I have tried to stay out of politics in this blog, but I read an article today in the Boston Herald (
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000742016) that made my blood boil and causes me to make a rather embarrassing confession.
When I was in college at the University of South Dakota, I served on the Student Publications Board, the body overseeing the student newspaper there. I was also appointed to the board as the student representative to the Neuharth Foundation, as Al Neuharth had just bequeathed a large sum of money to the University paper, because he is an alum of the University. Each year, the board selects a "distinguished" journalist to receive the Neuharth Award for alleged excellence in journalism. The first recipient was Walter Cronkite, and I as the student rep, was anointed the honor of giving an introduction speech for him at the award ceremony, a task I am now embarrassed to say I did quite willingly. Cronkite didn't show up, for alleged health issues, if I remember correctly 15 years later. Had I not been ignorant at the time, I would have refused the speech and boycotted the event. Now, I see that Neuharth has written an article calling for a US pullout in Iraq "sooner rather than later." If you don't know, Neuharth was the former CEO/Chairman of Gannett Newspaper and is the founder of the USA today, which is why he has column space for his weekly ramblings.
The reason these two events are linked is because following the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, a colossal military failure for the North Vietnamese that prevented their being able to conduct offensive combat operations for 3 years, Cronkite went on CBS news and declared that the war in Vietnam was "unwinnable." This singular event - the defining moment in Cronkite's career - helped turn American opinion against the war and against the men that served there. It also is, in my mind, the event that spawned so many of today's minions racing to publish bad things and present dire scenarios in our present war in a contest to create the culminating event in their mind of American humiliation in this war. That was the fruit Cronkite's career sowed. Now Neuharth is making his attempt at being the tipping point in turning public opinion against this war.
Before I go into dissecting his arguments and rational, let me point out some positive contributions that Neuharth has made (I did read his autobiography prior to meeting him).
1. He made a very conscious effort to include women and minorities on his boards of directors. Before he became CEO of Gannett, the board had been a white male exclusive society. When Neuharth left, I believe that over 50% of the members were women and minorities.
2. His creation of the USA today changed the way that words are used, and I dare say that blogging as a medium owes some of its existence to the way that USA puts forth information, in short bullet comments and graphs. My mother always called it a newspaper for simpletons, but its influence is undeniable.
3. He served in the Army during WWII, in Europe and the Pacific. His personal bravery should not be questioned.
That said, let's look at his arguments.
1. He said that WWII, as opposed to this war was highly moral. This is absolutely ludicrous. There have been three great ideological struggles over the past century. The first was fascism which was defeated on the field of battle. The second was communism which was met in the field of battle but was ultimately defeated thru constant, decade’s long resolve and the corruption of ideology itself. Now we are engaged in our third struggle, that against Islamic Extremism. If he, or anyone else feels that the case being put forth by the Islamic Terrorists is moral or their vision of a perfect society is just or the manner in which they carry out their battle in keeping with the norms of an even moderately civilized society, he is so far off of the deep-end that Jacque Cousteau couldn't save him. The war I am fighting in is just. The war that the great majority of the Iraqi people are fighting in is moral. The humane manner we are conducting it in is unsurpassed in the dark history of warfare.
2. He stated that he was "proud, determined, armed and properly equipped" for his war. The army fielded by this country for this war is proud and determined. Yes, there are some people trying to get out of coming here. Guess what, there were people that tried to get out of WWII as well. The army fielded by this country for this war is the best trained, best equipped army ever to have gone into battle. Do we have absolutely everything we need? No, obviously there are areas that we need to improve in, like the oft mentioned up armored HMMWVs, and the army is responding to that. But, we are much better armed and equipped than any one else. None of the soldiers at Normandy have the body armor every US troop does. None of the Marines at Guadalcanal had the weaponry that we do. The logistical troops in France didn't have the means to properly move supplies around the battlefield like ours do. Everything isn't perfect, but it is the best it has ever been.
3. He said that he would do all he could to avoid service in this war. After reading my first point, if the silliness of his comment is lost, I can't help you.
Let's look at the aftermath of what happened in Vietnam after we pulled out. Over 5 million South Vietnamese were killed in the communist purges. The "peace" there killed more people that the war ever did. If we lose our resolve in this battle, the same thing could happen here. And the mass graves currently in existence here - which are "allies" in Europe are refusing to investigate because they don't want to be part of war crimes trials - will be shallow compared to the ones that will be filled after we leave with the mission not completed. Not to mention the further encouragement a premature pullout would give to our ample supply of enemies around the world, those enemies encouraged by a premature pull out in Somalia, and our tepid response to terrorist events prior to 9/11.
The Islamic terrorists often say that they are fighting to avenge our "persecution" of Muslims around the globe. This is completely stupid. Let's look at our military adventures over the past 15 years. We went to Somalia to protect Muslims who were being starved by other Muslims. We went to Saudi Arabia to free a country that had been invaded by another Muslim country. We had Haiti, OK, no Muslims there. Then we had Bosnia, where I personally went, to protect Muslims from Orthodox Serbs. After that came Kosovo where the same players as Bosnia were involved and we were on the same side. Following that came Afghanistan where we freed Muslims from other Muslims. Now we are in Iraq where we liberated a country from a tyrannical dictator and is now being terrorized by - guess what - Muslims. Notice a pattern here?
Our country has fought against tyranny over the past 15 years and is doing so again. However this struggle, unlike some of the past struggles, comes when we should be fully aware of the depravity of the enemy. The only question now is whether the American people have the will to engage in this struggle now, when the damage suffered to our country is relatively manageable, or will we have to wait until the damage inflicted by the Islamic Terrorists horrific enough to merit everyone's full attention.
I wrote a letter to my daughter recently in the event of my death here. In it I said that if democracy is spreading across this region at the time she read it our sacrifice - my families and our country's - will have been worth it. If however, the political pressure to pull out causes us to leave the mission here unfinished, and Iraq and the region descend into further anarchy, then my death would have been in vain. For the sake of those that have fallen in this war, when I pray at night, I pray for the unwavering resolve of the American people to see this battle to the end, whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice. We owe our children nothing less - the same debt owed to our generation by the WWII generation, and our debt is just as grave.