Jan. 30, 2005 is a significant date in world history, for it is the day Iraqis for the first time went to the polls to vote. This day in history is not only momentous for Iraq, but also the United States, the Middle East and the entire freedom-loving world. The right to vote is a right for which many have suffered, gone to war and even died for. It is that universal right which ensures democracy and freedom to those who are governed. Finally, it has been granted to the once oppressed Iraqis.Anti-war skeptics, of course, have minimized the merit of this achievement because it means giving President Bush credit, and they can?t stand to do that, let alone accept the fact that he won last November. At this point, I?m convinced that no matter what positive events happen in Iraq, they are going to continue this defeatist attitude. So, while they continue to be pessimistic, President Bush goes back to D.C. to govern for four more years and actually make a difference.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy makes claims that the war in Iraq is George W. Bush?s Vietnam. Why is it that politicians who claim to support the troops can also continue to ridicule their efforts? John Kerry tried this, and well, you know what happened. Seriously, if you were a soldier stationed in Iraq or anywhere else in the world and heard Kennedy?s comments, how would you feel? I certainly wouldn?t take it as “support.” That?s why you?ll find that military personnel, including active troops, picked George W. Bush overwhelmingly this past November — because he?ll support the troops and their mission 100 percent.
Furthermore, Iraq is not Vietnam. The contexts of the two wars are totally different, and the war in Iraq is winnable. I say thisbased on my faith in the Iraqis. Hope is real, and contrary to popular belief, the Iraqis have it. Take Sunday for instance. The elections being held in Iraq really are a symbolic victory in the War on Terror and a defeat for al Quaeda. For months, insurgents have terrorized the citizens of Iraq, threatening those who dare to go to the polls to pick new leaders in parliament.
For that, the Iraqis should be applauded for refusing to surrender to these killers, instead of being called “another Vietnam.” That?s the difference from Vietnam, because when the United States does eventually withdraw, the Iraqis are going to combat these murderers and they can win. They will fight for their freedom and they will prevail. It is difficult for some Americans and even strong supporters of democracy in Iraq to grasp that idea.
Consider that as Americans, we have never been “unfree.” We have never been brutally oppressed by a Saddam in America. Therefore, the feeling of liberty is going to be much more intense and emotional to Iraqis than Americans can imagine or comprehend. That being said, it is ridiculous to suggest that Iraqis are going to give up this new found liberty in favor of terrorist rule.
Instead, Iraqis are going to fight hard to the end to maintain their freedom. Sure, it will take years, maybe decades, but never again will they go back to Saddam?s tyranny, and their plight of progress and freedom will not be in vain, nor the efforts of our troops to support them. Iraqis are optimistic of their elections and it?s a good start.
Vietnam, Sen. Kennedy? No, it?s a dramatic change of government, also known as a revolution, one in a Middle Eastern nation which will make neighboring tyrants sweat. After all, we know that Col. Ghadifi of Lybia is disarming.
Libya has ended its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and handed accumulated materials and equipment over to the United States. So go ahead Ted, you can shout Vietnam all you want. Live in your own little world, while thereal world changes for the better as democracy comes to Iraq after a hard earned struggle.
Anthony Maalouf is a junior majoring in political science with a minor in Spanish.