Quicksand of Iraq

The war in Iraq is in the news everyday with updates on American dead, new suicide and roadside bombings, and dead and injured civilians in this tormented, violent nation. The end seems to be nowhere in sight as the President and Congress debate war policy, and the American people desperately yearn for an end to this interminable conflict. Yet, this war was a long time coming and inevitable given the facts of history, United States foreign policy, and the world's dependence on the vast petroleum reserves of the Middle East.

History

No accurate understanding of the current situation in Iraq is possible without a review of the history of the region in which it is located. Ancient civilizations have risen and fallen in the part of the globe that we now call The Middle East. Wars of conquest and domination have plagued this region for centuries as the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire imposed their will on the people. Later, while Europe slumbered in its Dark Age, Islam, Allah and the Koran became the great civilizing influences in this area. The arts and sciences, which they created, flourished and spread into Europe, Asia, and Africa. As Europe awoke from its long sleep, however, the power of Islam waned. Its last vestige was the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Turks, an invader from Asia which assimilated Islamic religious and cultural values, ruled the Near and Middle East at the beginning of the twentieth century. Their tenuous hold on power was lost when they, as allies of Germany, were defeated in World War I. The only piece of real estate that they managed to hang onto was modern day Turkey. Under the courageous and charismatic leadership of Mustafa Kemel Ataturk, Turkey was established as a secular and democratic republic. Today, although an Islamic party has won control of the government, it remains a western-style democracy allied to Europe and the United States, and is a key member of NATO.

After World War I the victorious Allies convened a conference and set national borders for the Middle East. Just south of Turkey, Syria and Iraq were established. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were the other major countries whose boundaries were fixed by this conference. These arbitrary lines on a map were designed to establish spheres of influence, colonies to be exploited, by the European powers, especially France and England. One other important nation, however, would play an increasingly critical role in the history and stability of this region.

The state of Israel, established shortly after World War II, was the cherished dream and homeland of holocaust survivors of Hitler's death camps. Overcoming incredible odds, this infant democracy survived and received a major lift when the powerful United States, flush from victory and now a superpower, endorsed its sovereignty in the United Nations in 1947. Its Arab neighbors, however, saw things much differently, and vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Today, Israel remains an armed camp whose enemies continue to try to destroy it. Despite many wars, they have not succeeded. The very existence of Israel is a flash point for violence in the Middle East, and no peaceful resolution to this conflict appears imminent.

American influence in this region has not been limited to Israel. The United States was instrumental in establishing brutal dictatorships in Iraq and Iran. Unwilling to tolerate the existence of a Communist-backed regime in Baghdad, the Central Intelligence Agency engineered the ascent of Saddam Hussein to power in 1979. Modeling himself after his idol, the despotic and cruel dictator of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, Hussein tortured and killed all his rivals, and created a vast machinery of terror and military might to subjugate twenty-five million Iraqis. Without moral scruple, he gassed Kurdish men, women, and children, and eliminated ethnic and religious opponents. Becoming a billionaire, he built many ostentatious palaces for himself, his family, and his supporters. All through this nightmare the government of the United States remained silent and acquiescent.

Next door in Iran, the mischievous CIA was also busy overthrowing the democratically elected President and installing its puppet, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. His dreaded intelligence service, SAVAK, kept Iranians under tight control for many years, while he and his family acquired vast riches of their own. Finally, the tormented people rose and overthrew this tyrant, and established an Islamic Republic in 1979. A war that lasted eight years then ensued between Iran and Iraq. The United States government, backing Saddam Hussein to the hilt, provided him with the latest military hardware, intelligence resources, and financial support totaling billions of dollars. Even so, Saddam's vaunted military could not defeat the religious fanatics of the Iranian army, and the war ended in a stalemate. Both Iran and Iraq suffered horrendous losses in this long war, but the goals of American foreign policy had been served. Iran and Iraq canceled each other out, and neither country was able to gain hegemony over the Middle East or threaten oil lifelines to the West. The primary client of America in the region, Israel, was still in business.

Speaking of business, the House of Saud has watched all these developments over the past century from atop a vast reservoir of black gold - OIL. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a small population relative to its neighbors, but it is extremely wealthy in one of the world's most critical natural resources. Without Saudi oil the first world could not exist. Without Saudi oil America would not be the superpower that it is. Without Saudi oil the world would be a much different place. Therefore, whatever the House of Saud wants it gets, including the ingratiated subservience of United States Presidents. It was to protect Persian Gulf oil, which accounts for fifty-seven percent of the world's known reserves, that the elder President Bush took the United States and its allies to war in Kuwait in 1991.

Fearing that its out-of-control puppet, Saddam Hussein, would next invade Saudi Arabia from its recently conquered base in Kuwait, President Bush ordered U.S. military forces to take back Kuwait and end the occupation of that country by Iraq. The threat posed to Saudi Arabia was real, but most Americans were ignorant of another, less public, reason for the President's action in taking the U.S. to war. The Bush family has had an economically incestuous relationship with the Saudi royal family for many years prior to the Persian Gulf War. The Bush family fortune is based on concessions which it formerly held for Arabian Peninsula oil through its company, Harkin Oil (aka Arbusto Oil). In his book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Greg Palast states that it is often difficult to determine where the Bush family business ends and public policy begins. American intelligence officials repeatedly complained that Bush Administration officials were interfering with their efforts to get to the bottom of the 9/11 attacks and their connections with important people in Saudi Arabia.

