Document text
Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Local Issues Obituaries Weather Archive Revels Etcetera Backpage Hot Topics Most Viewed Forum Photo Galleries Video Readers Polls O-Zone Online Games Movie Preview Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad July 1, 2005 Better over there than over here? When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. For more than two years, now, and in his speech Wednesday at Fort Bragg, the president has argued that we are far better off fighting the terrorists “over there,” meaning Iraq, than here, on our own shores. In thinking of our own safety, the reflex response is, of course. Better there than here. But the “better there than here” view is, in its own way, chilling and should give us pause. How can we, as a nation, in all good conscience explain that we have turned a country the size of California into a killing field, without the consent of its people? In truth, definitive civilian casualty numbers are simply not available. We don’t know how many Iraqis have been killed since the war began, but estimates range from 15,000 to 30,000, the majority of them women and children. To give some perspective to what the people of Iraq are facing every day, consider the following data, compiled by Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan: The population of America is more than 11 times that of Iraq. Thus, when numbers come out of Iraq they have to be viewed proportionally. For example, some weeks ago, 300 Iraqi civilians were killed in a week of violence that now barely causes a stir in the media. But that would be the equivalent of 3,300 Americans dying in a seven-day time period. And what if those deaths and infrastructure damage occurred all over America, including our capital, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Boston? What if the grounds surrounding the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if the reporters for all major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington and New York, unable to move, and if the only time they left, say to the heartland, were when embedded with troops? There are an estimated 25,000 insurgents operating in Iraq. That would be the equivalent of 275,000 armed men, with rocket-propelled grenades, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, assault rifles and mortar launchers, operating out of urban areas in America. What if they controlled Seattle, Portland and San Francisco and local officials and police could not enter unless heavily armed? What if the Air Force bombed, routinely, Flint, Mich., Los Angeles, and Billings, Mont., the objective being to target safe houses of reported insurgents and their sympathizers? And what if the collateral damage to civilians were staggering but unknown? What if there were no commercial air travel in our country? And electricity were on for less than 10 hours a day and prone to being shut off without warning? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled monthly? And unemployment hovered at around 40 percent? And what if leaders of the European Union insisted, when viewing the ongoing carnage, “Better over there, in America, than over here, in Europe”? Is the reality of Iraq truly not a world problem with international consequences? Is it not in the best interest of the world community to hold a summit, as has been suggested, and insist that the root causes of this seemingly intractable problem must not only identified but once and for all solved? Keep in mind, Iraq is not a vast open plain where we can meet the enemy. It is a country of millions of civilians, young and old, who come to know daily that when the elephants fight, it is indeed they who suffer. --> Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.