Senior reflects on writing from Iraq

By Jesse Hamilton
Senior Staff Writer
April 25, 2007

From homework to house parties and finals to formals, my last article should be a culmination of four terrific and memorable years at La Salle University. I should reminisce on everything from my first day as a freshman to my last semester as a senior. I’m not going to do that though.

Instead, I have chosen to write about an issue that has been debated since my freshman year: the war in Iraq. I’ve written numerous articles on the topic, many of them while serving in Iraq as an adviser to the Iraqi Army. This article is a brief synopsis of the war, from the blatant deception in the push for invasion to the recent hypocrisy shown by the Bush Administration in its latest endeavors to keep troops in Iraq.

In response to Democrats’ insistence that the U.S. engage in a scaled withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, on April 13th, 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that, “Above all, the Democrats’ attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor.” Even if Cheney’s statements are accurate, and I do not believe they are, it would not be the first time that politicians have “micromanaged” our military’s commanders. Let’s go back to the first micromanagement of our military by politicians.

On February 4, 2003, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, testified before Congress in regards to the number of troops needed for the possible invasion of Iraq. Shinseki stated that the U.S. would need “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers…We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kind of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.”

On March 16, 2003, while on Meet the Press, Cheney held no restraint in publicly discrediting Shinseki. He said, “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.”

On March 19, 2003, the United States, under orders from President George W. Bush, began its invasion of Iraq with 125,000 ground troops, completely disregarding the advice of the Army’s top commander. It would take a little over a year and half after the invasion for it to become evident that the Bush Administration’s decision to send too few troops was the largest strategic blunder of the war.

On Oct. 4, 2004, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, appointed by Bush as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (the governing body of Iraq before the first election of Iraqi officials), said this: “We paid a big price for not stopping [the post-invasion looting in Iraq] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness.” He also added that “We never had enough troops on the ground.”

But why did we even have troops on the ground to begin with?

On Jan. 29, 2003 President Bush created the fervor for war with Iraq in his State of the Union Address. He stated, “Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction.” Shortly after, the president made a critical link. “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists.” Finally, the president painted a picture for the American public. “Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein.”

And just like that, the country was sold on the war. We were not sold on the war on the grounds of liberating the Iraqi people. We were not sold on the war on the grounds of spreading democracy to the Middle East. We were sold on the war on the grounds that there was an established link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and that Saddam planned on providing Osama with weapons of mass destruction. We bought into the war out of fear.

But was there really any reason to be scared of the link between Osama and Saddam?

On June 14, 2004, during a speech at The James Madison Institute in Florida, Vice President Cheney asserted that al-Qaeda and Saddam had “long-established ties” with one another.

On June 16, 2004, the 9/11 Commission released a staff report stating that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq,” but that “Iraq apparently never responded.” The report went on to further state that “we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

On June 17, 2004, in response to the commission’s findings, President Bush staunchly defended his administration’s initial assertion by stating, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda, [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” Remember that quote.

But even if there wasn’t a link, Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction, right?

On Sept. 30, 2004, the Iraq Survey Group released its final report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They found that “Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”

There were no links between bin Laden and Hussein and no weapons of mass destruction, and, therefore, no justification for the pre-emptive war. Now we find ourselves stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. Over 3,300 American troops are dead, and our all-volunteer military has been stretched to its limit. What do we do now?

On April 9, 2007, Iraq war veteran and former commander of the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, said that in order to “win the peace” in Iraq, the United States would need a presence of about 300,000 troops— an amount that would require the reinstatement of the military draft.

On April 18, 2007, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a Vietnam War veteran, concurred with Batiste’s call for conscription. “If the President insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do.”

The way I see it, our nation has two feasible options. Either we begin a systematic withdrawal of troops, as our Congress has insisted, or we stay in Iraq until we can stabilize the nation. The amount of troops I believe is needed cannot be mustered from our already stretched out, all-volunteer military. If we are to stay in Iraq, we must re-instate the military draft.

A draft would bring the war back home. It would ensure that while our nation is at war, everyone shares the responsibility that our volunteer troops have shouldered for so long. From the sons of politicians to the conservative war-hawks who scream war from the safe haven of our nation’s campuses, no one will be exempt from possible service in the war zone.

In the words of Maj. Gen. Batiste, “We’ve had generations of Americans now who have not served their country; they don’t know what the word means. And I’m here to tell you that’s probably not a healthy situation.” It isn’t, and to put it bluntly, we need to get the troops out, or be prepared to ship out.

hamiltonj3@lasalle.edu