Instead of exploiting its overwhelming American military supremacy by next invading Iraq and deposing the dictator in Baghdad, President Bush stopped the Persian Gulf War abruptly and prematurely. The Russians warned the President that a wider war might ensue if the United States continued its war into the capital of Iraq. Bush and his advisors backed off, but kept U.S. forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This angered a gentleman named, Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was one of many sons of Mohammed bin Laden who had made his fortune as the primary building contractor to the royal family of Saudi Arabia. The King used his nation's huge oil revenue, and bin Laden's expertise, to transform his country into a modern state. The political power, however, remained with the King and his family. Democracy for the people of his country was anathema to this rigid Islamic leader. Osama bin Laden used his inherited wealth to plot the overthrow of the very royal house which had so enriched his own family. In the eyes of bin Laden, the King was corrupt, under the control of the United States, and should not permit foreign troops on the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

September 11, 2001 was the opening salvo in what Osama bin Laden saw as a long-term holy war against the infidel Americans and her allies. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, America was now shown to be very vulnerable to Osama's Al-Queda legions. But right after the events of 9/11, members of the bin Laden family were reportedly allowed to leave the United States without being questioned or detained by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Why was this? Why did the Bush Administration let such high profile Saudi's leave the country without at least questioning them about their connections to Al-Queda, their relative Osama, and his and their recent activities? Could it be that the Bush Administration did not want the American people to learn about the extremely close and profitable relationships between the House of Saud, the Bush family, and the bin Laden family? Why did National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, fail to alert the nation's security forces after she was advised by CIA chief, George Tenet, about an imminent attack on the United States just days before September 11th? She denies ever having received such an assessment from the CIA. But, was it possible that she and other key members of the White House inner circle knew that an attack was coming, but chose to ignore it in order to provide a justification for launching a major war in Iraq that had already been given the green light?

For now, the Bush family had great reason to hate Saddam Hussein and to depose him. Saddam had tried to assassinate former President Bush when the latter had visited Kuwait in April 1993 following the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War. FBI and CIA investigative reports on the attempted assassination concluded that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot, and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush. Had Bush the Younger and members of his new administration decided to invade Iraq prior to the events of 9/11? Were all the justifications that he gave to the American people and the world mere fabrications? The neo-conservatives, now holding key positions in the administration of the second Bush Presidency, implemented actions which they had first advocated in the policy paper, "Rebuilding America's Defense," a product of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This paper advocated the U.S. military's dominance and control of global economic markets, and the pre-emptive invasion of any country deemed a possible threat to our economic interests. Now known as the "One Percent," or "Cheney Doctrine," it states that any threat to the U.S., no matter how small, proven or not, is sufficient justification to invade another country and remove that threat. Iraq was its first test.

Before the Iraq war could be launched, however, the American people and the world had to be persuaded that this was a "just" war, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had close ties. But did these ties really exist, and what was the proof? It turns out that the person who provided this "proof" had an ax of his own to grind, and was willing to provide whatever false intelligence the Bush Administration was willing to pay for. Sure, Saddam was a brutal thug and dictator, but would he have allowed a military threat like Al-Queda and its religious fanatics to operate in his own country and threaten his power? German intelligence officials didn't think so, and reported to the U.S. government that it had found no link between terrorists and Saddam's regime in their country. There is much evidence that the intelligence books were cooked, and that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a fabrication, pedaled to the American people, Congress, and the United Nations in order to justify the Iraq war.

Assessment

But all this is history. We are now in it but good - sucked into the quicksand of Iraq, just like Osama bin Laden hoped we would be. He set the trap on September 11, 2001, and we fell into it. As of today, America has suffered nearly 3,400 deaths in Iraq. At least 5,000 U.S. troops have been seriously brain injured in combat. Many thousands have had limbs amputated by improvised explosive devices and other ordnance. The cost in human life to Iraq's civilian and military population is less well documented, but is known to be much higher than U.S. casualties. To date, the taxpayers of the United States have spent nearly four hundred and fifty billion dollars in this war, and it is projected that the cost will rise to over one trillion dollars if it continues. Many foreign policy experts believe that our forces will be in Iraq for at least another decade.

Americans are angry and resentful at President Bush. They feel that they have been consistently lied to, and intentionally deceived by, his administration about this war from the very beginning. He and his supporters persist in promoting the theme of "victory in Iraq," despite overwhelming opposition to the war at home and overseas. Even the people of Iraq and fifty percent of its Parliament want the U.S. military occupation to end. When the American people feel the intensity of frustration that is currently the case, anything can happen. Iraq is Vietnam in Arabic. Parallels with the Vietnam War are abundant. Now we know that "evidence" supporting the Tonkin Gulf Resolution passed by Congress, which authorized a large expansion of U.S. military operations in that war, was entirely fabricated by President Johnson. There were no attacks on our destroyers by North Vietnamese gunboats off the coast of Vietnam. In Iraq no weapons of mass destruction were ever found after the U.S. invasion. The "domino effect," which the "best and the brightest" used to justify the Vietnam War, turned out to be a scare tactic. Communism did not spread throughout Asia when the government of South Vietnam fell. Likewise, this same domino effect propaganda is being used on the American public today to scare up support for larger commitments of U.S. troop levels in Iraq. "If we don't kill them over there, then we will have to kill them over here" blares this rationale by the "worst and the dimmest."

Like Vietnam, the Iraq War is costing Americans dearly. So many young lives were lost in Vietnam. 58,193 young Americans never came home to their sweethearts, loved ones, jobs, and careers; they never got married, raised families, and watched their children and grandchildren mature and prosper. That war nearly bankrupted America, and the emotional and political divide which it generated is still not completely healed. Fast forward to 2007 and again our young people are coming home in body bags or with life-disabling war injuries. Out-of-control and spiraling budgetary costs again threaten to crush our nation. Yet, further into debt we go, now owing $265 billion dollars in U.S. government debt to the Chinese Communist regime alone, a dictatorship whose military power in Asia is growing more and more ominous and destabilizing. The opportunity costs of this war at home are staggering. How many homeless people, many of them veterans, could have been housed? How many college grants awarded? How much desperately needed health care and medical research provided? How many roads, bridges, tunnels, and highways could have been built to repair or replace a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure? How much research and development into cleaner energy sources and environmentally friendly automobiles could have been realized? In short, how much more wisely could the $450 billion dollars spent on the Iraq war so far been spent on providing for America's basic needs right here at home?

