Posted on 06/27/2003 6:53:29 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
The Uneasy War
by Cathryn Crawford
Well, here we are, with a newly liberated Iraq. Did I just say that? Oh, I didn’t really mean it. I was only parroting what I’ve heard every other talking head saying on every other news station. It’s easy to get in the habit of, with all the back-slapping going on in Washington. The phrase “an uneasy peace” being used as it is in the case of the Operation Iraqi Freedom, it sounds rather silly. As a matter of fact, the prospects of peace in Iraq seem to worsen by the day, and calling Iraq liberated simply doesn’t make sense.
There are disturbing incidents every day in the newly “liberated” Iraq. U.S. troops, British troops, and Iraqi civilians are being injured and killed every day by acts of violence specifically targeted against the peacekeeping forces. The attacks appear to be well planned, well orchestrated, and well funded. Someone is running a behind the scenes opposition to the U.S. forces, and whether or not it is, indeed, a new terrorist group, or, more than likely, members of the old regime, is a moot point. The fact is, it doesn’t look good for Bush and his administration when every day brings word of new attacks and new deaths.
At the best guesstimate of the Pentagon, an average of 25 attacks are carried out against peacekeepers during every 24 hour period. Even considering the size of Iraq, that is still a huge number, and it’s enough to raise questions and keep the heat on Washington to hurry up and get this done, and get our troops back home and out of harm’s way.
Some are tossing around the idea that having combat troops as peacekeepers is simply a bad idea. Citizens of Iraq aren’t seeing them as liberators anymore – like Americans, they have a short memory – and instead see them as an occupying force. Stability, however, is needed. Who is to do it besides U.S. troops? Do we allow the United Nations nation builders in? They have a tendency to royally screw up everything they put their hands on – and who will take the blame if Iraq’s economy and infrastructure continues to worsen under the guidance of the U.N.? Certainly not the U.N. itself! At least with our own troops and peacekeepers in the region, we will be certain of exactly who is at fault if things don’t improve in a reasonable amount of time – and the blame will be applied to the right party.
That being said, there is the argument that more civilians should be put in charge in Iraq, and that is, indeed, a legitimate point. Civil engineers, electricians, and other skilled technicians are needed – but they can only do their jobs after the problems of violence have been solved. The tearing down has to stop before the building back up can begin.
Vandalism and attacks on the infrastructure in Iraq are a real problem as well, and here we see an even more devious plan at work by the planners of these events. Electricity to Baghdad has been sporadic and even non-existent at times. In a city where the average temperature in June during the day is around 120 degrees, this is not only a source of irritation – it is life-threatening. Who will be dying from the actions of the opposition groups? Iraqi civilians - men, women, and children. More to the point, however, is who is being blamed for the deaths of these citizens. It’s not the opposition groups.
All of it - the lack of electricity and fresh water, the attacks on the oil pipelines – these are being carried out by opposition forces, but the blame is being put squarely on the heads of the U.S. forces. The result is that these problems only exacerbate the already great tension and unrest between Iraqi citizens and the US military. In fact, it is a certainty that is causes even more and greater incidents. It angers the locals, and, even worse, it makes recruitment for opposition and terrorist groups easier. Angry locals won’t hesitate to lash out, and the incentives – the common cause, the spectacular violence – will outweigh any possible punishments. They already face death – in their mind, they have nothing to lose.
The war is a psychological one as well as a physical one. To say that simply because someone stood up and said “We won!” makes it so is foolish to the extreme. There is, at this point, no peace in Iraq. To say that Iraq is at peace is as foolish as saying that there is peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The war hasn’t been won. There is no liberation. Iraqi citizens are still living under the tyranny of the old regime; it is simply not as open as it once was.
Liberation will not be achieved - the war will not be over - until all the opposition is rooted out and the acts of violence and vandalism against both civilians and troops is stopped. Whether you agreed with this war or not, you cannot logically say that it’s finished. It is a case of the wrong words being used by the government – this is not an uneasy peace, this is an uneasy war.
Of course, the media has 'moved on' and is no longer paying much attention to Afghanistan, but we still have soldiers over there, there are still military operations ongoing daily there, I don't believe the local government is thoroughly established there, and we're working to rebuild and help train an Afghani army -- not to mention, build or rebuild an infrastructure that was mostly nonexistant to begin with.
You're correct I think about the 'case-by-case basis' - Afghanistan seems to have fewer natural resources, much less infrastructure, a less-educated populace, and less of an existing national government to build a nation on, and hopefully Iraq will be easier, if the remaining Ba'athists can be rooted out.
Iraq HAS been liberated. Saddam is not in charge, people don't have to live in fear of being killed by him or his regime, the political prisoners have been freed, and the Iraqi military conscripts have gone home.
