View Full Version : Peace without honor

06-27-05, 02:47 PM
Peace without honor
Adam Graham
June 26, 2005

In 2003, I was not a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. I was neutral on the issue, understanding the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but hesitant about military action, because of the danger it posed to our servicemen and women. I worried, like many Americans did, whether Saddam would unleash a WMD attack on our soldiers. I worried in the aftermath of the war that Democracy itself was not a good enough goal. After all, many "Democracies" such as India are hotbeds of civil war, strife, and political and religious persecution.

Why then do I find myself accused of being a warmonger who cheerfully sends other people to die, while blindly drinking Karl Rove's kool-aid. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not anti-war, but I'm pro-peace.

Honorable Conclusion

My consternation with the anti-war folks started after the war began and the protests continued. There's certainly a time for protest. That time is before the war, before our ground troops are in harm's way.

Once our troops are on the ground, I believe it is our moral duty to stand behind them and their mission, whether we thought it was the greatest idea in the world at the time or not. The Democrats, on the other hand, remind me of a nagging mother who does everything to ruin her daughter's marriage to prove that she was right about them never being able to work out.

Liberals have talked down our war efforts at every turn. The media want to only talk of every failure, abuse, or problem to happen in Iraq rather than stories of US soldiers in Iraq helping average Iraqis, the opening of schools, people voting in free elections, and all the positive things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq.

What has this accomplished? For one thing, the terrorists have to be aware of the political situation in the US and can't help but notice that as they kill more Americans, support for the war drops. Could it be that a terrorist mastermind concluded that if they kill enough Americans, they'll weaken American resolve and drive Americans away before the Iraqi government is able to defend itself?

I would submit that the anti-war movement has lead to increased casualties, and is partially responsible for the insurgency, which at this point is not truly an Iraqi insurgency, but rather "The International Terrorist All-star Team." All the Islamic terrorists in the world been streaming across the Iraqi border because they are determined to topple the resolve of the American people.

Day by day, with heedless editorials, blog posts, and trash talk on the airwaves, the left gives hope to America's enemies. They want Bush's head on a pike and our troops out of Iraq and who cares about anything else? Who cares if we've made commitments to the Iraqi people? We can just break them like we did with Cuban dissidents and the South Vietnamese.

I want peace as much as any man, but the difference is that I don't want peace at any cost. To withdraw now would stop the killing of US soldiers in Iraq, this would devastate America's honor and reputation.

Liberals obsess about the momentary World opinion of Americans, but I look at the long term. If we withdraw from Iraq, what will this tell oppressed peoples of the world? Our allies? Our enemies? Simply put, we'll be communicating that America's word is no good and that we'll cut and run when things get hard.

This means that America will never again be able to fight a war as we'll have no credibility with friend or foe. We would be forever relegated to the Clinton Administration tactics of bombing empty tents to fight terrorism.

I don't deny their right to speak their mind, but I would suggest they're being irresponsible about how they use that right. As I write my columns, my blog, and do my podcast, I'm conscious of the fact that despite my personal opinion of some of the administration decisions in the course of the war, our soldiers have got a job to finish. The question I must ask myself when writing or talking about the war is whether what I say will help or hinder their efforts. I wish some of our liberal friends would do the same.


06-27-05, 05:57 PM
Amen !

06-27-05, 08:05 PM
Right on!!!

Joseph P Carey
06-27-05, 11:35 PM
I have sort of looked into this, in an unscientific way, and I found that when demonstrations are down in numbers, and the rhetoric is lessened, the number of Americans killed in Iraq fall dramatically, and the number of Iraqis killed go down as well. I was wondering if a statistician/researcher has done such a survey? And, if not, why not? Apparently, the opposite side in this issue have all sorts of numbers and claims without any sort of backup. It was leading Democrats that predicted 2500 hundred US dead by now, which has not been realized! And, I find it strange that Auto Accidents, suicides, and heart attacks, as well as ordinance accidents are listed as killed in action. I can only imagine that the loyal opposition has dream number that must be obtained, and like the numbers they talk of in recruitment, those number are way down, much to their chagrin. I am sure that they wished the numbers of troops to be doubled, not necessarily for the security of US Troops, but rather to arrive at the dream number of deaths, i. e. more troops, more targets.

With all due respect, these are not the Marines that we had in Vietnam, or for that matter WWII or Korea. They are better educated, better equipped, with better logistics, and given a better chance to win the war as it is being fought. As a disabled Marine from the Vietnam Conflict, I salute these children of ours, they are better than we were, and I hope their children will be better than they are. They are carrying a proud tradition, and they are doing it well! Well done Marines of Iraq and Afghanistan!