Like Vietnam, the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq are predominantly from the poorer segment of the population. Their career options limited, restricted by increasingly expensive college costs, they gamble their lives in the hells of Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of returning home to earn a degree or learn a trade through the GI Bill. Just like Vietnam, many choose to avoid military service. President Bush successfully dodged the draft by serving in the Texas Air National Guard, a unit that had very little chance of serving in Vietnam. Using his family's influence and the Bush name, he jumped to the top of a long waiting list to enlist in the Guard. There he was trained to be a pilot, despite the absence of any previous flying experience, a rarity in the Guard. Yet, our Commander In Chief, who never personally experienced war first hand, leaped when the opportunity to send our young people into harm's way occurred after 9/11. Despite the flimsiest evidence, he deduced that Iraq posed an imminent and grave threat to the United States. How many people in his administration ever served in Vietnam? How many of their own sons and daughters ever served in the current war? How many sons and daughters of our Congressional Representatives and Senators? If the war in Iraq and the war on terror are so important, why aren't all our citizens sharing equally in its risks and burdens? Why isn't the entire civilized world?

World War II was different. Nearly every able-bodied male of draft age served in the armed services, including the son of President Roosevelt. World War II was fought by "the greatest generation." We were all in that one together, and we won. We beat the most fearsome combination of fascist powers the world had ever seen. We were united and we were determined to overcome those tyrants, preserve our freedom at home, and enhance the opportunity for freedom abroad. We were the beacon of democracy! Does America's light still shine as bright? Is the moral authority of the United States still respected and emulated by other countries? Perhaps the single greatest disservice the preemptive strike and ongoing occupation of Iraq has caused to our country is the huge decline in the perception of U.S. moral legitimacy abroad. Contrast this with the love that our country enjoyed overseas following the Allied victory in World War II. The United States was not only loved; it was admired and respected too.

At home and abroad the greatest generation returned to enjoy their hard-earned peace, begin families, and get on with their lives. The blessings of freedom - living life as each individual sees fit, free to pursue goals of his own choosing, free from government, religious, and ideological interference or persecution - were enjoyed. Simple ideas in a complex world. We were also blessed with great military leaders. Among these were Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, Douglas MacArthur, Commander of U.S. land forces in the Pacific, and Chester Nimitz, Commander of U.S. naval forces in the Pacific. After the war, and at a time of growing threats from communism and the ongoing Korean War, the nation elected General Eisenhower to lead it. A military planner, Eisenhower used the skills that he had honed during his long military career to steer the nation along a peaceful path during the Cold War years of the 1950's. In his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned Americans: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Today our nation, deep in the throes of two wars, is learning just how prescient Ike's words were. The connection between the Bush family fortune, Harkin Oil, and the Saudi royal family has already been discussed. Carlyle, a private, invitation-only investment group whose holdings in the war industry make it one of America's biggest defense contractors, has the distinction of claiming both of the presidents Bush as paid retainers. Vice-President Dick Cheney's huge wealth is earned from his connection with the Haliburton Corporation, a company that is currently earning tens of billions of dollars by supplying American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with food and other commodities and services. Key members of the Bush Administration and many current and past members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are also profiting from these wars, some illegally.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Republican Congressman from San Diego County, was recently indicted, tried and convicted of taking bribes from defense contractors while he served in Congress. He is currently serving time in a federal penitentiary. Other key members of Congress are now under investigation for defense contractor illegalities connected with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a blatantly political maneuver, designed to disrupt or prevent these inquirers, Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, recently replaced eight U.S. District Attorneys throughout the country who were not towing the Republican Party line. Among these was Carol Lamm, the D.A in San Diego who had successfully prosecuted Cunningham. She was hot the heels of another high profile Republican Congressman from California when she was fired. The target of her new investigation was strongly suspected of receiving defense contract kickbacks and bribes in exchange for his votes in Congress. War profiteering and political corruption by both Republicans and Democrats is nothing new in American history, but it has reached outrageous and arrogant levels during the Bush years.

Then there is the Patriot Act. Passed during the legislative panic following 9/11, its voluminous provisions curtail, undercut, erode, and damage our democracy at a very fundamental level. The learned French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the classic, "Democracy in America," commented in the 1830s that democracy would be found inferior in the conduct of foreign policy because it could not combine its measures with secrecy or await its consequences with patience. We are learning every day about some new incursion into our privacy by the federal government. Library records, cell phone conversations, bank records, internet communication, electronic mail, overseas telephone conversations - all these and more are the subject of routine, unregulated gathering, inspection, monitoring, and who the hell knows what else by the F.B.I., C.I.A. N.S.A. and who the hell knows who else. The FISA courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), established by Congress to authorize warrants against suspected terrorists in the U.S. while protecting American rights to privacy, are routinely ignored or circumvented by the Bush Administration. Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels would have jumped with joy had they had the same electronic eavesdropping apparatus and capabilities that are currently in the possession and employment of our information-ravenous intelligence snoops. Yet, these same "intelligence experts" couldn't predict, or even cooperate, with each other to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or the deaths of nearly three thousand Americans on September 11, 2001. The proponents of the Patriot Act, mostly Republicans, say that Americans must sacrifice some of their freedom for "security." I'll buy that when they start relinquishing some of their war profits, and start sending their own sons and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and die for this enhanced "security." Lead by example.

Prognosis

I predict that the United States will soon be involved in a third war, this time in Iran. Prompted by new, false "intelligence," or a contrived or provoked attack on United States naval forces in the Persian Gulf, and/or new "evidence" of Iran's nuclear weapons capability, President Bush will order military forces to bomb and invade Iranian military, nuclear and political targets in the Persian Gulf, Tehran, and throughout Iran. Like the Iraq preemptive war, this conflict will closely follow the blueprint laid out by the neo-conservative's foreign policy manifesto mentioned earlier. Follow the oil, follow the bombs. "They have the black gold, we want it. No matter what it takes, secure that oil, and the economic lifeline to the Western World which it represents. If there is even the remotest possibility that our interests will be adversely affected, or the United States or its allies attacked, this is justification enough to pursue the military option and neutralize the threat. Damn the intel or proof. Who needs evidence of intent? Better safe than sorry in the nuclear age. The hell with the United Nations too. We don't need their okay. We're the Lone Ranger. Shoot 'em up, bang, bang." So the dubious reasoning (and I use the word, reasoning, very loosely) of the Bush White House. Don't think this war will happen? Think again. Just last week old reliable V.P. Dick Cheney was on the tube warning Iran's leadership not to threaten the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. He spoke these words on the deck of one of America's big sticks in the Persian Gulf, the aircraft carrier, U.S.S. John C. Stennis. He's just itching for a fight, bad heart and all!

