America's historic odyssey to Iraq

KENNETT, Mo. -- Although numerous events and denouements have yet to reveal the final picture of the war on Iraq, it is possible to arrive at some conclusions despite the relatively short period of time that has passed since March 20 when the United States began unleashing its historic military onslaught.

It is safe and proper to state right at the beginning that America has emerged the uncontested winner of the military portion of the war, with the enemy's elusive leader, Saddam Hussein, not even sticking around long enough to acknowledge the loss. In reality, the question of who would win was never really an issue; Uncle Sam was the odds-on favorite despite a few worse-case-scenario possibilities that never materialized. We won, folks, hands down and pardon us, world, if we take satisfaction in the fact.

At this juncture, however, it would be folly to declare that the U.S.-British coalition has won the peace; indeed, this is a phase of the conflict that hasn't had the time or opportunity to materialize. We can only wait for an ultimate response from the Islamic world, the progress either the coalition or the United Nations makes in restoring at least a portion of the damaged Iraqi environment in the post-Saddam era and, lastly, our ability to guide a country back to civilized society.

Before that happens, however, the hundreds of thousands of sacrifices made by American and British troops to assure victory over a declared enemy should not be forgotten. These brave men and women, responding to war cries of their leaders, left their families to risk life and limb for the cause of freedom from a feudal, despotic regime -- and they deserve all the praise they are given, and more. As has been the case of previous wars, their sacrifices far outweigh whatever contributions have been made by the rest of society. Their inspiring patriotism and bravery should never be forgotten, nor their sacrifices minimized by future official and public indifference and neglect.

It is be hoped the subjects that will continue to be studied include the efficacy of U.S. intervention in issues that may or may not directly affect our nation's future, and whether the belief that despotic governments warrant the full impact of U.S. military strength to achieve satisfactory resolutions. President George W. Bush espoused the cause of world-wide response to possibilities that, while alarming enough on the surface, were nevertheless based on assumptions that time has proved to be incorrect. No one questions the charge of a totalitarian regime in Baghdad that inflicted far too many crimes against its own populace, but Iraq would have to get in line to join the other world governments that inflict as much or more pain on their citizens. Despite its huge resources, the United States does not have the capacity, nor should it have the motivation, to cure every human rights abuse around the globe.

If this remains U.S. policy, then Donald Rumsfeld & Comrades should begin planning for the next military venture, either in the Orient, Africa, the Balkans, southeast Asia or South America. There is simply no satisfactory end for the policy the Bush administration unilaterally adopted to justify the use of invasion troops in the Middle East.

Despite the winding down of military operations, the United States seems to have no strategy for righting the chaos that threatens the domestic future of our sworn enemy. The United Nations, the long-ignored vehicle for peace, while ignoring American indifference to its views and actions, has put forth an offer to oversee post-war Iraq, an offer that is apparently unacceptable to the Bush administration despite its obvious advantage of creating a unified response to a serious diplomatic problem, putting an end to the U.S. dilemma. To observe that a U.N. response would be of material assistance to a serious American domestic-budget problem is to state the obvious, which unfortunately has thus far been snubbed and opposed by Washington. Saving Iraq promises to be as expensive as the military action has been, and far more threatening to our place in the world community than can presently be imagined, unless of course our political leaders are anxious to perpetuate the worsening U.S. domestic economy.

Except for the depressing anxiety over the safety of its native sons, the average U.S. citizen has suffered not at all from the Iraqi war, even missing the gasoline-price shock-waves after the first Gulf War. But our voracious appetite for petroleum has been an important factor in U.S. conduct for decades, threatening to create even grater chaos as the world's supply diminishes. America must begin to face this challenge before we encounter another Saddam Hussein who is capable of manipulating Middle East response to America's gas-guzzling consumers. Even America doesn't have sufficient resources to pay ransom to civilizations founded on beliefs that are quite different than ours and are perpetuated on religious convictions that run counter to Western beliefs.

Finally, for the sake of our democracy and our domestic tranquillity, let our nation discuss, debate and resolve the problem that was too hastily set aside at the start of the Iraqi invasion, namely the responsibility for committing American troops to wage war beyond U.S. borders. In recent weeks America has been at war with a regime that presumably had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, an allegation that precluded a time-honored constitutional process. Shifting such power in a representative democracy makes a sham of the time-honored restrictions of our national charter and, regardless of the momentary popularity of a president, shifts far too much power from one branch of government to another. In a deliberative society, in which all views are to be considered, even if not accepted by the majority, there must be no transfer of responsibility and accountability. We ignore this problem at our future risk, and we should correct it before it's too late.

Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.