The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 14)

This war was fought many miles from home for purposes that the British public never really grasped -- if the Americans wanted to have them out, fine they would leave. War was bad for business, and now the French were reaping the benefit of the colonial produce. With support at home waning and a constant loss of soldiers thru small engagements scattered over a wide area the army just couldn't continue the fight effectively. Foreign powers were interfering -- providing munitions and material support and the bleeding continued for years.

Does any of this sound familiar? Wars that try to impose foreign ideals on a local populace always fail -- always.

p>Colonial occupation will always result in a pissed-off population and a continued loss of blood. It is just cheaper to harass an outside enemy than it is to police a population. br> -- David J. Burton /p> p> strong> Jeffrey Lord replies: br> Respectfully, the point I was making was about the essence of American character, something that has shown up again and again in all kinds of situations involving Americans, including those that have nothing to do with war. It was not about analogies between the presence of Americans in Iraq and the British in colonial America. /strong> /p>

But since the subject has been raised by reader Dave Burton, it is flatly in error to suggest that the U.S. presence in Iraq is in any way, shape or form "colonial" in nature. This is propaganda that bears zero relationship to the truth. No one that I am aware of in government or out believes America should run around the world to colonize. We are a nation of 50 states, and with the exception of the seemingly perennial discussion about Puerto Rico as number 51, there is no movement to make Iraq or any place else a U.S. state.

But there are a great many Americans who do believe that Iraq -- like Afghanistan -- is a battlefield in a larger war, just as the Battle of Brooklyn Heights (the Battle of Long Island) was not really about Brooklyn, Long Island or New York City, but about freedom, democracy and who will run America -- Americans or outsiders. Do I believe that we should colonize Iraq? No. Do I believe we stay until they have a secure, stable future that they can run themselves? Yes. We have been here before with Germany, Japan, Italy, and Korea. Is this a pleasant role? No. But we have learned to our sorrow that when we ignore these situations millions of people die -- the last time out in WW II that meant over 400,000 Americans. Colonies, of course not. Freedom and security -- always.

Mr. Lord writes an interesting article, and a very timely one. It, indeed, does deal with the "elephant in the room," so to speak. This is a topic that entirely too many of our national leaders, starting with Pres. Bush, refuse to address.

topics:
Taxes, Education, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Books, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, NATO, Immigration, Oil, Unions