Iraq Policy and Grocery Store Packaging

February 6th, 2007 |

Author: Jeff

This is written by a friend of mine that I thought was interesting:

The issue of Iraq is certainly on the minds of voters and politicians. Although we have not officially declared war on that nation, there is no shortage of debates among proponents and pundits of the War in Iraq. Iraq instead, is part of the War on Terror. For some, that is where the confusion begins. America waged war against Saddam and the Ba’athist Party, but America never intended to engage (least not be involved in long-lasting engagement) in a conflict with the various indigenous factions such as the Sunni and Shi’a insurgents. Against the advice of Gen. Shinseki, who called for a large number of troops to occupy Iraq after its liberation on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 personnel; the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld sent up to only 160,000 soldiers during the post-Saddam era.

The violence that we hear about in Iraq today are attempts by the various factions wanting to fill in the power vacuum that was created after the U.S.’s capture of Baghdad and subsequently Saddam. But the question of if America should have invaded Iraq in the first place still remains. I argue that under the original pretext or reason(s) why the White House advocated an invasion of Iraq is apparently false, there is no WMD of the size or scope that the White House warned the American people about was ever found. Saddam’s nuclear capability was a least 10 years off the estimate. In short, we were misled, whether mistakenly or deliberately, we were misled.

But what do we do from here on? Just pack up are stuff and leave or as some say “cut and run”? Or stay and perpetuate a seemingly hopeless situation that is costing America dearly in both treasure and lives. We should be beyond the debate whether one believes America should have or should not have sent troops in the first place. The fact is, American troops are there and violence has already erupted. There is more at stake in Iraq that some know. Iraq is not only strategically important to America and her allies now, it was also strategically important to regional superpowers of the Middle East in Ancient times.

And yes, we are very interested in the strategic security of our oil supplies in the region. And so are the other powers such as China or Iran. So does it make it right to invade a country in pursuit of our national and/or strategic interests? Yes and No. Because on the one hand the “average” American hopes for progress and prosperity. On the other the same person may also want peace and security. That in itself is rational. But think of what it takes to get your meats and vegetables from the farm to the grocery store then to the dinner table. We buy our meats now in neatly packaged trays without an acknowledgment of the slaughter that was necessary to fulfill the store shelves. The saying “We want our cake and eat it too” comes to mind and that is essentially the analogy of the actions regarding Iraq.

People have dreamed of a Utopian society if not a world where we can fairly and peacefully share the world. I do not believe that is ever going to happen. I recall a Japanese poem that states “If the lion does not hunt, then he may become the meat” This is one of the few times that I actually agree with George W. Bush. I cannot imagine a U.S. President ever presenting such reasons to go to war to the American public with such candor. We will never buy such products in that kind of packing. So the White House may have had to repackage our grocery in neater trays so it would be more tolerable and pleasing.

WV

Consciencebound

Iraq Policy and Grocery Store Packaging

Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply