Thomas Sowell
August 21, 2003


Here we are, five months after the war in Iraq began, and we haven't yet solved all of that country's problems. Who would have thought that we would?

Apparently a significant section of the American media either thought that we would or is simply piling on the Bush administration, in hopes of bringing back the Democrats in 2004. The New York Times has led the way, managing to come up with at least one negative story to put on the front page almost every day.

When there is nothing bad to report from Iraq, they can always go interview families of soldiers who had been killed before, in order to continue a regular dose of negative news. We have, in effect, our own home-grown fifth column, even if their purpose is not to aid the enemy but to lay the groundwork for next year's election.

Even when the military campaign in Iraq was triumphant, there was a chorus of complaints in the media about artifacts missing from a museum in Baghdad. It later turned out that these artifacts were not missing, after all, but even if they had been -- since when are soldiers in a war zone supposed to be acting as museum guards?

To anyone old enough to remember World War II, this is all a painful reminder of how much our country -- or at least the press -- has declined since those days. Although this was a deeply divided country before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that wake-up call woke everybody up.

Organizations that had been striving to keep us out of the war suddenly disbanded. They didn't stay in business to carp.

Where were we five months after Pearl Harbor, compared to where we are today in Iraq? We entered World War II -- or, rather, the war came to us -- on December 7, 1941. Five months later, on May 7, 1942, where were we?

We had no real victories in all that time. On May 6, 1942, we suffered a devastating defeat with the surrender of the American forces in the Philippines. This was followed by the infamous Bataan death march, in which many American and other prisoners of war lost their lives, either to the inhuman conditions or by being brutally executed by the Japanese when they fell from exhaustion.

The British were doing no better. When they won the battle of El-Alamein in November 1942, Winston Churchill said frankly, "we have a new experience. We have victory." Britain had been fighting for three years at that point.

Through all the years-long, uphill struggle of World War II, you seldom heard the phrase "war-weary" soldiers that has already become common in some media quarters during the five months of the Iraq war.

No one demanded that President Roosevelt tell them how long World War II was going to last or how much money it would cost, or what his "exit-strategy" was. It would have been considered not only unpatriotic, but absolutely childish, to do so. Wars are not choreographed.

World War II was bigger in terms of troops deployed but our danger today may be greater. We need only think about North Korea producing nuclear weapons and selling them to international terrorist networks. What happened on September 11, 2001 could be only a prelude.

Yet, in this greatest crisis that America has ever faced, it is business-as-usual in politics and in much of the media. Constant carping and political cheap shots abound in a way that would once have been unthinkable.

None of this goes unnoticed by our enemies. North Korea could dare to engage in nuclear blackmail, in defiance of overwhelming American strength, only because our internal divisions limit our options politically.

Despite all efforts to defuse the North Korean threat by diplomatic means, force may ultimately be the only language that the North Koreans understand. Unfortunately, there are too many Americans who do not understand that and too many for whom protest and indignation are a way of life -- a potentially fatal habit.

We can only hope that those who have the fate of this nation in their hands at this crucial time will do whatever has to be done, regardless of the political consequences. No one's political career is worth seeing American cities in radioactive ruins.

Five months is a blink of an eye to an adult, but an eternity to a child.

Amen Six.
Well spoken.

I more or less agree. If the US could fight WWII for four years then I don't see the problem with staying in Iraq for a while. Soldiers are professionals, they shouldn't winge when they have to do the hard parts of their job.

That said, the reconstruction is very poorly funded. Bremer is constantly telling people this. As far as I know they still haven't sorted out the power, for example. This can't all be put down to loyalist attacks. I don't mind the press keeping that issue in the news.

there was an immediate threat with the Nazis... Saddam however is a bit of a stretch. Even Bush admitted recently that there was no real immediate danger..which of course is what he built his entire case for war upon. And that being said the ENglish have recently stated that they knew thier evidence about Nuclear arms and WMDs on Iraq was also faulty and not worth a pile of horseshit.

by the way, after WW2 the US didnt single handedly rebuild Europe, in fact we handed a bill to all our allies that said "Services rendered, amount due."

