| OPINION
| October 12, 2004
Letter
Regardless of why we went into Iraq, we must stay until it is stable
Re: “Stationary Acts,” Sept. 29
I applaud many statements in Mr. Gallini’s article. I appreciate
his use of Clausewitz in search for a political definition of terror.
I wholly agree that we need to reconsider the messages that we send
the world through the moral values in our entertainment. Additionally,
I appreciate the tone of his discourse, which has softened somewhat
since spring 2003. However, I must disagree with what I took to
be his main thesis statement.
We can’t go back to being the way we were before WWI: in Gallini’s
words, “a country that is chiefly concerned with our economic
strengths and uninterested in social projects across the globe.”
Until our country’s invasion of Iraq, some among us, skeptical
of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a connection
between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, voiced concerns about the project,
or at least the way we rushed into war. Those concerns are now passé,
for we have gone in, toppled Hussein’s regime, and he is in
custody - for which we must credit the dedication, persistence and
sacrifice of our troops. It may take years to convince the majority
of Iraqis of democracy’s possible benefits. I reply that regardless
of how long it takes, we must stay and finish the job. If we evacuate
now, we will create a larger power vacuum than the one which enabled
Saddam Hussein to rise to power in the first place.
— John White is a history graduate student
|
|
