- The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 11, 2006

With a war in Iraq, and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year’s elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Dick Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA “agent” — actually a desk job in Virginia — and is now going ballistic over a congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media — and the biased media. Former Rep. Mark Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton’s perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if they were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life-and-death issues of war and peace addressed with catchphrases like “chicken hawk” or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as “unilateral” U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year’s election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced by one side to its enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt U.S. troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf war. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of U.S. troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the unpopularity of the Iraq war. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be. Even World War II, won by “the greatest generation,” was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops much more than is the case today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed we weren’t looking for more war or more conquests. We weren’t even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf war, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation the first President Bush got in addressing Congress afterward was when he announced our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in frivolous talking points make a big deal of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know it is not the duration that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide