“The opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the columnists and not necessarily those of The Herald Newspapers, the publishers, or our advertisers and sponsors.”
– The Editors
Now that Saddam’s regime has crumbled, a difficult occupation lies ahead. Without an air force, the Iraqi military offered only minor resistance. Hundreds of Saddam’s soldiers either surrendered or turned tail and ran. Nearly all the missiles they fired were shot down immediately. The 23,000 bombs the coalition forces dropped devastated the touted Republican Guard. It was obvious from the beginning that the United States was a heavy favorite in this war, given the huge advantage in firepower. The millions of dollars worth of ordinance used by our military resulted in a spectacular fireworks show.
The task presented at this time is not a simple one. To have a consolidated government, the coalition must figure out a way to bring together several religious factions peacefully. It is folly to think that a country like Iraq will be able to maintain a stable democracy. The pressure is on the Bush administration to perform this miracle once the euphoria of victory dies down.
One might say now: who’s next? There are several other countries that have brutal dictators, harbor terrorists, and possess deadly weaponry. Is one pre-emptive attack enough, or should we go after more? I would think that most Americans, especially the relatives and friends of our courageous soldiers, want our troops home now. The purpose in Iraq was to rid the country of its leadership, and that has been done. A lengthy occupation would only subject U.S. and British forces to more suicide bombing attempts, and possible attacks from terrorist groups. These are dangerous times in the Middle East. With the perception in many Arab nations the United States is a bully that defies the UN, I feel our demolition of Iraq has just made the situation more dangerous.