Bob Herbert Column

[Pablo]

I thought this was a provocative column:

Heads in the Sand
By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 3, 2004


When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator John McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said, adding, "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We've been in West Germany for 50 years."

Reporters have come to expect candor from Senator McCain, and in this case he didn't disappoint. But there weren't any speakers mounting the podium at the Republican National Convention to hammer home the message that G.I.'s would be in Iraq for a decade or two.

That's not the understanding most Americans had when this wretched war was sold to them, and it's not the view most Americans hold now.

If Senator McCain is correct (and the belief in official Washington is that he is), then boys and girls who are 5 or 10 years old now will get their chance in 2015 or 2020 to strap on the Kevlar and engage the Iraqi "insurgents" who, like the indigenous forces we fought in Vietnam, will never accept the occupation of their country by America.

Marcina Hale, a protester who came to New York this week from suburban Westport, Conn., said she has two teenage boys and that Iraq "is not a war that I'm willing to send my sons to." As the years pass and the casualties mount, that sentiment will only grow.

The truth is always the first casualty of politics. But there was a bigger disconnect than usual between the bizarre, hermetically sealed perspective that was on display in Madison Square Garden this week and the daunting events unfolding without respite in the real world.

Iraq is a mess. While the cartoonish Arnold Schwarzenegger was drawing huge laughs in the Garden and making cracks about economic "girlie men," reports were emerging about the gruesome murder of 12 Nepalese hostages who had traveled to Iraq less than two weeks earlier in search of work.

At the same time, an effort to disarm insurgents in the militant Baghdad slum of Sadr City collapsed, and the death toll among American forces in Iraq continued its relentless climb toward 1,000.

The Los Angeles Times noted yesterday that a report by the respected Royal Institute of International Affairs in London has concluded that Iraq will be lucky if it avoids a breakup and civil war. The often-stated U.S. goal of a full-fledged Iraqi democracy is beyond unlikely.

In Afghanistan, a legitimate front in the so-called war against terror, much of the country remains in the hands of warlords, and the opium trade is flourishing. Experts believe substantial amounts of money from that trade is flowing to terrorist groups.

In Israel, 16 people were killed by suicide bombers who blew themselves up on a pair of crowded buses on Tuesday. In Russia, a series of horrific terror attacks, in the air and on the ground, have cast a pall across the country.

Despite all the macho posturing and self-congratulating at the Republican convention, the wave of terror that's been unleashed on the world is only growing. The American-led war in Iraq is feeding that wave, causing it to swell rather than ebb.

Any serious person who looked around the world this week would have to wonder what the delegates at the G.O.P. convention were so happy about.

The Republican conventioneers spent the entire week reminding America that we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But interestingly, there was hardly a mention by name of those actually responsible for the attacks - Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Discussions about the nation's real enemies were taboo. We don't know where they are or what they're up to. The over-the-top venom of some of the speakers and delegates was reserved not for Osama, but for a couple of mild-mannered guys named John.

What Americans desperately need is a serious, honest discussion of where we go from here. If we're going to be in Iraq for 10 or 20 more years, the policy makers should say so, and tell us what that will cost in money and human treasure. The violence associated with such a long-term occupation is guaranteed to be appalling.

Vietnam tore this nation apart. As we've seen in this campaign, the wounds have yet to heal. Incredibly, we're now traveling a similarly tragic road in Iraq.

[Guest]

I refuse to be provoked by that column. Good job, Pablo!

[OcularGold]

theres a difference between being stationed for 20 years and fighting for 20 years. most americans have little issue with troops being stationed in germany or japan.

i agree, the cold war is over, we dont need a military presence around the world, but this writer is trying to exagerate things.

and yes, i am for a missle defense shield. yes, it will be expensive, but i, for one, don't want the US to be caught in a catastrophe worse than 9/11 because we weren't prepared.

are you also trying to say that we should not have gone into afghanistan?

