A Pilgrim’s Digression

Stakes in Iraq rival those in World War II, Gen. Myers says

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, who will leave his post as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the end of this week, said the United States must win in Iraq because “the outcome and consequences of defeat are greater than World War II.”

This is an absolutely disgraceful appropriation of history for political purposes. Considering that many of the men who actually fought the fascists in World War II are still alive, Myers’s statement is all the more shameful. The USA Today headline is misleading, as well. Myers didn’t say that the stakes in the Iraq war “rivalled” the stakes in World War II. He said “the consequences of defeat are greater than World War II.”

Stop and think about that for a minute. First of all, think of the rationale for why Myers believes that: if we “lose” in Iraq (lose, to him, means withdraw) “the next 9/11 is right around the corner.”

There is a presumption here that “winning” in Iraq (whatever winning means; winning is even more ill-defined than losing) can prevent another 9/11 when common sense tells us another terrorist incident on American soil cannot be staved off indefinitely.

There is also a presumption that another terrorist attack would be a worse consequence than what we would have faced if Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini had won World War II. Ask any Jew, or any non-German or non-Japanese for that matter, if they believe that to be true. Imagine for a moment living in a world where Hitler possesses a nuclear arsenal, as he would have most assuredly possessed if we hadn’t stopped him; then imagine Japan, too, with a similar atomic arsenal. Japan also trying to develop nuclear weapons at a laboratory in Korea right up until the end of the war. The Japanese perfected suicide bombing. Kamikazes not only flew airplanes into American ships; Kamikazes piloted bombs, called Baka Bombs, and they piloted torpedoes, called Kaitans. The Japanese knew something about fanaticism. Think of the cruelty of the Japanese and how the Emperor of Japan ruled his colonies in Asia. Before there was a 9/11, there was the Rape of Nanking, perhaps the most brutal cleansing of a city in the history of warfare. And despite all these known facts about the enemy we faced then, somehow in Myers’s opinion leaving Iraq would be worse than having a Japanese empire in the far East?

Our priorities are out of whack, folks. Our government has so convinced us that nothing could be worse than a terrorist attack that we forget that peoples have known far worse crimes against humanity. We aren’t the only generation to deal with degenerate fanatics who wish to kill as many people as possible. In terms of ability to kill, we aren’t even dealing with the most efficient maniacs in the history of the world. That award goes to Stalin and Hitler.

We’ve exaggerated the threat against us, and in so doing have given aid and comfort to the enemy. These Islamo-fascists are now feared to an extent far beyond their ability to actually hurt us. They can’t bring down our government. They can’t mount an invasion of the United States. They can’t launch a nuclear barrage against us that would wipe life from the surface of this continent.

I simply refuse to accept the rationale by which we now must fight the Iraq war. Essentially, we are given the same reason to continue in Iraq that we were given in Vietnam: “We’re already fighting there, and so now we must win. If we don’t win, the dominoes will fall. South Asia/Iraq will become a communist/terrorist haven, and eventually America will have to fight an even more brutal war against communism/terrorism.” We did not accept that rationale in 1975. Why should we accept it now?