In 2004, President Bush announced, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stopped thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” While his mangling of the English language is humorous, his words have new meaning in light of the public debate over Iraq.

The rationalizations for more military action in Iraq are beyond

surreal. In a recent column, Mr. Ziemba declares “Victory over Islamic totalitarianism” is now why we must remain in Iraq. Although victory is more than accruing military successes, he asserts “our politicians are now anxious to walk away from the fight.” Disregarding that reliance on military power alone is predominately what mired us in Iraq, he then back-dates the unnecessary invasion as part of the “War On Terror” and

equates it with the justified military operations in Afghanistan.

Those opposing the Iraq war have been unfairly called treasonous and unpatriotic, yet we can take no satisfaction in having our predictions come true. Still, against all reason, there are those who beat the war drum, keeping time for their “Noble Cause March.”

Existing in a different reality, they believe victory in Iraq is simply a matter of optimistic trust in the President. To those who disagree, Mr. Ziemba grimly warns, “What I’m hearing from … Capitol Hill is nothing less than a strategy for defeat.”

We should not accept this tripe promulgated by the warmongers. Refusing to admit their plans were based on pie-in-the-sky intelligence, wishful thinking, and dreams of cheap oil, they gave little credence to regional political considerations, history or critics, thus ensuring the effort would be inevitably self-defeating. Now, in something akin to Orwell’s “memory hole,” the reason for war in Iraq is no longer WMDs but defeating “Islamofascism.” Why should Americans believe the Iraq war enthusiasts or trust their judgment when they have all been so incompetently and catastrophically wrong about Iraq, from the President on down?

Mr. Ziemba also wants to know, “Just how low must a casualty rate be to appease those with no heart for conflict?” For the debacle in Iraq, a casualty rate of ZERO would have been a good place to start. Each death represents an incalculable loss. It is my opinion those playing the casualties game have no interest in making similar personal sacrifices to support their favorite war. I wonder what Mr. Ziemba would think of casualty rates if he was a grunt on the ground in Iraq or if his own children were killed in an unnecessary war he didn’t support.

The Iraq War debate would be incomplete without noting these words:

“Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. … How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

These were future Sen. John Kerry’s words in 1971. Just replace “Vietnam” with “Iraq” and you have our present predicament.



Bo Alawine, a Meridian native and Clarkdale Attendance Center graduate who now lives in Ocean Springs, is a

computer programmer/systems engineer for a defense

contractor.