[Pablo]

[OcularGold]

hi. i might be in school, but i get paid for it. ive been working for 5 years now. yes, i pay taxes.

and yes, of course there are limits. i agree with your assessment of the cost/benefit ratio of military stationed afar. i thought i said so. my apologies if i did not.

i dont need someone to tell me its necessary. i think it is.

i asked the question because i wasn't sure of your position. so let me ask it again: do you think we should have invaded afghanistan? why or why not?

an article doesn't need to be intelligent to be provocative.

[Pablo]

It's possible that going after Osama Bin Ladin was a reasonable response, but I'm not 100% sure it was the best option, since I'm not sure what all the options were. I don't see what that has to do with Mr. Herbert's article, which I believe to be intelligent as well as provocative.

I find it difficult to believe that you could come to the conclusion we need SDI without someone telling you so. You were probably too young to even remember Reagan's first mentioning of it, so you were obviously not the originator. Someone had to tell you about it and convince you to be afraid of something out there. There are currently many "experts" who believe it can never work technologically, and further, many who believe that it will have a de-stabilizing influence rather than a stabilizing one. While I respect your implied opinion that we can "afford" it (although I doubt if you really know the cost), I have serious questions as to what it will do to our economy. So your "belief" that we need it would sound a bit shallow to me pending a little more in-depth rationale.

[Guest]

Why can't the same be said about your arrival on the opposite spectrum, Pablo, old buddy? Why not allow Ocular Gold the benefit of the doubt to arrive at his own conclusion?

One can be introduced without being told. So lets give some credit to Ocular Gold, Pablo!

[Pablo]

[OcularGold]

I'll post a more proper response tomorrow, but its late, im tired, and i still have to study.

three points:

1. i mis-interpreted the article for it being against the Afghan war, even. he brings it up, and it seemed from the tone that the author may be, but he doesn't explicitly say so.

2. I may know know a little more about the missile defense program than you think, for one, it isn't called SDI anymore. It's estimated price (don't take my word for it, i don't remember exactly. its been a while) is about 70 billion. what would be the cost, in lives and property, if, say, san fran were nuked by north korea?

well, whichever. your issue is that the government is spending money, it seems. and thats something that has been discussed here ad naseum.

3. the article doesn't say anything significant you don't hear on talk radio, news magazines, news shows, etc. someone anti-republican against the war. wow.

[Pablo]

$70 Billion is a big number, but do think it's a realistic one? If so, Samadhi has a bridge for you.

For the record, I'm not anti-republican. As Arnold said, you don't have to agree on every issue to be a good republican. (not saying I'm a good republican)

I'm against the war and against the "gay marriage amendment".

I'm for tax cuts, revamping the tax code, incentives for small business, allowing people to divert some of their "social security" contribution to private accounts, school vouchers, NAFTA, and just about every other domestic plank in the republican platform.

Here's a logic question:

Given:
North Korea is seriously planning to nuke California.
In response we develop a space shield that will protect us from incoming missiles. This will admittedly take years to make work, if it will work at all.

Which of the following is the most likely logical conclusion?

A. North Korea is thinking, "If we're going to nuke 'em, we better do it now before they have that stinkin' shield".
B. N.K. is thinking, "They're going to be spending at least $100 Billion on that stupid thing. We want a piece of that action. They'll be outsourcing a lot of that work, so we better get ready. We'll be producing components for the system within 2 years.
C. N.K. is thinking, "Huh?" THEY are afraid of US????? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
D. N.K. thinking "As soon as they have that thing up, we'll send a few nukes over and give 'er a test."

[Marvin]

Good luck predicting what Kim Jong-Il will do. No-one else seems to manage it. To get from North Korea to the US mainland would take a pretty big long range ICBM and he isn't going to manage that any time soon. For big government projects, the rule of thumb is double the initial estimate and you're probably closer (often still under) the eventual cost.

[OcularGold]

[Marvin]

Fair enough on the missile delivery system - if I wanted a long range missile I'd be talking to the ex-Soviets too.