The second prediction that I make is in line with the first. The U.S. military will be enmeshed in the Middle East with substantial land, air, and sea forces for the foreseeable future. After the Second World War we stationed considerable military might in Europe to defend our allies against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact alliance. Our Middle East build-up is the new focus of our military might and expansion. But it is different in this respect. In Europe we were defending our friends and their territory; in the Middle East we are defending the flow of a vital natural resource which we should have weaned our economy off of long ago. The Bush family's ties to Saudi Arabia and this nation's dependence on Middle East oil makes our continued presence in this region all but certain. Is it any wonder that President Bush has dragged his feet on such topics as global warming, research and conversion to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy, and energy conservation during the six years of his stewardship? Is it any mystery why Dick Cheney's energy task force, meeting with energy corporation executives and high-level government officials in the early days of the Bush Administration, was closed to the public and the press, and excluded environmental, consumer, or citizen advocates? Why has this administration consistently refused to pressure the auto industry to raise its fuel economy standards, and bring back the very successful, energy efficient, environment-friendly, and popular electric car? Why did these vehicles suddenly disappear from the roads of America in the first place?

Now we more clearly understand the grand pattern, motivations and connections between Bush's economic, environmental and foreign policy decisions. Self-interest, greed, and arrogance intricately link them. His own family, political supporters, and campaign donors reap huge profits from our interventions in the Middle East. They have no interest in shutting down the money pipeline. If the health and climate of the planet suffer due to greenhouse gas emissions, so be it. Too bad for Mother Earth and our children. If young Americans have to fight and die in the desert and cities of Iraq, that's the price we must be willing to pay so members of the political elite and their clients can continue to benefit from the obscene profits of imported Middle East oil. But give the American public a reasonable, cost effective alternative to carbon-based fuels? No way! How are Bush and Cheney and their corporate sponsors going to survive if the stock of the big oil companies and defense contractors plummets? Pirates have hijacked the ship of state, and are plundering our nation's treasury. They are even worse enemies to America than are the terrorists. Unlike the terrorists, our leaders took a solemn oath. They swore on the Holy Bible to make wise decisions, protect us, and safeguard our constitutional rights, environment, and economy. They have violated the basic trust of the American People, and we should hold them fully accountable.

A third prediction that I make is that the United States military will be forced to withdraw completely from Iraq, but not before many more deaths of American soldiers and Marines occur. The political will among the American people to continue this fight has eroded so badly that even members of the President's own party, facing reelection next year, are beginning to revolt and break ranks. The President will simply not have the political muscle to win future fights with Congress over funding the Iraq War. His vetoes will be overridden. Instead of Iraq, a substantial U.S. military presence will continue to exist in friendly neighboring countries allied to the U.S. including Turkey, a NATO partner, Afghanistan, and smaller Arab states in the Persian Gulf region, such as Kuwait. The continuation of this military presence will be justified on the national security premise of defending this nation's supply of oil from the Middle East.

A fourth prediction that I make is that Iraq will divide along sectarian lines. Kurds will control the north, Sunnis the center and Baghdad, and Shiites the south, Basra, and the Persian Gulf oil fields. This will be another Yugoslavia. Following the death of President Tito, the strongman who held his ethnically and religiously diverse country together, Serbia invaded its neighbors one after another. Finally, sickened by the ethnic cleansing and fearing the spread of violence to other parts of Europe, NATO forces moved in and separated the warring militias. Today an uneasy peace exists in that politically fractured land. Already in a civil war, Iraq will dissolve into ethnic/religious constituencies after the U.S. military is forced to end its occupation. The borders between the warring enclaves are already hardening as the U.S. attempts to erect concrete fences between Sunni and Shiite populations in the capital of Baghdad.

Continued unrest between Israel and the Palestinians is my fifth prediction. Israel is fighting for its very existence, and its citizens are determined to defend their nation to the bitter end. They will fight to the death in order to preserve their democracy; something that we will increasingly have to do in our own country as the war on terror heats up. The Israel government is also erecting a very long concrete fence in the occupied West Bank in an attempt to separate Palestinians from Israel, and prevent suicide attacks against its citizens. Although my sympathies are with the citizens of this ancient and proud people who share most of our values and love of democracy, I am not oblivious to the needs of the Palestinians. They have as much right to live in peace and prosperity as do the Jewish people, no more, no less. I unequivocally reject the use of violence by either side, however, to achieve political aims. The state of Israel has a right to exist, as does a Palestinian state. Compromise, negotiation, empathy, and honest discourse are preferable to armed conflict as a means for settling territorial disputes of this nature. As long as this conflict exists, however, wars in the Middle East will persist. It is in the direct interest of the United States and Europe, in partnership with the United Nations, to work closely in diplomatic efforts with Israel and the Palestinians to resolve this conflict through political means. Until a lasting solution is found, Islamic terrorists will use this conflict as political ammunition against us to assert that the U.S. is one-sided in its support of Israel.

A sixth prediction that seems reasonable to anticipate is that the United States will continue to create and support anti-democratic regimes around the globe, especially in the Middle East. Our nation's foreign policy direction has been consistent and predictable in its support of the most right wing, anti-democratic, corrupt, and autocratic regimes in the world. Among the most notable of these has been our allegiance to dictatorships in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Panama, Pakistan, and Romania. Where the economic and political interests of the American elite and foreign strongmen meet, American diplomatic endorsement prevails. So long as this foreign policy dynamic continues, America can expect our forces to be deployed and engaged in defense of, and tax dollars paid out in the billions of dollars to, individuals who have little interest in democratizing their countries or the world. So long as U.S. support for these illegitimate regimes continues, wars of liberation and terror will continue. We feed terrorism and create political instability and suffering throughout the world with our unwise foreign policy and misuse of military and covert intelligence resources. If we desire justice and peace overseas, then we should stop creating and supporting violent and repressive governments abroad.

