A Battle Between Democracy and Terror; We have Met the Enemy and He Isn't Us

A Battle Between Democracy and Terror; We have Met the Enemy and He Isn't Us When the Army of Ansar al Sunna – a group tied to al Qaeda – attacks an American base near Mosul it should be apparent that Iraq is the front line in the War on Terrorism.

When Christian churches are bombed – as they were on the same day and in the same part of Iraq – and Shia mosques in Karbala and Najaf are targeted as well, it should be clear that the bombers are waging a most unholy war.

When Iraqi election workers are shot dead in the streets, as they were last weekend, the murderers' hatred for democracy ought to be obvious.

Yet somehow the debate goes on about whether those fighting us are really enemies of freedom, about whether or not it is imperative they be defeated.

The charge that Americans came to Iraq to steal oil is not much heard these days. Instead, the suicide bombers and throat slitters are romanticized as “militants” -- or even “nationalists” and “patriots” -- who are “resisting American occupation.”

When those “militants” do something particularly barbaric – summarily executing civilians, blowing up police stations, beheading aid workers – the conversation never dwells long on their crimes. Instead, controversy swirls around America's failure to control “the security situation.”

Then, too, there are those who do not defend the killers but argue that the continuing carnage proves the United States can't overcome this foe. If that's true, we might as well convert the Pentagon into condominiums.

What need is there for a multi-billion dollar defense establishment designed to roll back an attack by the Soviet Union? What's the point of a military machine that can topple Saddam Hussein in a few weeks but has to give Iraq back to his cronies a few years later?

Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, much criticized of late, appears to understand this. A few days ago, he frankly acknowledged the urgent need to “develop a military designed to meet the challenges of this era.”

The military we have now, he explained, “is, in many ways, still organized, trained and best equipped for the more conventional challenges of the past century, when wars were conducted largely between large navies, armies and air forces.”

Our current enemies, by contrast, are fighting an “unconventional” war. The combatants who attacked the Forward Operating Base Marez outside Mosul were not attempting to win a battle in the conventional sense; they did not hope to seize the camp any more than the suicide-terrorists who attacked on 9/11 planned to station tanks in New York and Washington.

Instead, the goal of terrorists is simply to slaughter and, of course, terrorize. By so doing, they mean to destroy our will to fight. Lose the will to fight and, by definition, you have been defeated – no matter how high-tech your weaponry, no matter how many troops you have riding in armored Humvees.

On a visit to Iraq this week, British Prime Minister Blair succinctly characterized the state of this conflict. “There surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror,” he said.

“On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy. And on the other side, people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq... Our response should be to stand alongside the democrats -- the people who've got the courage to see this thing through -- and help them see it through. I've got no doubt at all that that is the right thing for us to do.”

The enemy in Iraq is brutal, ruthless and, yes, evil. There's no other word for people who murder civilians organizing elections, bomb churches and mosques, and saw the heads off innocents while screaming slogans and making home videos.

But they are not stupid. They know that every time they stage a massacre, millions of people get angry – not at them, but at Don Rumsfeld and President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and the “neo-cons.”

"We have seen …the weakness of the American soldier who is … unprepared to fight long wars,” Osama bin Laden said in 1998, as he began contemplating his next attacks. “This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions.”

The charge that Americans came to Iraq to steal oil is not much heard these days. Instead, the suicide bombers and throat slitters are romanticized as “militants” -- or even “nationalists” and “patriots” -- who are “resisting American occupation.”

Just like they do with the... (what is that they call themselves?) ...oh, yeah...Palestinians.

"But they are not stupid. They know that every time they stage a massacre, millions of people get angry – not at them, but at Don Rumsfeld and President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and the “neo-cons.”"

- In a traditional Adult/Child relationship, it is universally understood and accepted that the child will act with immaturity. It is the Adult which should be held to a higher standard and rightfully so.

Instead of whining about how America is being held to a higher standard, we should welcome this state of affairs. We should be more understanding and accepting of the fact that the world recognizes that the US is a mature country and worthy of it's leadership role in the world and is treating us as such.

Personally, I demand that we be held to a higher standard and that we constantly strive to achieve it.

Only when the kind of butchery we witnessed this week strengthens, rather than weakens our resolve, will the barbarians see that the road they have chosen is a dead end – figuratively and literally as well.

When will the Iraqi People wake up and defend themselves?? the American People have been asking that for a long time and wondering why the Iraqi people are such sheep? Cowards? They seem to not want to defend themsleves, let the perps(bad guys) sleep with them and laugh when the US dies? We want to help you, we want to get the perps, but you let them live among you, we know that they hold some hostage and you can't speak out, but most know where they are and how to get them. We need your help, if you let the bad guys live among you and don't let us know, they will kill you and those that want to get you out of this mess. I hope you understand, we can't do this with out your help, you KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE.

The people of Iraq are not necessarily sheep. It depends on whose point of view your are coming from.

Even here in America we a history of local populations aiding and abetting the 'bad guys' even to their own detriment. Deeply entrenched cultures often lend themselves to idolizing 'Jesse James' types.

As an outsider it is very easy to see the situation in terms of our own morals and wonder how the locals could allow themselves to be used.

By viewing it in more familiar terms such as that of a Jesse James scenario with a strong Southern culture in a time of great upheaval then it is easier understand how a local population can be confused over what is right and wrong and which side they should be supporting.

"Until the Iraqis themselves start turning these people in, start attacking them in public, and start dragging them out of there safe-houses and hanging them from the the nearest street lamp there will be no peace, justice, or freedom for Iraq."

In which arab/muslim country have the "good guys" shown the will, to do as you state?

In which arab/muslim country have the "good guys" fought a revolution, to create a reasonably stable, democratically self-governed place?

Following WWII the allies took the time, deployed the necessary resources to provide Germany and Japan the chance to make themselves members of a peaceful and prosperous world.

That is the challenge Bush has the courage to pursue in Iraq, for the sake of the region. To me it seems a difficult risk, based on the answers to the two questions posed above.

We are getting zero help from the UN, Russia, France, Germany. But the effort is supported by Britain, Japan, Italy, Poland, and others.

I doubt we get much help from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. And we may need to take on Iran and Syria.

Is it all worth it? Bush thinks so. He and his team are smarter than me, so I'll defer to their wisdom.

I know we are in the early campaigns of WWIV, against the part of islam that wants to fight. I know that, without Bush telling me.

I also know this war must be fought, for we sat back hoping against hope, that it wasn't so.

I know arab Christians, and Iranian Christians and Jews. They tell me islam is evil. It is in their book.

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.