Andrew Greeley - "Who Grieves for Dead Iraqis?"

I found Andrew Greeley's "Who Grieves for Dead Iraqis?" on Common Dreams yet it originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times.

I grieve! Four "ours" of course yet as much so for "theirs" as these deaths were avoidable given a little less cowboy and a lot more cooperation. I was against the invasion of Iraq from the start yet I still feel guilt. I think Mr. Greeley is right to think Americans that supported this Bu$hCo cabal's hyper-aggressive stance would and should feel shame.

Here's what he writes:

... The New York Times reported that during recent months a hundred Iraqis die violently every day, 3,000 every month. In terms of size of population, that is the equivalent of 300,000 Americans a month, 10,000 every day. ...

Rarely do Americans tell themselves that the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, is responsible for this slaughter. In a spasm of arrogance and power, we destroyed their political and social structure and are now unable to protect them from one another. Their blood is on the hands of our leaders who launched a war on false premises, without adequate forces, without plans for the time after the war and then sent in inept administrators who could not provide even a hint of adequate public services.

As Colin Powell, who knows something about war, unlike the president and his top thinkers, told President Bush, "If you break it, you own it." If you shatter a society, it is yours, and you're responsible for it. The United States shattered Iraq and we are responsible for the ensuing chaos that we are unable to control. So a hundred human beings are killed every day, and the most powerful military in the world (as Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney insist) is unable to stop the killing.

On most of the standards for a just war, the invasion of Iraq was criminally unjust. Messrs. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq the day after the World Trade Center attack. They tried to persuade the people that Iraq was somehow involved in the attack. They insisted that the Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction. Their arguments for the war, we all know now, were not true.

There was, therefore, no just cause, no attempt to exhaust all possible alternatives short of war, no real hope for victory, no postwar plan, and no ability to prevent the postwar butchery that was easily predictable to those who understood Iraq. The war leaped from slogan to slogan -- weapons of mass destruction, the critical front in the global war on terror, stay the course, freedom and democracy in Iraq. All these slogans are false.

Were America's leaders deliberately lying? Did they really believe that the Shiites and the Sunnis would not murder one another, or did they know better? One must leave the state of their consciences to God. However, they should have known, and ...

I also grieve for the young men and women that are in Iraq, often cycled in and out on tour after tour, and being scarred by the experience. The costs in blood, soul, and treasure continue to rise. I noticed where our KIA numbers are approaching 2600 and wounded nears 20,000.

I'm afraid it is too late to salvage much of any good from this disaster beyond trying to reduce the killing and hurting. That we can keep both ours and theirs safer with a gradual withdrawal seems like some middle ground that needs serious consideration. I've long thought a Murthaesque approach made sense. Putting our troops just over the horizon (perhaps horizons would be more accurate as a force up in the Kurdish areas over near Syria/Turkey and also East near Iran could keep Iraq's neighbors from getting too bold) might allow us (and Iraq!) to hold on long enough to get a new administration in our White House that might have a prayer of carrying out effective leadership. Splitting Iraq into three sectors could also perhaps defuse some of the tensions. Buying off and even empowering some of the Iraqi leaders that can create stable locales is a bargain that might work. Trying to get international support back in the mix seems foundational yet I think Bu$hCo has long ago burned that bridge. Humanitarian efforts should be a focus yet I know conditions of the ground might hinder.

Relying on "Stay the course!" and "We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up." plus ginning up Rovian talking points to paint alternatives suggested from the left as "Cut and Run" is hardly working is it? Bu$hCo is simply in over their heads and the many foundational flaws in this administration and the GOP controlled Congress prevent little if any movement toward a remedy.

One final thing I'll add to Mr. Greeley's ideas are that while we "must leave the state of their consciences to God" we can hold them, and their party accountable, at the ballot box. Kansas Senator Pat Roberts surely isn't going to hold them accountable so shifting the control of the House and/or Senate to the Democrats will open up the possibility of real investigations and perhaps even a shift in strategy in Iraq. Peace ... or War!