Posted on 10/31/2004 5:04:44 PM PST by writer33
Q: How has Iraq changed between your tours?
A: The Iraqi economy is going to grow by 60 percent by the end of 2004. Something on the order of a million cars have been imported. Cell-phone ownership is over a million. The amount of electricity is higher than before the war.
So people ask, “Why do we hear about blackouts?” Because the Iraqi economy is blooming and demanding more energy. Iraqis are buying washing machines and TVs and satellite receivers. And all of these devices are absorbing the electricity. Demand is going up faster than supply. Plus, in the Saddam era, 57 percent of electricity went to Baghdad. Now electricity is being distributed on a per-capita basis, so Baghdad are getting less juice than they’re used to, and they are upset, abut most of the country is getting more electrical power than ever before.
All of this progress comes courtesy of the U.S. military, which is doing two things: fighting a tough guerilla war while simultaneously reconstructing a country. It’s important to understand that historically this has never been done. And it’s important to understand that the only people really helping the Iraqis are our troops and coalition partners. The U.N. is virtually AWOL because they say it’s a dangerous place. But Liberia is a dangerous place. Rwanda is a dangerous place. Yet the U.N. is in those places. Politics is keeping the U.N. out of Iraq.
Q: You visited the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison while writing, “Dawn over Baghdad.” How have the troops on the ground reacted to the prisoner-mistreatment scandal? Could you discuss the fallout inside Iraq and within U.S. journalism?
A: Abu Gharib was a disaster. I was heartbroken when I heard about it because I knew this was going to become the brush that tarred all of our soldiers. Our troops are the first ones who want these morons punished and put in jail. However, it was so grossly overblown, from a media stand pint, that it could become a textbook case of how to take a true but unrepresentative incident and turn it into a false paradigm.
A quarter-million Americans have rotated through Iraq since the invasion. Take any city that size and there are going to be substantial number of knuckleheads. The percentage of people like those who committed the crimes at Abu Ghraib is remarkably small, and the lack of perspective is frustrating. After all, there have been scores of Iraqi detainees killed, but not by Americans-by terrorists. A couple times a week terrorists lob mortars into Abu Ghraib and kill their fellow Iraqis. An attack in April killed 22 detainees and injured 91 others. But it gets no reporting. Instead we hear that detainees were humiliated and scared and had dogs barking at them. All of that’s out of bounds—but it wasn’t killing or maiming. Yet the people who represent humanitarian concerns are only appalled by what the Americans did. They don’t say anything about the insurgency. They don’t even acknowledge that it is happening. That’s not an excuse for what our guards did. They will go to jail for it. But there’s a deeper, much grosser atrocity taking place, and if you want to be an atrocity hunter, then why not pinpoint the real atrocity?
Abu Ghraib was a bigger story inside the Beltway than inside Baghdad. Iraqis have seen atrocities, and they understand the difference between what those U.S. guards did and real atrocities.
Q: You describe Operation Iraqi Freedom as the “gentlest war in history” and detail the great care U.S. forces took to protect innocents. In light of what has happened in places like Fallujah, was the war too gentle? Were the rules of engagement too careful, too constraining?
A: Iraq’s a big country with a lot of different kinds of people. About three-quarters of the country is thrilled to have Saddam gone. In those areas it would have been inappropriate to be more aggressive—in fact, one of the reasons public opinion has stuck with us through the travails is because 75 percent of Iraqis recognize that Americans are not arbitrary or indiscriminate in using force. IN the other quarter of the country, I think the guerrilla war would have happened regardless. There are some parts of Iraq that will not be peaceful until a few thousand people are killed or locked up.
Troops often chafe under rules of engagement. But I’ve heard relatively few complaints. Quite often, it wasn’t rules of engagement that constrained them, but the inherent decency of our troops that caused them to fight the way they did. I was staggered by their restraint. They wouldn’t return fire because there were women around or a mosque nearby. And in many cases the rules of engagement would have allowed them to fire. They fight as Americans, as citizen soldiers who have good hearts.
Q: You conclude that rebuilding Iraq and defending civilization is an “almighty strain on the soldiers bearing the burden.” Is it too much of a burden?
A: We’re asking a lot of these young men, but it’s not for me to decide if this is too great of a burden. It’s for them to decide, and they have decided. Re-enlistment rates are exceeding the targets, and that’s the best refutation of the claim that the troops are unhappy or upset. Morale amongst our troops in Iraq surprises me every time I go over there. Sure, they miss their families and are tired of the heat and of seeing the ugly side of human nature. But they have never given the impression that they fell taken advantage of, that this is a waste of their time, that this is an unworthy case.
Most of them tell me that they feel this is the most important thing they will ever do. They know this is a historical turning point for our nation. The main worry I hear from the troops is that our country will back off before the job is done. They know that as long as we don’t lose our nerve here at home, we are going to have a successful result in Iraq.
Here is the link for part 1 for those that haven't read it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1264026/posts
Ping! Here is part two.
Thanks again.
The average person I talk to about Iraq knows nothing of this sort of story. Coincidentally, they aren't readers. Just absorbers of audio/video news.
thanks
Still no link?
Thank you SO very much for this series of articles.
To ALL Freepers and Lurker voters:GO to the polls and vote for Bush. Take your friends with you to do the same. If you know any Zell Miller type Democrats that support Bush and they are voting for him, take them as well.
Vote EARLY to avoid the rush, and remember:
IGNORE ANYTHING IN THE MEDIA YOU HEAR (i.e., making a fast, early call in Florida for Kerry, etc.). WE CAN AVOID A REPEAT OF THE FLORIDA ELECTION DEBACLE OF 2000 THIS YEAR IF GOP TURNOUT IS STRONG, imho.
[Expletive deleted] !!!
Bump
This isn't copied off the internet. I typed it in and posted it from the print magazine. That's why there's no link.
"The average person I talk to about Iraq knows nothing of this sort of story. Coincidentally, they aren't readers. Just absorbers of audio/video news."
It's a sad state of affairs. Isn't it?
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
You're welcome. Keep up your great support.
Thanks again!
Thanks for the bump.
I'm used to it. I have a high school education, but many people assume I am college educated. I just read alot. The internet is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are no excuses for ignorance, but the masses would rather watch sitcoms.
Ping, 2!
And an
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