In Iraq, we are not only having to control EVERYTHING we have to rebuild an infrastructure, THEN its economy... theyre hopeful though that this will only take from 5-7 years. and at something like 3 billion dollars a week, i think its probably a good idea the asshole of a president gets off his high horse and asks NATO, the UN and our old allies INCLUDING france to help share the costs of our war we started.

Billy,

The US did rebuild Europe, we also carried much of the defense burden during the Cold War years too.

BTW, Saddam did use poison gas on the Kurds and the Shiites. He also had a nuke program going too. The peace terms of the Gulf War were that he would disarm. He had to show his compliance to UN weapons inspectors. What happened was 12 years of Iraq resistance and non-compliance. It was a shell game that went on far too long.

A danger? The Iraqi regime was a clear and present danger. That the Iraqi regime had been trying to build WMD's and had been supporting Hamas is enough reason for US to act after 911.

Cost? Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in the world. We just need to get those oil wells up and running and the whole operation will more than pay for itself.

" The US did rebuild Europe, we also carried much of the defense burden during the Cold War years too."

Incorrect, the US did help however Europe actually built itself back up.

"BTW, Saddam did use poison gas on the Kurds and the Shiites. He also had a nuke program going too. The peace terms of the Gulf War were that he would disarm. He had to show his compliance to UN weapons inspectors. What happened was 12 years of Iraq resistance and non-compliance. It was a shell game that went on far too long."

Saddam DID have chemical agents and a nuke program in the 80s..this is true, however Gulf War 1 and the CLinton Administration bombed Iraq everyday for a good 9 or so years, Iraq had no nuke program in 2000, 01 02 or 03, in fact as they have discovered the Power grid for iraq was only at 50% before gulf war 2 due to damage form the 1st gulf war. I could easily call someone a murderer and ask them to prove they werent... its almost virtually impossible to prove you are not... likewise the onus would be on me to prove they were with empirical evidence.. the US had not given any real evidence other than faulty british intel regarding Iraqs WMD capibilities for this war, and it was impossible for Iraq to prove it wasnt holding anything for the obvious reaons.

" danger? The Iraqi regime was a clear and present danger. That the Iraqi regime had been trying to build WMD's and had been supporting Hamas is enough reason for US to act after 911."

There have been no ties established between Iraqs government and 9/11, there were no WMDs being built in the passed few years and there wil be none found. There was no danger.. Even the president has said on national television that there was no real or present danger, and that we had gone to iraq to free its people. Even though they are literally worse off now than they were before.

"cost? Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in the world. We just need to get those oil wells up and running and the whole operation will more than pay for itself."

Iraqi oil controllers along with the UN and other American sources has said over and over again that the oil production will take years at least to get up to production and even then it wont be completely enough to rebuild not only Iraqs buildings and hospitals but also its police forces and infrastructure.. the country now appears to be headed for an anti west islamic theocracy, just as Afghanistan had. Face it, Bush has failed, Rumsfeld has REALLY failed, and we are stuck with a shit sandwhich for the next 5 to 10 years that we all have to take a bite out of...meanwhile the Economy is crumbling, progress is minimal at best and there are actuallly 2 million less jobs today than the day Bush took office.

You need to check out the Marshall Plan used to rebuild the Europe after WWII. You also need to check out how the US defense umbrella over Western Europe allowed ther economies to revive in the face of a Soviet threat to the east.

You got the part about where Saddam did have WMD. But you left out where it was on Iraq to cooperate with the terms of the Gulf War peace terms and that the Iraqi regime did not cooperate.
So we go in to make sure that they don't have the WMD, nor the ability to make more in the future.
We don't need another situation like North Korea to develop in Iraq, better to nip that in the bud.

BTW, Iraq's regime was openly cooperating with Hamas, giving money over to the families of the suicide bombers. Now imagine some of these suicide bombers stapping on some small backpack WMD and coming over here.
Of course you would only scream about "racial profiling" if these guys were stopped at the border.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. You are going to have to post a credible source on that bit about it not being enough wealth to get things up and running.

The rest is just partisan B/S as you Lefties are upset that we punished the "Arab street" after 911.

I think comparing the threat level of Sadaam with that of Hitler is a huge stretch.

