Recent Thoughts on Iraq

Last week, President Bush told reporters that the attacks on US soldiers in Iraq were limited to a very small area of Iraq. His reasoning was that since the area of unrest was so small that an allout assault was unnecessary. However, an attack on US soil on 5 acres of land was reason enough to invade and destroy two entire countries.

Yes, there are mitigating factors such as the innocent lives lost versus the lives of soldiers. I doubt that distinction matters much to the families who are meeting caskets at Army bases around the US. What we have is a lethal double standard that is being constantly danced around by the Bush administration.

It seems that this week, with several major assaults in Baghdad and Tikrit, the Bush administration and its minions have realized that they will not be able to kid glove the Iraqis into whatever vision the administration holds for them. Any illusion you may have that the administration is not behind every move in Iraq is certainly understandable considering the amount of opinion that “the Iraqi people” seem to be able to voice in the press.

We keep hearing about how excited they all are and how much they are looking forward to democracy. Yet, that opinion is really only held by the people who are in the provisional government. A government installed by the Bush administration, not elected by the Iraqi people. So, who really knows how the Iraqi people feel about the occupation.

I would be all smiles and hugs when faced with scared, pissed, and tired Marines bristling with armament. I might also be smiles and hugs when I met with my fellow saboteurs later that night under cover of darkness. I am not accusing all the Iraqi people of being resistance fighters who often kill innocent bystanders. However, I can certainly understand how they might go about fooling the Army and its soldiers into thinking I was helping while with my other hand, I would be throwing grenades.

What the administration has done is to dump the US Army into an impossible situation. Not a difficult one, but an impossible one. There are cultural differences between the soldiers and the population that simply cannot be overcome. 3000 years of history bears that out. Look at the befuddlement our forces saw in Vietnam with the enemy hiding in tunnels and doing suicide charges against withering fire. The American forces simply could not understand how or why the enemy were doing what they were doing.

While the comparison to Vietnam is certainly valid and powerful, I think it’s far too loaded an analogy to be useful. Instead, compare the Iraqi War with our most famous, and honorable war, World War II. We were fighting for all the right reasons. We won, not with superior techonology or numbers or smart tacticians, but with sheer determination. That’s precisely what we lack in Iraq. We have superior technology, greater numbers, better tactics and every other advantage, but we are fighting for nothing. How can any soldier or really any American possibly see Iraq or its people as a threat. There are no WMD there. Saddam has disappeared. All we seem to have done is to create a climate where our soldiers can be picked off by resistance fighters. We cannot expect the men and women who are there to be both saviors and executioners at the same time, especially when they see no purpose to either course of action.

I have this image of our soldiers just sitting around guarding palaces and eyeing each passing truck as their trigger finger itches. This has become less of a war and more of a test of the national patience. I simply cannot conceive that anyone in this country thinks that we have anything to gain, morally, financially, or globally, by pursuing our current plan, or lack thereof, in Iraq.

Cosbysweater
November 18th, 2003 5:29 pm

Do you think Colin Powell is pissed that his opinion on not going to war unless there is an exit strategy is being proven in such dramatic fashion? Or if he’s more sad that the administration, in failing to listen to a general, has inadvertently helped lead hundreds of soldiers to their slaughter?

d
November 18th, 2003 8:33 pm

We have a high moral and security obligation to finish rebuilding Iraq! If we leave now terrorist organizations will fill in the void of law and order and we will end up with the same situation Afganistan was in a few years ago. And a breeding ground for terrorist. It may look like that is already the case, but it will be much worse if we leave now. We went to war to remove Sadam from power. If you agree with it or not, it is a fact now and cannot be changed. Now we must replace the leader with a new source of leadership. It is our moral obligation to help Iraq out since we destroyed it. Hopefully the government that we help the Iraqi people develope will be one that will represent the people of Iraq and try and build a peaceful, responsible, country.
The fact is that you cannot compare this to any previous war. This war is totally different. Iraq would have had to have been delt with sooner or later. If we had not invaded, do you think Iraq would never pose a problem in the future, never try and attain WMD? They were doing it and and would continue to do so had they been left alone. This war in Iraq is a continuation of the International War on Terrorism that all of us were adamant about after the attacks on NY and DC. Too bad Americans don’t have the resolve our grandparents had during WWII. If this generation had been in control during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan would now be running the Pacific rim countries and everyone in Europe would be speaking German. Can the American people decide something just for once and stick with it and not let the politicians divide us as Republicans and Democrates?

Cosbysweater
November 19th, 2003 10:25 am

“Can the American people decide something just for once and stick with it and not let the politicians divide us as Republicans and Democrates?”
I’m fairly certain the American people did not ‘decide’ to invade Iraq. That decision was made for us, and based on spurious evidence, at best.

Furthermore, you can always compare. That’s how people make decisions and develop opinions. One would hope, however, that the inherent differences between every war that has ever occurred are included in any equation.

And your point that Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later implies that any country that might now or in the future possibly seek to get or develop WMD should be invaded by the U.S. If that’s true, we’re going to need a whole lot more than 87 billion dollars.

That being said, you’re right about sticking around and rebuilding Iraq. At this point, we don’t have any other choice. That’s the impossible situation Taranis mentioned.

However, what we are doing right now is not working. One might think the Bush administration feels the same way since they recently decided to let the Iraqi administration make decisions sooner than previously anticipated and intimated.

d
November 19th, 2003 4:45 pm

We are a republic that elect officials to make decissions. If we were a democracy in the true sense, I would bet that if there had been a vote earlier this year it would have been in favor of invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power. That is just my guess, I could be wrong, but we will never know. Any how most Americans, I hope, do not want an other attack on our home land such as the attack on NY and DC. The best way to prevent that is to not allow the terrorist any place to hide or rest or regroup. I would say we have done an ok job at that since we haven’t had any such attacks since September 2001. (knocking on wood) We need to keep pressure on countries to not support terrorist organizations. Do I mean invade them all? No, but just keep the diplomatic pressure on them to police themselve and not support terrorist organizations.

The number of Nuclear Weapons in the world has been decreasing. All the developed nations have agreed on treaties to dismantle Nuclear Weapons (aka WMD) Yes even the U.S. has reduced it’s inventory and is continuing to do so. And we are spending millions of $ a year to help Russia reduce their inventory. During the Cold War Nucs were a weapon of deterence. Now in the age of terrorist and unlimited funds for radical Islamic groups, Nucs are an offensive weapon. There are nations and groups of people willing to use Nucs or other WMD for their cause. And they aren’t the countries with a vast supply, they are the countries with unstable leadership and ones that if not vocally then idealistically support terrorist organizations. These countries need heavy pressure from the international community to stop developement and testing of WMD no matter what form. The U.S. being the richest nation in the world also need to put economic pressure on these nations. Will we ever be free of Nucs? I doubt it. But we can always work towards that goal. Saddam has been delt with. Not to your liking or to mine, but we both can admit that the probability of Iraq developing WMD are practically 0 at this moment in time and in the near future.

So we are both agreed that we now have a moral, social, and national security obligation to rebuild Iraq. It is going to be hard (Not impossible) and people’s live will be lost, both Iraqi, American, and any other nation who helps. And as a member of the armed forces who have seen the bodies coming home I support sticking with it and seeing Iraq emerge as a new democratic nation. To quit now would be a slap in the face to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.