If Iraq is so bad, why aren't we pulling out of Detroit?
By Justin Darr
web posted August 22, 2005
Antiwar protestors and car alarms have a lot in common. They are obnoxiously loud, get set off too easily, and alert you to situations far less serious than they sound. There is also one more; they are usually ignored by everyone around them because their noise never seems to end.
In an otherwise slow news summer, Cindy Sheehan, the soon to be forgot pawn of the left, has tried to fuel the antiwar cause through personalizing the losses of American troops in Iraq. So, every American soldier who has fallen in Iraq has a mother, there is a news flash. And, in yet another example of investigative journalism at its best, the main stream media has determined that most of these mothers have been devastated by the loss of a child in the War and wishes it had not happened. However, the left's concerns for the mothers of the fallen and their propaganda that American casualties indicate a loosing war effort are disingenuous at best. They are far more concerned with embarrassing President Bush than portraying anything accurate about the War or giving the proper honor and support to the families of the fallen.
In a macabre dance of bemoaning the deaths of American soldiers and then gleefully cheering the latest combat fatality milestone, the left has altered the paradigm of the American consciousness to think that 1,800 American deaths is akin to the apocalyptic urban landscapes of "The Terminator" movies. This image could not be further from the truth. The fact is Iraq War has been one of the most bloodless in terms of American casualties in the history of warfare. For example, on average, over 6000 American soldiers where killed a month in World War II, and 19,000 were killed in just over one month during the Battle of the Bulge alone. The low American casualty rate in Iraq is indicative of the military's success in Iraq, not its failure. For the left to call these casualty figures excessive and use them as justification to call Iraq a failure and demand a withdrawal is a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
Many Democrats have been eager to jump on the antiwar band wagon for political gain. While these Democrats are more than happy to call Iraq an American bloodbath, they are decidedly less fervent in their desire to look at their own casualty figures.
According FBI crime statistics, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, all of which are controlled by the Democratic Party, had a combined total of over 1,900 homicide deaths in their cities in 2003 alone. What is their "exit strategy?" Why are they not demanding deadlines from their city councils for an end to all crime fatalities by the end of 2006 or they are going to pack up the police department and move to the suburbs? Why are the Democrats so intent to blame President Bush for the continuation the Iraqi insurgency when they cannot even control the insurgency of criminals in their own cities?
Are the police loved by all the citizens of these American cities? Far from it. In many of these metropolitan areas, the police are treated with outright hostility by the residents in some areas despite the fact that the cops are only putting their lives on the line to make their towns a safer place to live. Does this mean the Democrats have failed? Does this mean that the police should stop trying to do their jobs? Of course not. To say such a thing is a disservice to the five great cities above and an insult to the hard working people who live there. Just because malcontents and criminals might oppose you does not mean that you have failed, just that you have more work to do. Why should it be any different for our troops in Iraq?
The Democrats will never talk about these numbers because they do not benefit them politically. They are getting more mileage out of distorting the truth about Iraq than admitting to what it is: A just cause, a noble effort, and an American victory. 
© 2005 Justin Darr can be reached at
justindarr@juno.com.
 Printer friendly version |
|