My final prediction, and I deeply regret having to write this, is that the United States and her allies, especially England, France, Germany, and Israel, will continue to experience terrorist threats and actual attacks, perhaps resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the next decade. The terrorists we face are cruel, tenacious, intelligent, patient fanatics who are willing to die for their cause. A foe like this, armed with weapons of mass destruction, is the West's worst nightmare. 9/11 was just the first inning in a contest which will probably outlive most of us. The causes for this conflict are many and profound. They include income disparities between have and have not nations, deep cultural differences, religious intolerance, and resentment that Western civilization has been so successful in achieving a high standard of living while enjoying so much personal freedom and individuality. Islamic Fundamentalism, and its radical extremists and terrorists, loathe our success, and yearn for a return to the golden age when Islam ruled the world. They reject the cultural and democratic models of the West which they see as decadent and spiritually enervating. Instead of coexisting peacefully in the world with America and other countries which share our western traditions and values, a small minority of these religious fundamentalists have misinterpreted the sacred words of the Koran, and sanction holy war against non-believers. Using any means at their disposal, they aspire to destroy the "Great Satan" (the United States and Israel), and create a new empire in their part of the globe where Allah is supreme. The virtue of dying for one's beliefs is perceived as a sacred duty, and is rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven.

Recommendations

My first recommendation for ending hostilities in Iraq and the Middle East is the renewal of a sustained campaign to end the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. No lasting peace will be possible until this goal is accomplished. Both sides in the Holy Land feel that they are being treated unjustly by the other. Men and women of good will, practical, reasonable, experienced people from the region and around the world, must continue to work together to reach a political settlement that will be agreeable to both parties. Remove this major dispute from contention and a primary cause for violence and terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East will likewise be removed.

My second recommendation is that America and the West should wean itself off of its dependence on Middle East oil. Countries in Europe are already far ahead of the U.S. in this area, Germany in particular. Europeans have driven smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles for years. It is high time that this nation's public and private leaders and general citizenry take full responsibility for developing safe, affordable, renewable, clean, domestic energy resources to fuel our power plants, vehicles, homes and businesses. To do anything less is to condemn our nation to endless and unnecessary wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. Americans have great energy and intelligence when it comes to creating technological progress to benefit mankind. Now is the time for us to fully harness that knowledge, and cooperate with each other in a partnership to achieve carbon-free, nuclear-free energy independence. We can do it. That's what Americans are famous for, isn't it? Bring back the electric car, and fully invest in and develop cost-effective utilization of wind, solar, geo-thermal, bio-mass and other forms of energy that are safe, renewable and affordable. Mother Earth and all her creatures will thank us!

My third recommendation is that the economic disparities between the nations of the northern and southern hemispheres should be lessened, and the explosive growth in the populations of the undeveloped and developing worlds halted. Pursuing both these goals simultaneously is urgent and long overdue. People in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere are envious and resentful when they see small numbers of their own nations' elites, or large numbers of citizens in the West, enjoying a comfortable quality of life while they are starving, sick, homeless, or at war. Injustice and poverty fuel social unrest, militancy, extremism, and terrorism. Providing a basic standard of living for all the citizens of the world just makes good economic sense. Reducing the excessive growth of world population also does. When I was born in 1946 the world's population was 2.5 billion people. Now it is 6.5 billion people, and will climb to over 9 billion people in the next twelve years. This explosive growth cannot be maintained. The Earth's resources cannot support this many people, and wars fought over diminishing natural resources, like oil, gas, and fresh water, are increasing. The Iraq war is symptomatic of this trend.

My fourth recommendation is that the foreign policy of the United States should be overhauled and reformed. It should become more benevolent, democratic, and cooperative, and less coercive, interventionist, and unilateral. During the past six years America has lost friends and made enemies because of the Bush/Cheney One-Percent Doctrine. This reckless and dangerous foreign policy is both irrational and counterproductive in its stated goals of protecting this country and its allies while projecting American power abroad. In fact, the One-Percent Doctrine, discussed earlier in this essay, achieves neither goal. Long-time friends now fear and distance themselves from us. Our enemies see us as weak, isolated, and vulnerable. Russia's Putin recently called the United States a threat to world peace, and the worst fascist state since Nazi Germany. Of course, he is no one to talk, given his poor, anti-democratic record as leader of Russia. Yet, it underscores our vulnerability as a nation, and the low regard in which we are held because of our regressive and repressive foreign policy. Our enemies and potential enemies are scoring huge propaganda points against us because of our cowboy, "shoot first, ask questions later," unilateralism. We must reverse the trend of the last fifty years when this country's support of repressive regimes in countries like Iraq, Iran, and Chile prevailed. Our main enemy in the world today is religious-based terrorism, but tomorrow it may well be nuclear-armed Communist China, Russia or North Korea. We should not unnecessarily antagonize the rest of the world with a belligerent foreign policy that offends our friends and emboldens our enemies. We should think before we act, consult our allies, seek their support, and work closely with the United Nations when a country acts outside the bounds of the U.N. charter, or violates international agreements (i.e. Iran's nuclear weapons development). We need the world's support in our fight against terrorism and tyranny, not its condemnation.

We should be slow and deliberate in our commitment of military forces overseas. George Washington, in his farewell address stated: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." All the great empires eventually expired because their foreign wars or conquests required resources beyond their means. These empires, among them the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, Napoleon's Empire, British Empire, Ottoman Empire, and those of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, exhausted themselves in wars of conquest and occupation. They were unable to resist a combination of foreign or domestic challenges.

Civil strife, financial collapse, health crises, or natural calamities ended their reigns, or substantially eroded their former glory and power. Today the United States is assailed by a host of internal and external threats, such as global warming, huge and growing budget deficits and a widening gap between its wealthiest and less affluent citizens. We cannot afford to prolong our military occupation of Iraq. Our National Guard, in particular, is needed at home to protect the U.S. in case of natural disaster or other emergencies. This nation's major commitment of military and financial resources in Iraq greatly diminishes its capability to respond to crisis elsewhere in the world, thus undermining our security and credibility. We should begin an orderly phase down of our forces in Iraq now, and complete this withdrawal by next summer.

