Milwaukee Journal Writer questions Iraqi "Liberation" (barf alert)

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | April 10, 2003 | Eugene Kane

[SteveAustin]

Were Iraqis jubilant the bombs stopped? Last Updated: April 9, 2003 By: Eugene Kane

So this is what liberation looks like.

Great statues toppled with chains and ropes. Looting in the streets as war-torn residents squared off over bare essentials. Jailhouses emptied of all prisoners.

To the uninformed eye, it's hard to tell whether this is jubilation or anarchy.

Even harder to know is whether the ordinary citizens of Iraq were more excited about the arrival of coalition troops or simply relieved the bombing had finally stopped.

Most of the images out of Baghdad on Wednesday were presented as possibly the final scene in the movie we're all anxious to see end as soon as possible:

Saddam Hussein, defeated, dead or in exile, while the American-led coalition troops ride into the country's largest city awash in confident victory. Even more important to the scene, being greeted by a welcoming Iraqi population.

Because you can't liberate a people without them showing some gratitude, right?

(Warning! Cynicism ahead!)

Sure, the images from Baghdad were inspiring on some levels, but they also were incomplete when it comes to divining the actual hearts and minds of most Iraqi citizens in regard to this war.

In the history of human aggression, it's a good bet whenever an occupying army arrives in a war-torn country, most civilians are smart enough to put on the welcoming act whether they mean it or not.

My suspicion is most longtime Iraqi residents - who have lived under a repressive regime much of their lives - operate under a general rule of thumb:

When in doubt, cheer for the guy with the most guns.

My problem with our liberating forces wasn't with their stated purpose, but rather with their decorum.

My mother always taught me to be respectful in someone else's house.

But that certainly wasn't the case with the group of cigarette-smoking American soldiers caught lounging with their feet on the furniture in one of Saddam's palaces earlier this week.

We all know Bush is quick to assume the "get-tough" Texas cowboy persona in front of the United Nations.

But is it really appropriate for our troops to act like a bunch of marauders?

The whole "Let's topple a bunch of statues" mentality was started by the U.S. and British military before being adopted by some ordinary citizens in Baghdad.

Maybe we should wait and let them decide which statues they want to keep or not.

It also was a bit imperialistic to hear Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks announce the military had renamed the Baghdad airport just hours after it was captured.

Let me get this straight: We renamed their airport?

Just like that? Without so much as a finance committee meeting?

Good to know we're going to let the people of Iraq make their own decisions.

There are probably lots of people convinced the victorious images from Baghdad on Wednesday validated their support for this war.

But for many who opposed it, the shots of cheering Iraqis and toppled statues do nothing to address the main concerns.

Mainly:

Is this what America will be for the foreseeable future, a bullying superpower that punishes any foreign country that dares to step out of line?

If so, there's a good chance other countries are watching scenes from Iraq very closely, looking for signs this was actually a liberation and not an invasion.

Hoping they can tell the difference.

A version of this story appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 10, 2003.

[Intolerant in NJ]

But for many who opposed it, the shots of cheering Iraqis and toppled statues do nothing to address the main concerns...H*ll hath no fury like people who thought they were brighter than everyone else and suddenly realize they've been exposed as fools to all the world.....

[Wil H]

Did your mother also teach you to kiss the ass of any tyrant or criminal thug who comes along?

As a matter of fact she did, after all, he is a socialist..

[Mr. Silverback]

Eugene Kane is an example of what can happen to your brain when you become too partisan in favor of either side. He has two approaches to all the issues he writes about:

1. The people who I disagree with on this issue are motivated by racism, which is what caused the problem in the first place.

2. Do whatever it takes to slander conservative values, even if it means no longer even pretending to employ logic. This is the option he employs when racist charges are for some reason not possible in any way. For example, when trying to make the case that the War of Iraqi Liberation did not liberate any Iraqis, he decides to shake his finger at the soldiers of the freest nation in human history because they put their feet up on the furniture of one of the nastiest tyrants in world history, furniture he purchased with oil profits while the Iraqi people starved.