PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
Mobile
Home Delivery
philly.com
email
font size
comments
0
options
 
Friday, August 20, 2010

Troops accomplished mission in Iraq
U.S. Army Sgt. Jason Thompson, left, and Lt. Col. Nate Flegler, right, wave to one of the last Stryker armored vehicles to leave Iraq as it crosses the border into Kuwait at the Khabari border crossing. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

 

Mission accomplished! Yes, those are the right words to apply to all of the U.S. soldiers who served in the Iraq war. More than 4,400 of them, in Abraham Lincoln’s words, gave their “last full measure of devotion.” Add those casualties to the estimated 100,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, killed in the conflict.
 
U.S. soldiers accomplished their mission by carrying out the orders put before them. It was not their job to question the orders. They carried out the will of this nation’s elected leaders, fulfilling the constitutional role of this democratic nation’s military. Mission accomplished, soldiers, and welcome home.
 
But while the troops unquestionably fulfilled their duty, there are unanswered questions about America’s political leaders’ handling of Iraq. By now, most Americans should agree that the war began on a pretext. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, though he didn’t mind people thinking he did. Hussein also had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, though President George W. Bush strained mightily to make that connection in declaring a war on terrorism. In the end, removing the murderous Hussein morphed into the rationale for the U.S. invasion. That only raised America’s responsibility for what would take his place.
 
How this nation will meet that responsibility was a major question as the last combat unit — the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2d Infantry Division — left Iraq on Thursday. Drawing down our military presence to 50,000 advisers and trainers isn’t exactly quitting Iraq. More, but smaller numbers, of U.S. casualties can be expected.
 
Even if the negotiated timetable to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2011 is met, President Obama plans to settle a large diplomatic corps there, including about 2,400 officials at the Baghdad embassy and sites in Kirkuk and Mosul — plus 7,000 private security guards to protect them. Will the State Department’s becoming the dominant U.S. presence in Iraq help that nation to finally form a government? It’s been five months since parliamentary elections, and the Shiites and Sunnis still haven’t worked out a deal to share power. Can our diplomats ensure the best political arrangement for Iraq’s Kurds?
 
With so much still in flux, how can anyone declare victory in Iraq? Col. John Norris, who leads the 4th Stryker Brigade, seems to have trouble even saying that word. “I will let history judge whether we reached irreversible momentum,” he told the Washington Post. “That’s not my call.” Even historians may not be able to tell for some time whether “irreversible momentum” was achieved in Iraq. But the best indication will be whether it forms a coalition government. The cooperation required to do that is crucial to ending further violence
 
Meanwhile, Americans would be wise to expect a similar nebulous outcome in Afghanistan, the so-called good war that should have been waged more vigorously when Bush’s focus was on Iraq.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 2:00 AM  Permalink | Post a comment
Comments   


0 comments
About The Inquirer Editorial Board
Welcome. You're reading the Inquirer Editorial Board's Say What? opinion blog. We hope you enjoy commentary from the Editorial and Commentary pages, in addition to up-to-the-minute opinion postings that appear here for the first time. Here are thumbnail bio sketches and contact information for the editors and writers who produce the newspaper's opinion pages, as well as an archive of recent cartoons by Tony Auth. (Our blog roll follows the ad below.) Please check out the videos from our One Great Idea project. And don't miss our daily online reader polls.
Join on Facebook    Follow on Twitter

Advertise Here