War should not be an ‘away game’
The raging debate in the Summit Daily News dealing with the Iraq war and its justification (or lack thereof) would be an interesting academic exercise, but regrettably it involves matters of life and death for thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. One of the arguments used by the war supporters involves the totally unjustified assumption that politically-inspired terrorism can be defeated by military means. That absurd notion has been disproved over and over again by history. The most glaring example of the absurdity of that argument was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian terrorist. The military response led to World War I and the deaths of millions of many nationalities who had nothing whatever to do with the terrorists. Did the military response stop terrorism? Did the British army with their military superiority defeat the IRA terrorists? Did the military might of the Nazi occupation defeat the French underground? Did the French army succeed in defeating the politically inspired terrorists in Algeria? Did we succeed in defeating the Viet Cong terrorists in Vietnam? Has the Israeli military by their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and their targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders defeated Hamas? Did the Russian military succeed in defeating the Mujahedeen (terrorists/freedom fighters) in Afghanistan? No, but what these conflicts had was a common theme: One nation’s military was fighting on someone else’s land. A simple way to determine whether you are right or wrong in a conflict is to ask whether you are fighting on your land or someone else’s. If you are fighting on your land, you are probably right. If you are fighting on someone else’s land, you are probably wrong. (Some exceptions apply as in World War II and in Afghanistan today). It is an absurd notion to think that politically- inspired terrorism can be defeated by military might. The application of military force in such a situation only inspires more terrorism, as the current Iraq situation shows. Politically-inspired terrorism can only be “defeated” by solving the injustices and political problems that generated the terrorism. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military weaponry just doesn’t work. An even more insidious argument is being presented to support the Iraq war, and it was used by the Summit Soldier: “I believe most U.S. folks (including you) would have us fight an away game with AQ instead of a home game …”The reason we are currently fighting AQ in Iraq is they are coming to us. Like I said previously, let’s play an away game instead of a home game with AQ. It was that subconscious appeal to the cowards within us all that resonated with a good portion of the American public during the 2004 election. But it does not resonate with me! Iraq was never AQ’s home stadium, and Osama has not taken the bait. But what I find particularly galling is that that argument was peddled by all the chicken hawks and Bush-like cowards who lied us into the Iraq war, who used all their connections to avoid military service when they were younger, and who now sit back and let young men like the Summit Soldier do their dying for them.I don’t want young men like him to die to protect old farts like me! No, I prefer the home game. Here I am al-Qaida, come and get me if you dare! No, I see no honor in joining the terrorists in their barbaric practice of eating their young.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User