My fifth recommendation is that our nation's military should never be ordered to launch a pre-emptive strike against another country again unless there is clear, reliable, and verifiable evidence that another nation or group is planning to attack our nation or its allies first. Good intelligence helps win wars, but it should be able to prevent them as well. Faulty and/or intentionally deceptive intelligence prior to the war in Iraq has lead to very grave consequences for this country through the prosecution of a totally unnecessary, preventable, and poorly managed war. Good Allied intelligence helped win World War II. The U.S. succeeding in its Pacific War against the Japanese imperialists because we successfully broke their naval communications code before the pivotal battle at Midway. Likewise, Allied intelligence was able to decipher the very complicated German communications code, Enigma, and gain valuable and timely information about Nazi military plans. The D-Day invasion of Europe would not have succeeded had it not been for superior counter-intelligence and misinformation campaigns conducted against Germany's top military and civilian leaders, including Adolph Hitler himself.

John F. Kennedy, while President of the United States, relied heavily on photographs from high-flying spy planes over Cuba to obtain timely and accurate information about the installation of Soviet intercontinental nuclear missiles ninety miles south of Miami. Armed with these vital photographs, our Ambassador to the U.N., Adlai Stevenson, was able to openly and publicly, confront the Soviets. This undeniable proof, that the weapons being installed in Cuba were offensive, not defensive, forced Krushchev to back down, remove the missiles, and prevent a nuclear holocaust in 1962. A pre-emptive military war against another nation by the United States should never be considered an option that is based on strictly personal, political, or economic reasons. America is better than that, and her citizens have a right to expect and demand, full accountability from any President who orders our troops into harms way for insufficient, unverifiable, or unjust purposes.

My sixth recommendation is that this country should never go to war in the future without all registered voters being given the opportunity to approve the war in advance through the process of a National Plebiscite. War is simply too important, and requires too many sacrifices from its citizens, to allow politicians to have the final say. Individual citizens must fight and die in foreign wars. Individual citizens must pay the expenses of such wars through taxes. Therefore, it is only appropriate, just, and democratic that every voter be given the opportunity to exercise his right to vote his assent or rejection of a war before it begins, and after it has been proposed by Congress and the President. Conducting a full, truthful, and timely debate about the merits of future wars will provide our country with the following: a national debate and plebiscite will allow each citizen to examine the costs and benefits that will be incurred in a war; it will allow citizens and their representatives the chance to fully exchange views, understand rationales, and determine potential consequences of military engagements overseas; finally, and most importantly, it will serve to distill arguments through the sieve of reason, melt out the dross, and unify our country if a war is ultimately approved by the voters. The Vietnam and Iraq wars may never have been fought, or lasted as long, had the American people been first given the opportunity to fully examine and understand the justifications that were given by the Johnson, Nixon, and Bush White Houses. A mature democracy allows for change, and must provide its citizens with a constitutionally guaranteed plebiscite process to determine matters of such great importance as war. A new constitutional amendment is, therefore, proposed for this purpose which would require that two-thirds of the American electorate approve a war prior to its commencement, and set dates for the electorate to approve or reject a continuation of an existing war.

My seventh and final recommendation is that the governments and citizens of this country and our allies should prepare for a long and very destructive war against terrorism. It will soon become obvious that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presage the advent of World War III. In the United States, we should prepare for massively destructive nuclear, biological and chemical weapons attacks on our major cities, ports, military installations, government buildings, and infrastructure. It is unrealistic to think that our military, police, and intelligence services can anticipate or prevent every terrorist attack against this country and its allies. They may be able to prevent ninety-five percent of these attacks, but it only takes one success to destroy many lives and much property. The leaders of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, who investigated the attacks, concur with the conclusion that we are likely to experience further, and even more, devastating events in the future. It is equally unrealistic to believe that a terrorist group will not acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against our population. These weapons can be purchased, and their components assembled, by resourceful and determined foes that are not afraid to sacrifice their own lives in order to obliterate their enemies. I also do not trust the leaders of Russia, Communist China, Communist North Korea, and Iran. They perceive America as a grave threat to their regimes, and might consider it in their nation's best interests to arm Al-Qaeda with WMDs. Acting as proxies for these larger nation states, Al-Qaeda would absorb much of the blame for these attacks, if they succeeded. The true villains might escape detection and retribution by the U.S., or we might just strike out in blind rage with a nuclear barrage. Armageddon!

In the war on terror we must fight with every weapon at our disposal. We should respond with the same unity, determination, and valor which characterized Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Make no mistake about it - our enemy means to destroy us, and as many of our allies as possible, including and especially, Israel. Anyone who would intentionally fly a plane loaded with passengers into a skyscraper is, by definition, insane. This is what the terrorist lives for and dies for. This is his purpose in life and his reason for being. Look into the eyes of a photo of Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack. There you see the eyes of a soul-dead man, a man with no remorse, mercy, or empathy for his foe: a man willing to give his life for Allah. With the same suicidal urgency that was displayed by the kamikaze (divine wind), emperor-worshipping pilots of Japan during World War II, these militant religious fanatics will pursue their holy war to the final end.

We as a nation must, therefore, psychologically prepare ourselves for the inevitable next chapter in this saga. We must steel ourselves, like our parents and grandparents did during World War II, to face the enemy, stand our ground, and fight back to the bitter end - to victory. We did not start World War II, and we did not start the War on Terror. Neither did we ask for this war. We are a peaceful and practical people, content to enjoy the blessings of a hard-earned freedom with our families and friends. We are slow to anger, but indomitable in war. Now we must be prepared to make sacrifices, and our leaders must be prepared to order those sacrifices and lead by example in the conduct of a long, twilight struggle against worldwide terror. These sacrifices must be just, reasonable, adaptable and appropriate to the particular challenges that this new war demands. Above all, however, every American who claims Old Glory as his flag must share these sacrifices, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, young and old alike. Americans raised the Stars and Stripes over Fort McHenry, Iwo Jima, and the remains of the World Trade Center. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we again come together as a nation, put our individual differences aside, and share in the common defense and protection of our homeland, way of life, and values.

