America goes to foreign lands to fight foreign enemies. President Bush said that the United States should “defeat the terrorists abroad so we don’t have to face them here at home.”
This claim is generally backed by words, symbols and abstract meanings. But saying “we are winning the war on terrorism” or “America is safer now that Saddam is gone” does not magically make it so.
Rather than argue and debate the theoretical underpinnings and conceptual references, the facts should be laid out and the mounting empirical evidence ought to do the talking.
Regarding protection of the United States from terrorism, a CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll reported that only 30 percent of Americans feel safer as a result of the United States’ military actions in Iraq. Obviously, security is not a resounding term Americans use to describe a world without Saddam in power.
Protecting the taxpayer is another downfall. Joseph E. Stiglitz, economist and Nobel Prize winner, predicted that the price tag for the Iraq war could be upwards of $2 trillion.
The current figure for Iraq is $271 billion, and it is not to be taken lightly. According to data computed by the National Priorities Project, the current figure could have been used for 13 million college scholarships, 11 years of fully funded global anti-hunger efforts and 27 years of fully funded world-wide AIDS programs. Even better, there could be a $2,000 tax cut for every taxpayer in America.
Most importantly, the troops on the front lines should receive the greatest protection, but the United States military has neglected to do this too. The New York Times reported in January 2006 that “a secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor.” The necessary body armor “has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops.”
Furthermore, for many Americans there is no greater patriotic catch phrase than “support our troops.” The pro-war side demands blinded support for the president as America is in a time of war. However the anti-war side declares the best protection for the troops is in the comfort of their own homes, therefore bring them home. Can both sides disregard what they think is best and allow the troops to speak for themselves?
If Americans would stop bickering and listen, they may find that the troops are actually speaking for themselves. According to a January/February 2006 Zogby poll, “72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately.”
There is no better resource for understanding the situation in Iraq than the troops that are on the ground. Protecting their wishes and bringing the troops home serves a patriotic purpose – it supports the troops.
Another Sept. 11 is not necessary to recognize that damage has been done for years to come. Blood and treasure have already been lost. Continuing down the same path will only lead to more war, with only words to protect us.