No, the war is not over, and we haven't handed control to the Iraqis yet, but that's not to say things haven't improved.
Here's a football analogy: If your team was 21 points ahead in the 4th quarter, had just completed a 50 yard pass, and was at the 10 yard line, would you be cheering, or would you be muttering, "Well, they haven't made the touchdown yet!" ?
I agree, we haven't yet achieved peace in Afghanistan and we're still confronted with many challenges there.
And I think it's a shame that the media has tended to move on or at the least to shift its attention. I'm hoping that the same thing won't happen in Iraq.
hopefully Iraq will be easier, if the remaining Ba'athists can be rooted out.
That reminds me of another question I asked earlier in this thread. Do you think that the establishment of a new government in Iraq should or must await some confirmation as to the status of Saddam and his sons?
My favorite team was the Detroit Lions when Sanders played. So my answer is b.
No big surprise, you always have to be the contrarian. ;-)
I think I do, but I think you're projecting what you've heard in the media on to the administration, and blaming the administration for a situation that's been misrepresented by the media -- I think the D.O.D. press conferences have accurately represented the situation, but I'm not sure the reporters have been paying attention.
And besides, you used the wrong analogy. I don't know anything about football. :)
But...but...but...you're a COLLEGE STUDENT! In TEXAS!!
I seriously doubt the author of this article has been to Iraq, considering she is a FReeper and posting here daily. My brother just got back from Iraq and tells a whole different story then this desktop commando Cathryn Crawford.
The Royal Military Police officers, a sergeant and five corporals, were shot dead after trying to quell a demonstration of Shi'ite Muslims in the town of Majar al Kabir yesterday. ... The men were faced with thousands of angry demonstrators at Majar al Kabir.
...Three of the six British soldiers killed in Iraq were executed after surrendering their weapons, it was claimed today. ...
Per the FReepposted article above, it sounds like your brother got out just in time. He presumably was not one of the British Paras who was shooting nine and 13-year-old children, I hope.
-archy-/-
'Run or you will die.' The soldiers did not go and they died...Para patrol sparked events that led to tragedy
Jason Burke in Majar al-Kabir
Thursday June 26, 2003
The Guardian
There is little to mark where the soldiers died, only a mound of shattered glass, holes gouged in a peeling plaster wall and a rusty smear of dried blood along a filthy corridor floor.
Nor is it clear how they died. The rear of the police station is still burning. The front wall, below the small turret where a torn Iraqi flag is flying, is covered in bullet scars.Two of the six-strong detachment of British Royal Military Police killed in this scruffy, sun-baked town on Tuesday morning tried to hold off their attackers from the roof of the police station. The rest took up positions in three rooms on the ground floor, facing a broad dirt road, a wall and a secondary school.
Their attackers came at around 11am and the firefight lasted at least an hour and a half. When a frontal assault failed, the crowd, armed with light and heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, withdrew. A little later an attack across the wasteground on the south side was successful. But whether the attackers had rushed the building under fire is unclear. Some witnesses said the British had run out of ammunition.
After 10 minutes of the firefight the soldiers had a chance to escape. Fifteen local policemen, recruited by the new power in Iraq, were in the station when the attack started. They pleaded with the British soldiers, led by the man they knew as Mr Tim, to flee with them through a back window.
"We said we would protect them and that they should come with us," Abbas Bairphy, 25, told the Guardian yesterday. "We knew that we would be killed too because the people thought we were collaborators. But they refused to come with us."
Mr Bairphy said that Mr Tim told him that his mission was to stay at the police station and asked for a radio. "He said his own radio had been burned when their vehicle had been set on fire. But I had no radio. I felt bad that they would not come with us. I said, you must come or you will die." The soldiers did not go and they died.
They were not the only ones to lose their lives that day. A few hundred metres from the police station is the bazaar, where battered trucks were yesterday unloading produce. There are no bullet scars here, but 24 hours earlier a disastrous incident led to claims that five Iraqi men died under British gunfire and sparked the later firefight at the police station.
Majar al-Kabir is a Shia city, and it suffered badly under Saddam Hussein. Here the British and American forces were welcomed as liberators.
The problems appear to have started with a British drive to collect weapons. On Monday morning, residents say, British troops started aggressive searches of homes. As in most of Iraq, almost everybody in Majar al-Kabir is armed, and bearing arms is seen as a fundamental part of life. With security poor, many feel the need for protection.
The raids on Monday morning provoked a protest outside the police station. Bearing placards saying "Our town is safe. Stop the searches", around 100 locals gathered.