As in World War II, special, wartime measures may become necessary. The military draft may have to be re-introduced to fight worldwide terrorism. Gas rationing, food rationing, energy conservation, and blood drives may become necessary. War bonds may have to be sold in order to finance the war. Factories may have to run overtime in order to fill orders for military hardware. Perhaps entire cities will have to be evacuated and temporary housing provided if terrorist attacks are predicted or actually occur. Whatever it takes to win this war, we must be willing to do in order to protect our freedom and the freedom of our allies. Nothing is more precious than our freedom, and we should never take it for granted. We've been luckier than most countries throughout our long history. We've only experienced invasion or attack during the American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and World War II. The great oceans that separated us from the wars of Europe and Asia have prevented direct attacks on the U.S. Weapons of mass destruction that could reach our shores were not invented until relatively recently. 9/11 changed all this. Now we are exposed and as vulnerable as everyone else is. Our borders are porous, and allow for easy infiltration. Anyone can be a terrorist, including a neighbor. Along with sacrifice, therefore, Americans need to be more vigilant. Our defense forces, intelligence agencies, and our police can only be effective if they have the support and cooperation of the general citizenry who observe and report suspicious activity.

Conclusions

The United States should not act as if it is the world's policeman. We possess no God-given authority to dictate our wishes and policies to the rest of the world. We have neither the manpower nor the financial resources to enforce a Pax Americana throughout the globe. Our valiant military, already stretched to the breaking point, cannot right every wrong, nor should it be expected to. Nor do we have the moral authority. The world deeply distrusts and fears American military, political, and economic intentions and actions today. Thanks to an unwise and maverick foreign policy, we have lost most of the admiration and goodwill that we enjoyed following World War II. Increasingly, citizens in this country and overseas ask; what gives America the right to dictate its policies, launch pre-emptive wars, occupy countries, and interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations? Don't other countries have the same right to determine their destiny as America does? Is the United States so perfect?

I, like most Americans, see the world in pragmatic terms. We are a great country because of who we are, and not what we have. Our success as a nation is no accident, nor has some benevolent deity preordained it. Hard work, sacrifice, and commitment have earned it. Our freedom is our greatest strength. It allows us to be informed about the truth, question our representatives, and seek the correct path to right action. I wrote this essay because I wanted to share my views with my family, friends, and other citizens. I also wanted to learn how they feel and think about the subject of this essay. This is what a free people do. They take advantage of their God-given intellects and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to test their views, assess their validity against the truth, and form new informed opinions, if appropriate. This process never ends, for change and the search for truth are eternal constants.

Give people freedom to express themselves, but also give them freedom to inform themselves about their government, society and the world in which they live. Provide the resources for citizens to receive a good education and understand current events. Challenge their minds to reason, reflect and explore. The truth is tyranny's archenemy because tyranny cannot tolerate the light of reason. Freedom depends on knowing the truth, and acting on it in a reasonable manner. Give the people freedom to govern themselves, an education to understand the value of their freedom, and the information to properly conduct their own affairs. Then stand back and get out of their way. Let them live their lives as they choose - free from government tyranny, religious dogmatism, and social prejudice. Following these simple ideas, and safeguarded by continued vigilance, I believe that the legacy of our Founding Fathers and the sacrifices of our nation's heroes in uniform will endure for posterity.

I consider myself very fortunate to be an American. Born in New Britain, Connecticut on July 9, 1946 (three days after President Bush, also born in Connecticut), I had the benefit of a good family, solid education, and excellent health. I never experienced war or want as a child. The city, state and country which I grew up in provided me with everything that I needed to mature and prosper. I owe my family, my country and my God much. What I have in life is the result of the sacrifices that many Americans have, and are continuing, to make. The older I get, the better I understand this. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. When my turn came to serve my country, I did. As a United States Marine who served in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967, I saw firsthand the evil of war. I thanked God that my family did not have to endure the violence and destruction at home in America that I witnessed in Vietnam. It was here, in the middle of war, that I observed a totally alien culture for the first time. The people of Vietnam looked different than my brother Marines and I; they ate different food, dressed in funny-looking clothes, and spoke a strange language.

The views which I hold on Iraq today are a direct result of what I experienced in Vietnam forty years ago. I loved and trusted my country then. I love and trust the values of my country today. But I can't help thinking that that war was wrong, just like the war in Iraq is wrong today, and for the same reasons. I value human life, indeed all life, above everything, except personal freedom. Life without freedom would be impossible. I'm sure that most Americans throughout our nation's history have shared this view too. Therefore, when I saw rows of my dead Marine brothers laid out on the cold, hard earth of the base hospital at Dong Ha, Vietnam in February 1967, I questioned the reasons for their deaths. When I saw their young, lifeless bodies, still in their bloodied uniforms, lying there, motionless and silent, I asked myself: "why was this war, or any war, necessary?" Several months earlier I had asked my platoon's Lieutenant that same question. "Why was I here? Why was I put in a position where I must be willing to kill a complete stranger, and he must be willing to take my life? Wasn't war a terrible waste?" Lieutenant David S. Hackett's (KIA on Hill 881, Khe Sanh, April 30, 1967, age 23) answer still echoes in my mind today. He replied, “The whole reason for our effort is to safeguard freedom. You might not be fully able to comprehend all the vast forces at work that put you here, but it is very important to your country that you are here, and that you are willing to die for its principles. It isn’t something that you or anyone wants to do, but our fighting this war is essential for the cause of freedom everywhere.”

Now, I was just a gung-ho grunt at that time, politically conservative and naïve as were most of the guys that I was serving with. But to me it seemed such an awful waste that even one human life should be lost in war, never mind tens of thousands. I saw war as brutal, anti-human, and evil. Nothing since Vietnam has changed my mind about this, and I pray to God nothing ever will. God gave each of us a conscience when we were born, an Inner Light that allows us to see through the darkness of ignorance and hate. To me, it is ignorance and hate that cause and perpetuate the myths of war.

