplished to justify the immense price we have paid? In 2003, George W. Bush, seeking to complete the work begun by his father, invaded Iraq. But Saddam had no role in 9/11 and was no threat to America. Iraq did not even have weapons of mass destruction. Today, after eight years of war, 4,500 dead, 35,000 wounded and a trillion dollars sunk, the 15,000 Americans we left behind are largely holed up in the Green Zone, as Iraq descends into sectarian, civil and ethnic war. What did it all profit us? How goes Libya after the U.S.-NATO intervention to dethrone Moammar Gadhafi? Here is the Rand Corp.'s Frederic Wehrey: "A weak transitional government confronts armed militias. ... Defiant young men with heavy weapons control Libya's airports, harbors and oil installations. Tribes and smugglers rule desert areas south of the capital. Clashes among various militias for turf and political power rage. ... "Libya teeters dangerously on the brink." Now we see a push for intervention in Syria from Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. That would make us allies of al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, all of which also seek the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of a Sunni regime in Damascus. But it is the clamor for a U.S. war on Iran that grows loudest. But why, when the U.S. intelligence community still claims to have no hard evidence Iran has even decided to build a bomb? Since Ronald Reagan went home, the United States has attacked or invaded Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and Libya. How have Americans benefited from all this war? How have the Chinese suffered these 20 years by not having been in on the action?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|