Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
I, like approximately 50 percent of registered U.S. voters, cast my ballot for President Bush’s re-election on Nov. 2. Although I am a registered Republican, I have always prided myself on voting for who I feel to be the better candidate. In the case of this past presidential election, John Kerry was just too, well, John Kerry for my liking, even if he is a “devout Red Sox fan.”
Yet, certain actions made by our president and his administration has left me perturbed and quite unsettled. I am not throwing in my G.O.P. towel and turning into some sort of liberal-pinko – I wouldn’t exactly look cool with dreadlocks, and the thought of not showering for a month repulses me. Yet with the death toll of American soldiers creeping over 1,400 in the past week, one has to wonder, “Where and when is this going to end?”
It would appear that Bush has no clear end in sight, as he has requested an additional $80 billion from Congress to “repair and replace equipment for U.S. troops and to equip three new brigades,” according Yahoo! News. This would put our country at a record $427 deficit. The good news? Reportedly, Bush was going to highball Congress with a plea for $150 billion of our tax-dollars to pay for our military indiscretions.
I’m not a math major or a business analyst, but that’s a lot of money to shell out with little to show in return. Granted, there are reports that we have captured over 15,000 insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the top Al-Queada lieutenant, reportedly responsible for at least two gruesome beheadings and multiple car bomb explosions, which have either killed or injured American troops in Iraq.
That’s the good news. The bad news? As if military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t lofty enough endeavors, Bush has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes against Iran and Syria, both hotbeds of anti-American sentiment and unmistakable breeding grounds for terrorist plots against American troops – possibly American infrastructures. Both Middle Eastern nations knowingly support terrorist cells and either could be harboring terror king-pins, including Osama bin-Laden, the man with a $50 million dollar price tag on his head.
I will spare you all the trite Vietnam comparisons and focus on the fact that if the Bush administration decides to enter Iran, Syria or both, we had better watch our collective asses. We’ve already flipped the bird to the United Nations, and have basically told the rest of the world not to stand in our way, because we are being “tough on terror.”
There’s a fine line between cracking down on terrorists’ nations or nations that pose immediate harm, and starting a “jihad.”
Iran has called us out, saying they do not fear U.S. military strikes because “unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, they will not be as easy to topple.” Iranian leaders have also promised “astonishing” retaliations if our country were to attack their nation. Being that they are on the brink of finalizing development of nuclear technology, or may in fact possess nuclear capabilities, I think we should heed their warning.
The last point of contention with broadening the scope of military focus in the Middle East is that no other countries will back us if we initiate attacks against Iran or Syria. Even our old buddy British Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost faith in our efforts – I believe the saying is “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” right Mr. President?
The bottom line is this: We are already on thin ice for flexing our muscle in two Islamic-based Middle Eastern countries, so let’s not fly out of the frying pan and into the fire which just may be “jihad.” If we do, we have no one to save us – not even old allies – when it all goes down.
Mike Melochick is a senior journalism major who doesn’t support the reinstitution of a military draft – even if he’s too old to be called to duty.
Bangor Daily News