After two hours, locals say, a British military policeman walked out to talk to them. He told them to disperse or helicopters would come and kill them, they said. The protest broke up and a few hours later four British Warrior armoured personnel carriers took up a position outside the building.
Community leaders then sat down with British officers to broker a deal. The local deputation was led by Talal Abid Ahmed Zubaida, a local prayer leader. After lengthy discussions he and a British officer signed an agreement.
"There is no necessity that the coalition and its agents come to the city. The process of securing weapons in al-Majar district will be supervised by the local security committee," it reads. "After a period of a week for informing people, heavy weapons, including Dushka [a Soviet-made heavy machine gun], mortars and anti-aircraft guns will be handed in. We want to see results within one month."
It was signed by Mr Zubaida and a Captain Chris. "We thought we had an agreement," said Mr Zubaida yesterday.
But early on Tuesday patrols - or searches and raids - started again. Parachute regiment soldiers moved through the dusty streets. The locals were incensed and came out of their homes to argue with the British soldiers.
Many stories are now circulating about the behaviour of the British soldiers, few of which can be confirmed. Some say they shot dogs, others allege that the troops stole money and harassed women.
What is certain is that the claims are similar to those made in those cities further north where US troops have adopted an aggressive search policy and routinely seize all money "to prevent it being used for buying weapons".
They also search women's rooms, if not the women themselves. This a violation of local traditions. "They don't respect the people and the women. It is very bad according to our Islam," said Ahmed Younis, 32.
Mr Zubeida said he tried to broker a deal. "I argued with the British for a long time. In the end we agreed that they would stay in their vehicles and stop the searches," he said.
But, according to locals, the searches did not stop and it appears that, within hours of the discussion, British soldiers dismounted to search more houses. This sparked violence.
At least one of the British vehicles was torched and some kind of firefight followed. A Chinook helicopter coming to support the soldiers was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. Local people then dragged off a British vehicle and burned it.
Then events began to move more swiftly. By about 10am an angry crowd had gathered in the bazaar. What happened next is unclear. Several witnesses said British soldiers moved through the bazaar after searching houses. The witnesses claim they treated local people roughly. "One threatened a child with his gun," one said. Another said people started throwing stones at the troops.
As more people gathered, tensions rose. Some say that the soldiers fired rubber bullets to disperse the crowds, though this is unlikely. Most agree that a local man, possibly a former Ba'ath party official, started shooting with a handgun. The British then opened fire.
"It was about 10.15 and the market was very crowded,' said Mr Younis. "I threw myself on the ground and shouted to everybody to run away or get down. The shooting lasted for about five minutes but there were bullets going everywhere. They were firing on automatic."
Mr Younis, who was jailed by Saddam for nine years and says he welcomed the British when they arrived in his town, said that there were around 15 soldiers in two vehicles. "I couldn't believe it when they started shooting," he said.
b At least 17 people were hit. They included a 13-year-old girl caught by a ricochet in the shoulder and a nine-year-old boy. bSeveral other casualties have spinal injuries and multiple fractures.
In all, five men have died from their wounds. Three, with head wounds, died almost instantly, according to Dr Hassan Jabar, the assistant director of Majar al-Kabir's hospital who treated the casualties. A fourth died in an ambulance on the way to Basra. Dr Jabar said he believed the high proportion of head and chest wounds showed the shooting had been carefully targeted.
The fifth to die was Ghazi Musa Hassan, 50, the ambulance driver at the main hospital. A single bullet hit him in the heart. Though he was alive when brought to Dr Jabar he died within minutes.
Musa, who had six children, had just finished an overnight shift. He then went home to have breakfast, went back to the hospital to check his vehicle's engine and then, fatefully, walked through the bazaar on his way home. "He was a simple poor man," Dr Jabar said.
As the wounded lay in the bazaar the British soldiers drove away. One local said they retreated to an outlying village. The crowd, however, were incensed. Many returned home to get their weapons - the very arms that the British soldiers had been trying to collect hours earlier. They headed towards the police station where they knew the British army had a presence.
The six MPs at the police station were well known. For a few weeks they had been coming to the station to liaise with and train the hastily recruited local police force. They had faced no animosity before, except the protest a day earlier.
It is unclear whether they knew of events elsewhere as attackers burned their vehicle, where their radio was kept.
The armed crowd was hundreds strong and set on revenge. A siege began. No one in Majar al-Kabir would admit to being among the attackers yesterday so details of the battle are sketchy. By 1pm at the latest, the MPs were dead and though a British army Chinook, dropping thunderflashes and possibly firing, had arrived, it was too late.
According to hospital staff, four Iraqis were injured in the police station attack. The figure could well be higher.
