It’s too soon for smugness about Iraq
It didn’t take long for smug, sanctimonious War Hawks like Korey Harvey to get in on the “See, I told you so” bandwagon. Yes, there were some on the anti-war side who made outrageous and foolish statements, but why doesn’t Mr Harvey recount us some of the more ridiculous things that emanated from the Imperial Bunch? Such as how the hawks in the Defense Department (side note, let’s just be honest and rename it the War Department) who wanted to invade Iraq with 50,000 soldiers, something that was only scuttled by the military’s horror at the possibility of sending in an undermanned army into Iraq. Who can also forget the claims of the President during his State of the Union speech, in which he listed Iraq’s fearsome chemical weapons program, weapons that were not used on American soldiers, nor, as of the evening of 26 April, been found.
Let us also not forget those who pushed us into war lecturing us about the threat to the world posed by the now happily departed dictator. We were told that Hussein was a “new Hitler,” a man who was so powerful that his awesome weapons program and sheer insanity posed a threat to the American people, words that now sound as ridiculous as a speech from the comical Iraqi Minister of Information.
So, now we’re in Iraq for the long run it seems, as I think we can safely chuck away the claims that American forces will be home in a few months (I remember a former United States president, Bill Clinton, promising that he’d have the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas, eight years or so ago). It may well prove that this war has only ended its first stage, with the same type of guerrilla warfare that plagues Afghanistan outside of Kabul becoming endemic as the years drag on, and the cries of “Yankee go home” begin to take violent turns. Let us pray that this does not come to pass, but if it does, remember who sent the boys coming home in body bags to die on a fool’s errand.
Ryan Merryman
Freshman — History
Be wary of ‘hasty proclamations’
If Mr. Harvey was really as brilliant as he boasts he is, a little caution would accompany his hasty proclamations.
Kristen Hamm
Senior — Russian Area Studies and Religious Studies
‘War hawk’ column neglected some facts
Korey Harvey’s “Liberals missed the mark on Iraq outcome” dismisses the über-Right warhawks like Bill O’Reilly who gleefully celebrate America’s unchallenged military supremacy. O’Reilly’s column recently quoted a 3rd Infantry U.S. Army colonel celebrating “the carnage” of “body parts about knee deep” hauled out daily by the “truckloads.” The speedy fall of Baghdad, however, is bloody proof the anti-war movement was dead right. As Arianna Huffington explains, Bush’s justification for preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq was Saddam’s war machine posed a threat so dire that time couldn’t be wasted on U.N. weapon inspections. But as it turns out, the laughably weak Iraqi defense and absence of deployable weapons of mass destruction proves the dire warnings of Bush’s warhawks were misleading fabrications, if not outright lies. They can’t have it both ways unless, of course, their chickenhawk pundits distract attention by demonizing “liberals” or skeptical citizens as un-American pinkos.
Now Rumsfeld wants more time to find weapons of mass destruction, ironically enough, while humanitarian aid organizations and the Red Cross complain Americans are shielded from the bloody costs of this victory for civilians, including children and infants, amid these bloody truckloads. It is indeed a frightening prospect that Dubya had such trouble winning an international popularity contest against the likes of Saddam.
If you have the courage to go to Al-Jazeera and look at the horrific pictures of civilians blown to pieces by American smart bombs, or go to the Web sites of understaffed humanitarian aid organizations to read about amputating the legs of hungry children without anesthesia while our troops have Burger King and Budweiser flown in, then you might have an idea why Bush’s smug smirk is winning no fans overseas. If Iraqi Freedom is truly a war for peace, then the militaristic machismo over our decisive victory seems premature and frighteningly indifferent to the human suffering it brings.
Few “liberals” have opposed deposing Saddam nor been in doubt about winning the war, Mr. Harvey, but they voice a greater concern for winning the peace.
Shaun Treat
Graduate Student — Communication Studies
Reveille right to focus on local news
While reading The Reveille Friday afternoon, I saw another article discussing the paper’s lack of war coverage. By no means do I believe the war is insignificant to college students, but it is really not as dire as many other things to us. We as college students have so much more on our minds, especially things that actually occur on our campus. It is not The Reveille’s fault for printing what its audience wants to read. The Reveille’s intended audience is patrons of LSU, not the state, country or the world. When someone publishes a work he/she has an intended audience in mind so he/she must appeal to that particular group.
If people want facts about LSU, they can find them in this paper in addition to small articles about the world. If people specificallly want facts about world events, they can read The Avocate, USA Today or any other local or national paper. It is not The Reveille’s responsibility to cater to those that are too lazy to seek out information on the world for themselves. This paper has to appeal to its audience and cover its area (LSU, not the world!).
I cannot stress the importance of understanding that The Reveille staff is made up of full-time students that do not have time to chase down stories all over the world. If so many people have a problem with The Reveille’s stories then they are welcome to join the staff and let their voices be heard every day. If not, no one is forcing you to read it!
Shayla M. Ferguson
Junior — Sociology/AAAS