Editor,
I understand that Andrew Price's article "Liberals Doom America" in Tuesday's Daily Lobo is an opinion piece, and as such is entitled to some freewheeling use of language.
However, he resorted to the kind of hollow hyperbole that freshman composition students are warned against every day on this campus.
Price writes, "When the liberals force us to pull out of Iraq, a bloodbath will ensue." Really? Based on what historical model? Where was the bloodbath when Lee pulled out of the Civil War? When we pulled out of Somalia with a warlord regime still intact? When we pulled out of Saigon?
Price's other claim is that if we pull out, America will be seen as weak and terrorist attacks will intensify against us. Again, what rationale is this based on, other than fear mongering? How will bringing thousands of American troops back onto American soil make us more vulnerable than having them halfway around the world? How will devoting our intelligence infrastructure to protection of our homeland instead of tasking it to support a war overseas make us more vulnerable?
Finally, Price blames liberals for the military failure of President Bush. How is this possible? Military failure happens on the battlefield, not on Capitol Hill. When more of our soldiers die than our enemies and we have nothing to show for it, it's considered a military failure. It wasn't the liberals who sent troops into combat without properly armored vehicles. It wasn't the liberals who tied their wrists with rules of engagement that look more like a police action than war fighting. It sure wasn't a liberal who cockily strode from a fighter jet to declare victory in Iraq just as the insurgents started to fight back.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
So why are our soldiers dying? Improvised explosive devices are the No. 1 killer of soldiers in Iraq. No liberal policy in Washington led to the training of these bomb-makers nor their ability to construct these weapons. No liberal policy has prevented the military from taking action against the bomb-makers. The problem is they are fighting a classic guerilla war, while we are adhering to conventional rules of engagement.
When allowed to do its job - conducting professional warfare with requisite aggression and malice - our military is the best in the world. It is a combat force trained and charged to close with and kill the enemy, not conduct traffic stops or play civic counselor. It is no wonder soldiers "fail" when we put them in these situations.
Back to a lack of evidence - when did it become acceptable for our government, liberal or conservative, to make claims about other nations being a threat to Americans without having evidence to support these claims? When did it become acceptable to invade another country without evidence of wrongdoing?
I guess lack of evidence is the new American paradigm. It seems to work for Price's column.
John Bess
UNM graduate student
