COMensarations

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Pearl Harbor Day #64

What was good for the world (meaning Europe and part of Asia) during WWII, should be good for the whole world today.

Sixty-four years ago Japan did something appalling: they attacked the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and killed hundreds of people and sank several ships. On September 11, 2001, some terrorists did something appalling: they hijacked four passenger airliners and succeeded in killing hundreds of people and destroyed four large airplanes.

Twenty-some years ago, on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day Invasion, President Ronald Reagan gave a speech at Pointe du Hoc in France. He said,

We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

And I wonder why the situation in Iraq: tyranny, oppression, genocide, is seen as somehow different, and less worthy, than the situation in Europe and Asia in during WWII. Later Reagan said,

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

Given the moral parallels between the situation during WWII and now, why is it that so many politicians and media people are trying to weaken the resolve of U.S. to complete its mission in Iraq? Especially since the cost of that mission seems to be comparatively much smaller than its mission during WWII.

The politicians and media have been pushing for a “timetable” as if the Iraq war is a new product launch or a scheduled airline flight. Believe it or not, there were timetables during WWII, also. The Allies believed it would be stupid to try to fight a war in Europe during the winter. In November and early December of 1944 they were preparing to ride out the winter right where they were located, and were expecting the Axis to do the same. But then the Belgian Breakthrough occurred: the Germans found a weakness in the Allied lines, broke through and spread behind the lines and, amongst other things, surrounded the town of Bastogne in what is called the Battle of the Bulge. The 101st Airborne was fighting in its summer-issue gear, since the “timetable” didn’t have them scheduled for a change-out before the unscheduled battle began. So much for timetables.

If people want a “timetable” for pulling out of Iraq, that schedule needs to be based on events, not dates. Several of these milestone events have already occurred: the Iraqis have had democratic elections and Saddam Hussein has been brought to trial. The U.S. has only embarassed itself when it has not stayed the course. We need to reinforce the message that when someone does something appalling to us, we will take action and see the mission through to its end. Then maybe we’ll see another sixty years of relative peace before something appalling happens again.