Posted on 01/18/2005 1:56:32 PM PST by rightalien
The horrific suicide bombing in December of a U.S. mess tent near Mosul and the assassination on Jan. 10 of the deputy chief of Baghdad police -- the second Iraqi official murdered in five days -- are further indications that the war in Iraq is worsening. Things are going badly not because, as some claim, the United States is arrogant and lacking in humility--but because it is self-effacing and compassionate.
The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion instead of the rational goal of victory. Such an immoral approach to war wantonly sacrifices the lives of soldiers and emboldens our enemies throughout the Middle East to mount further attacks against us.
Regardless of whether the Iraqi dictatorship should have been our initial target in the war against totalitarian Islam, when in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were even ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture, others are now given cultural sensitivity courses before arriving in Iraq). Since the war began, Islamic militants and Saddam loyalists have carried out random abductions, devastating ambushes, and catastrophic bombings throughout the country. That attacks on U.S. forces (including those engaged in reconstruction efforts) have gone unpunished has emboldened the enemy.
Early and stark evidence of the enemy's growing audacity came in March 2004 with the grisly murder and mutilation of four American contractors. Following the attack, U.S. forces entered the city of Fallujah vowing to capture the murderers and punish the town that supports them. But such resolve was supplanted by compassion.
In the midst of the fighting the United States called a unilateral ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid in and to enable the other side to collect and bury its dead. The so-called truce benefited only the enemy. The Iraqis, as one soldier told the Associated Press, were "absolutely taking advantage" of the situation, regrouping and mounting sporadic attacks: as another soldier aptly noted, "It is hard to have a cease-fire when they maneuver against us, they fire at us." As the siege wore on, the goal of capturing the murderers quietly faded--and the enemy's confidence swelled.
Neither the later offensive on Fallujah in November nor any of the subsequent incursions have quelled the insurgents: witness the unending string of car bombings and (roadside) ambushes. Why?
Because in Fallujah and throughout this war the military (under orders from Washington) has been purposely treading lightly. Soldiers have strict orders to avoid the risk of killing civilians--many of whom aid or are themselves militants--even at the cost of imperiling their own lives. Mosques, which have served as hideouts for terrorists, are kept off the list of allowed targets. Military operations have been timed to avoid alienating Muslim pilgrims on holy days.
There is no shortage of aggressors lusting for American blood, and they grow bolder with each display of American compassion.
Consider the shameful tenderness shown toward the Islamic cleric Moktadr al-Sadr, who aspires to be the dictator of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq. An admirer of the 9/11 hijackers, Sadr has amassed an armed militia of 10,000 men (right under the noses of our military), and demanded that Coalition forces leave Iraq. On the run for the murder of another cleric, he took refuge with his militia in the holy city of Najaf, which has been surrounded by U.S. troops. Rather than attacking, however, the United States agreed to negotiate. It is as absurd to negotiate with and trust the word of a villain such as Sadr as it would have been to negotiate with Nazis bent on wiping out Allied forces in World War II. It is shockingly dangerous that the United States allowed a mediator from Iran -- part of the "Axis of Evil" and Sadr's ideological ally--to assist in the negotiations.
In the end Sadr was allowed to walk away along with his armed militia; his agreement to disarm them has, predictably, gone unfulfilled.
For the enemies of America, Iraq is like a laboratory where they are testing our mettle, with mounting ferocity. The negotiations with Sadr; the half-hearted raids on Fallujah; our timid response to daily insurrections throughout Iraq; America's outrageously deferential treatment of its enemies -- all of these instances of moral weakness reinforce the view of bin Laden and his ilk that America will appease those who seek its destruction.
If we continue to confess doubts about our moral right to defend ourselves, it will only be a matter of time before Islamic militants bring suicide-bombings and mass murder (again) to the streets of the United States.
Though Washington may be blinded by the longing to buy the love of Iraqis, our servicemen know all too well that (as one put it): "When you go to fight, it's time to shoot--not to make friends with people." In its might and courage our military is unequaled; it is the moral responsibility of Washington to issue battle plans that will properly "shock and awe" the enemy. Eschewing self-interest in the name of compassion is immoral. The result is self-destruction.
Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA.
Fallujah wasn't quelled?
For a President who was apparently dead-set on taking out Saddam Hussein, Bush has been awful easy on the guy since he's been captured.
What kind of message is this sending when we sacrifice 1000+ American troops to put this asshat dictator in jail, rather than in the ground?
They left the mosques standing, didn't they?
Perhaps you should have read this article before posting the same old crap.
OK, who has been sitting on the Chicken Little eggs?? A few more have hatched...
It sends the message that we seek justice not revenge. This is a good message to send, revenge creates a cycle of revenge, justice doesn't.
He is in Iraqi custody and has been for quite some time. They will determine his fate.
This author's critique of Iraq is the only one I am willing to entertain.
We aren't killing enough bad guys.
Everything else I see is just whining without a suggestion of how to win.
Killing bad guys is a winning strategy.
Let the slaughter pour forth.
Oh please, the goal is to build a stable Iraqi government that can take charge of its own security. It isn't killing every man, woman or child, and you aren't going to build stability by wholesale killings. This author ought to look at the example of Russia in Chechnya.
Did you notice that Our Highly Esteemed Author does not bother to define "victory?" What a putz. He's just another whiner.
Marked for later reading.
excellent suggestion...if each time a bomb went off, we trotted out Saddam on Iraqi TV and applied the 20,000 volt jolt to the groin...I have the feeling that things would calm down nicely.
It's not Bush's decision - Iraq is a Soverign nation - and they alone will determine what will happen to Saddam. We are guarding him - that's all.
When are people going to realize Iraq has an interim government - and America is only there to support them and help them become a stable country. I'm sure we would do things differently if we were the ones setting the rules.
Bush has said many times: "the day Iraq asks us to leave - we will leave".
Being compassionate at the risk of American lives in not acceptable. Period.
The war isn't about revenge, it IS about justice, just like defeating Hitler was about justice, and sometimes beating an intractable and clever enemy requires using rather harsh methods. It's amazing how people today can't grasp this.
War is anything but compassionate. Most wars have a goal in mind, the objective does not twist in the wind like a rope. Regime change, WMDs, freedom, democracy, elections, nonelections, the goals keep changing. You cannot win any war until it is decided what the objective is. Are we in Iraq to conquer the country? If so, what are soldiers dying for an election for? If democracy is what we want to establish, how can democracy flourish while the potential democrat is looking down the wrong end of a gun barrel? It would help if our leaders had something in mind and would share that with the public. Staying the course when the course is unknown is not too informative and certainly is a waste of resources, both personnel and monetary.
Exactly. Which is why when we managed to capture Saddam alive we imprisoned him until Iraq had a set of proper authorities and then turned him over to them. If we'd have shot Saddam out of hand the whole concept of the war would have changed, and we would have lost our ability to claim to be the good guys.
I feel depressed seeing Ayn Rand institute getting published on frontlinenews.com, and seeing is as a starting point for discussion here. Oh well
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.