The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows
“We’ll fight until the last
American is dead …”
American is dead …”
“We’ll fight until the last American is dead …”
After the end of a record, exciting and exhaustive primary season, I must admit that I was at a loss for what to write about for my next
column. To generate some ideas, I reverted to the dependable and did what I always do … turn to the talking heads on FOX News. On the
Sunday morning news shows, the latest spin in the campaign that is now being waged between Senators McCain and Obama, is that the
“Surge” is now working; that “there is good news coming out of Iraq and no one is reporting it.” According to the crew on Fox News Sunday, the
Iraqis are now taking ownership of their fight against Al Qaeda and the forces that are striving to defeat their move towards democracy and
stability. Quoting the New York Times, they posited that the recent success by the Iraqi Army against Muqtada Al Sadr is good news for John
McCain’s presidential campaign.
When I think about this question, I’m reminded of my favorite editorial cartoon that was published during the first Gulf War. The cartoon
showed an image of Uncle Sam riding on a tank with an American flag overhead vanquishing the enemy. Right behind the tank was two Arab
Sheiks riding on the backs of two camels. The caption above the first Sheik read: “We’re behind you all the way … way behind you!” The second
caption read: “We’ll fight until the last American is dead!”
The status of the war in Iraq is the lynchpin on which the McCain campaign will live or die when this election comes to fruition. Can one
assume that the notion that the Iraqis have finally taken credible and significant steps forward to take over the leadership of their government
and military is in fact correct? The editorial cartoon cited above addressed the fact that the Arab countries never did fully rise to the occasion
to defend their countries in the first Gulf War. Why? Because they didn’t have to do so as they relied on the U.S. and the British and a host of
other smaller countries to save them from the ravages of Saddam Hussein.
Even if one can assume that the Iraqi’s have now taken over, what has caused them to rise to the occasion? Is it the Bush/McCain Surge?
Or, is it the notion that with a Democratic win in November, the fact that there will be a “surge” in the departure of U.S. and the few remaining
Coalition troops? McCain has no other option but to claim this as a success for his war strategy in Iraq while arguing that there is no other option
but to stay there for the long haul. One problematic for McCain is that President Bush has also claimed this as a success … making it that much
harder for McCain to distance himself from the least popular President in history.
The Democrats, lead by Sen. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have fired back, stating that any successes by the Iraqi government
and army must be attributed, to a larger degree, to the fact that they are aware of the huge public sentiment against the war in the U.S. and
Britain, and that most of all, they have finally stepped to the plate to assume leadership because they know that the Americans will no longer
be there. Obama is right to criticize McCain’s long-term war strategy for Iraq by positing that there must be a surge in regional and international
diplomacy coupled with increased ownership by the Iraqis to end a war that has drained the national treasury and diminished U.S. credibility
and prestige around the world.
The Democrats must continue to stress that with a decaying infrastructure, rising inflation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, rising oil and food
prices and an endless war that costs $3 billion per week has mortgaged the future for several generations, making us pay far more than this
nation can afford. Furthermore, the Democrats must also continue to stress the fact that the war in Iraq is also putting a strain on the U.S. and
NATO forces allowing for the current rise in the insurgency by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.