Yesterday Majar al-Kabir was tense but calm. There was also a sense of shock. In a tent Ghazi Musa's family were welcoming people who had come to pay their respects to the dead ambulance driver.
Khaled Obeid, his cousin, was bewildered by events.
"We did nothing to them. First we welcomed them but now they hurt us. We were thankful to them for getting rid of Saddam but now I do not know."
There is no evidence that the events are part of a concerted or organised resistance movement. No one here speaks of fedayeen or diehard Ba'athist loyalists. Instead they talk of the violation of honour and tradition and a lack of respect.
There is sympathy for the dead British MPs as well as the locals. "I am sad and very unhappy for both the Iraqis and the British," said Dr Jabar. "I am very sorry. And I am afraid from the future."
The British version:
9.30am Tuesday A joint British patrol with Iraqi guards and interpreters searches for arms. They are attacked by a crowd throwing stones. They come under fire from Iraqis and return fire. A vehicle is hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. One British soldier is wounded. A rapid reaction force, including light tanks and a Chinook helicopter, arrives to help, but the helicopter also comes under fire. It retreats, after seven people on board are wounded, two seriously. A second rapid reaction force arrives and recovers the wounded ground soldier.11am A police station comes under fire. The siege lasts two hours. Six British military police training Iraqi police officers are found dead.
The Iraqi version:
Monday morning British troops patrol town searching for weapons. This provokes demonstration outside police station. Agreement townspeople will disarm within a month. Tuesday 7am British troops continue to search.9.30am Iraqi civilians gather in bazaar and confront British paratroopers. Rocks are thrown. Troops fire rubber bullets. Former Ba'athist leader opens fire with handgun. British troops open fire: five Iraqis killed and 13 injured. Crowd disperses.
11am Armed Iraqi crowd arrives at police station. Police inside advise British military police to leave. They refuse.
12.45pm Police station stormed by Iraqis.
3pm Bodies of the six military police recovered.
Should I look in my crystal ball? ;-)
I don't think it should, and at the rate that confirmation seems to be going, I don't think it can, but -- I don't claim to know the minds of the Iraqi people.
I'd think it's fairly obvious that whether Saddam and his sons are alive or dead, they're no longer in power, but in the minds of the Iraqi people, any new government may have less legitimacy until the status of Saddam et.al. is perfectly clear.
LOL. I agree. It complicates matters.
And what can we say? We can't very well say that we won't allow a new government to be established before we determine the status of Saddam & Sons because we may never be able to establish their status.
It's a mess. ;-)
Isn't that almost un American? LOL, I'm joking, cut me some slack.
Even on an individual scale, life is rarely cut-and-dried, black-and-white. There are always difficult choices to make, with no easy or perfectly clear answers (except perhaps in hindsight).
I'm not sure why we expect national or international issues to be any different.
Actually your "article" criticized the word "liberated" and it soon became clear you were interchanging the ideas of liberation and peace.
I have yet to hear that Iraq is at peace, yet you assert that it is being said. Could you point me to a citation, please?
I'm not sure why we expect national or international issues to be any different.
You're right, of course.
As usual. ;-)
This statement? Hmmm. FNC, CNN, MSNBC, The Dallas Morning News, NYT, The Washington Post...shall I continue?
Link to specifics, please.
I do believe the media may have used the term. I know the govermenment has not, yet you assert that they have here:
Whether you agreed with this war or not, you cannot logically say that it’s finished. It is a case of the wrong words being used by the government – this is not an uneasy peace, this is an uneasy war.
Now, I see you say you would not change anything you have written. Really? This sentence you wrote is false. The government has neither declared peace--uneasy or otherwise, and they most certainly have not said it is "finished".
Says we may now be in Iraq for up to 5 years. As the job is proving to be harder than they thought it would be.
No surprise that ABC news thought we'd be out of Iraq in less than 5 years. They thought we were in a quagmire in one week. The only people surprised that the job is harder than they thought it would be are those media types and those who choose to listen to them. It certainly wasn't stated by President Bush that it would be over in 5 years or less. He said it may take a long time and we need to be patient and persistant and not give up. But those at ABC and others haven't listened.
This is a favorite ploy of Katie Couric. She often uses the phrases "some are saying" or "some people are asking" when it is clear she is saying or she is asking.
If only I could convince my family and my students that I'm always right! ;-)
I have not. I really am waiting for a cite. I know it will not be an official from the Bush Administration, that is for sure.
It's a combination of anger at both the administration and the media. The administration has been happy to talk about the liberation of Iraq, and it isn't doing anything to counter the general assumption by the media and by the American public that Iraq is liberated.
I see I am correct. You are treating "liberated" and "peace" as synonymous when they are not.
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.