Myth number one is that war is a necessary and inevitable evil, and mankind is unable to prevent it. Myth number two is that war serves a good or noble purpose. Myth number three is that victory is possible in war. The only thing that war does is kill human beings and other life forms. It is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Ask the dead what they think about war. Ask all the wives and children of husbands and fathers who never came home from war. Ask the disabled veteran what he thinks of war. Bravery, sacrifice, honor? Yes, these are noble virtues, but couldn't they better serve the causes of peace and progress, instead of destroying human life and civilization? Until mankind learns the fundamental truth that all killing, all war is senseless and completely without merit, darkness shall persist on this Earth. There are no winners in war, except the Devil. Since Cain killed Abel, war has been the great enemy of mankind. Today, the sheer insanity of war is perceived with startling clarity as weapons of mass destruction proliferate virtually unchecked around the globe. As long as young men and women are forced to fight wars, and do not question these myths, war will continue to inflict its suffering on all of us.

But some young people have questioned it. In his beloved song, Imagine, John Lennon wrote these inspiring words many years ago:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

One of my favorite photographs from the Vietnam Era is of another young man, this one an American who is demonstrating against the war. To show his displeasure at the war, but also to demonstrate his resolve for peace, he is placing a flower in the barrel of a rifle that is held by another young man, a National Guard soldier. The symbolism of this act is dramatic and poignant. Another classic photograph on the same theme shows a young Chinese man standing in front of a Communist Chinese tank in Tiananmen Square in Beijing following a major demonstration to democratize China. Hundreds of peaceful protesters were killed or brutally beaten by their government. In the photo the youth is seen blocking the movement of this tank and, for a short while, prevents a whole column of tanks behind it from moving forward. Ultimately, he climbs on top of the tank and shouts at the occupants inside. What he is shouting cannot be heard, but he is probably urging the soldiers to stop persecuting the people, and set them free. No one knows what happened to this lone hero who was fighting for peace and freedom as his conscience dictated.

The fight for peace and freedom is never easy or without bloodshed. The people of Iraq are learning today what our Founding Fathers and other colonists learned during and after our own war of independence from England. The very idea of establishing a new country and democracy is fraught with danger and uncertainty. We were blessed with patriots and geniuses like Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. But, even though these men were true patriots and thoroughly dedicated to establishing a constitutional democracy, they had severe differences among themselves too. Hamilton, a brilliant intellectual, was Washington's Aid-de-Camp, the first man to storm the British defenses at the decisive battle of Yorktown, the first Secretary of the Treasury, and much more. His understanding of political theory and history was second only to that of James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton co-authored the very influential Federalist Papers, essays which have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court over three hundred times in its decisions regarding Constitutional principles. He virtually ran the government under President Washington, and our first President greatly valued and depended upon his services.

Yet Hamilton was not even born in America, and was a bastard. All his life he was haunted by the fact of his low birth on a Caribbean island. But this multi-talented genius, who found it impossible to lie, was a poor politician but great writer, and believed in the absolute value of individual merit, succeeded where no other American could. Virtually single handedly he persuaded the New York legislature to ratify the U.S. Constitution, thus assuring that document's status as our number one legal testament; he established the Bank of the United States; he created assumption laws which helped pay off the debt of the national and state governments after the Revolutionary War; he built such good financial credit for our country overseas that President Jefferson was able to buy the Louisiana Territory when it was offered by Napoleon, thus doubling the size of the United States.

But, as in Iraq today, severe growing pains and deep divides over policy and principle accompanied American political development in our early years. Hamilton and Jefferson were bitter political enemies. Hamilton, leader of the Federalist Party and a resident of New York City (the U.S. Capital at that time) advocated a strong central government, vibrant financial markets, industrial development, and alliance with Great Britain. He was also a strict abolitionist who detested slavery. Jefferson, a wealthy Virginia aristocrat who owned many slaves, was the leader of the Republican (now Democratic) Party, advocated states rights, maximum rights for the common man, an economy based on rural, farming interests, and alliance with France (which had recently overthrown its monarchy and established its own democracy). These two contesting visions about what America should be could not have been further apart. President Washington, who needed both men to work together in his Cabinet, Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury and Jefferson as Secretary of State, could barely control his spirited associates during his administration. The country was virtually torn apart as this great political chasm widened and deepened under our young democracy. At the time it was greatly feared that America would destroy itself, and break up into individual states again.

But somehow we held together. The political wars gradually subsided as the two competing visions for the future coalesced. True, Hamilton's Federalist Party went out of favor in America, but its capitalist legacy was instrumental in transforming America into a strong, prosperous and respected nation. Nor could America avoid the bloodiest war in its history, the Civil War, before our country finally achieved reconciliation between the views of Hamilton and Jefferson. A balance between individual freedom for the common man which Jefferson believed in, and the importance of individual merit which Hamilton espoused, has been achieved. Our national character and psyche are enriched by both political orientations today. At a time when we most needed them, our Founding Fathers provided us with their talent, genius, commitment, and character. Today they still inspire us with their devotion to, and visions for, American democracy.

It is important to remember within the current context of the Iraq War, however, that most of the important political battles in America happened after the Revolutionary War was fought, and our key foreign military ally, France, had departed our shores. We needed many years to figure out the details of what kind of country we wanted for our posterity and ourselves. The particular characteristics and nature of our society - its governmental, economic and political machinery - had to be designed from scratch. We knew we wanted a representative democracy, but the exact form that our society should take had to be resolved through political dialogue, public debate, and often contentious, fierce in-fighting. This raucous debate continues today, and offers cardinal proof that our democracy is healthy and mature. If this process was necessary so that America might ultimately assume its role as leader of the free world, shouldn't Iraq also be given the opportunity to determine the exact nature of its own society and government, free from the presence of an American military occupation? The French had the good sense to leave our country once they helped us win our independence. Shouldn't we now have the good sense to leave Iraq so that they can establish their own destiny too?

We have done much for the people of Iraq. We have liberated them from a brutal dictator. We have done our best to help them establish a democracy of their own. We have provided technical, economic, and humanitarian assistance. We have done our best to train their army and police to defend their country. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes in order to promote the independence of Iraq. We have sent thousands of our young men and women to Iraq to fight and die for the cause of its self-determination. Isn't it now time for Iraq to stand on its own, establish whatever type of government it is that they deem appropriate, and get on with their lives? Isn't it time to bring our troops home?

Art Apruzzese                                                     
                                                                 
Los Osos, California
June 17, 2007