THe US didnt build Europe.. In case youre forgetting the Europeans had to pawn off thier empires to pay for the war, the Us just held the money for them. England alone lost its stranglehold on the world and gave it up to America to get rebuilt, im sorry but Europe rebuilt itself... not to mention not ALL of europe was rebuilt the land taken and controlled by th Russians lay in devistation until somewhere in the 80s. Europe paid for its own rebuilding. THe US may have hung around like it was protecting them.. but protecting them from who??? the Mexicans? the Africans? some 3rd world nation?

As for credible check out Times magazines last few publications they deal with the issue regarding the rebuilding of Iraq almost every issue. They have said time and time again that the US can NOT count on oil money to rebuild Iraq, Bush has recently asked for another 80 some billion dollars for reconstruction... adding it to the excessive 100 billion already spent there since the war... how much is enough? oh wait to quote the Bush team "as much is as needed to finish the job" ...oh great answer guys, how about a Jillion-kagillion dollars would that be enough?

And again, Hamas doesnt equal al quaeda.. so therefore Hamas doesnt equal 9/11 terro attacks. We have YET to catch Bin Laden the one responsible for 9/11... LOL or SADDAM! it makes me feel so happy now that theyre floating around out there SOMEWHERE...

anyhow... Six i got a good film for you, an academy award winner for you to watch. Its called "Bowling for Colombine" check it out.

Bowling for Columbine is an editorial masquerading as a documentary. Its Hollyweird film fantasy.

Your historical revisionism on the Post War period is seemingly bizarre until you rhetorically ask what we were protecting Western Europe from. If you could not see the Soviet Union as a threat, then you really are one of them bloody Stalinists.

Hamas is a muslim terrorist organization just like Al Qaida. They share the same worldview and work together. Yes we are making war on Al Qaida, no we will not ignore Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist groups.

RUssia was too busy rebuilding itself after the war to need too much protection, if we REALLY wanted to protect Europe frm the USSR we would have rolled on into moscow and finished what the Nazis began especially with our being the only atomic power at the time. The US didnt care about Europe, all we did was stick around to collect the cash..they rebuilt themselves.. the only revisionism is the fact that too many textbooks from Texas (worst state for education btw) tote american glory hogging above real truth...

No, we havent been fighting terrorism since we invaded Afghanistan, the one man soley responsible for planning the attacks on the WTC is alive and well, in fact he just released a new video telling Americans to prepare for punishment... the war in Iraq which has nothing to do with Hamas OR al quaeda OR safety or terrorism was all about Bushs buddies and Rumsfields buddies at Bechtel and such getting big contracts and control of the oil reserves.. you said it yourself Six, Iraq has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world... and thats exactly why we invaded them. Meanwhile our soldiers are being killed EVERY day by the Iraqis who want us OUT.

By the way BOwling for Colombine IS an editorial, no doubt they push a few views not all of them i agree with, for example i dont agree with the whole fear the black man and thats why blacks only seem to cause crime issue, its a simple fact that blacks DO cause alot of crime, and not because whites are afraid of them, also i dont want guns banned.... however the whole issue that the movie stood behind the whole US government and Mass media "ruling through fear" is DEAD on... the US is a nation where we are ruled by phantom fears given to us by our government especially our government now, so they can push an agenda for thier own needs... the media also buys into this as well....

1. After a long, draining war, it would have been politically impossible to start another one right on its heels, to depose Stalin.

2. Up to that point, the USSR had not been especially imperialist. All that happened later.

if the USSR wasnt imperialst then i dont see where the threat was.. and the US was untouched physically after the war, it would have been VERY easy to mount another attack and roll through into Russia who had taken MASSIVE casualties..especially since we had ourselves established all over Europe already in bases etc... im sure the English wouldve helped too.

Just a quick reminder...

Osama actually denied involvement
Now.. once again...
Where is the evidence that Osama did it ??

Its called an Ideological threat to the ruling Wealthy Elite Class of the West: Socialism.

Marxist Pig,

You must have missed the video where Osama and some of his buddies were discussing the success of their mission. It's notable where he discussed that only the terrorist pilots knew it was going to be a suicide mission. He was laughing that the terrorists in charge of watching over the passengers did not know that the planes were going to be crashed