The Uneasy War - 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.

William:

Thanks for the post.

Yes, I do have an anti-war streak to me. I've been highly uncomfortable with the idea of this war all along, but I have supported it with many reservations.

I don't think that there has been a full and total liberation in Iraq. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true. I actually don't think "liberation" will be achieved until our soldiers are out and they control their own country.

I don't like the idea of us being there for much longer. It's uncomfortable. I didn't support Kosovo, and Milosevich was as bad as Hussien. I did support Iraq, because I felt that the argument for WMD's was strong enough. And I don't think we've given the Bush administration enough time to look for the WMD's in Iraq. I'm not willing to call them liars at this point.

And, I never said that the job should be finished by now. I simply was stating that it isn't, and that angered people.

And, I never said that the job should be finished by now. I simply was stating that it isn't, and that angered people.

I didn't see anybody "angered".

I see people trying to correct your assertion that the Bush administration has declared the job finished. They have not, therefore nobody would be "angered" at you saying the job wasn't done.

We're the ones saying that of course the job isn't done, and liberation, (meaning the yoke of Hussein has been lifted and a chance at new, freely-elected leadership will soon be realized), does not equal peace. I haven't seen any back-slapping in Washington, either. Far from it.

I totally disagree with comparing Kosovo to Iraq. I think Hussein's support of terrorism that would reach outside of his country elevates him well above Milosevich, as well as the brutality that his own people in Iraq were subjected to. No comparison.

Yes, I do have an anti-war streak to me.

I think this is a good thing. I think that conservatives should support the use of force only when there will be costs to our country if we don't use force that are greater than if we don't. Simple cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes, there is a 'pay now or pay later' situation. When the price must be paid, I generally support taking it on sooner rather than later, if the costs are lower now.

I don't think that there has been a full and total liberation in Iraq. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true. I actually don't think "liberation" will be achieved until our soldiers are out and they control their own country.

I think there has been a liberation from the tyranny of Saddam. If you feel that there has been no liberation, then it tells me that you probably didn't really grasp what the situation was for the Iraqi population. I could give many examples, but one in particular seems most apt for summing up the tenor of the regime...

The jail for children of dissidents. Even Scott Ridder admits to its existence. You spoke out against the government? Your kids would be taken from you, and put into jail. Think about how monsterous that is on so many levels.

So yes, there was absolutely a liberation.

But perhaps, instead, you mean that the country will not be fully liberated until we leave. If that is what you meant, and you are acknowledging that there was a tremendous liberation but it is not complete, then we are in accord.

I don't like the idea of us being there for much longer. It's uncomfortable. I didn't support Kosovo, and Milosevich was as bad as Hussien.

I am not sure he was as bad as Hussien. I am also quite sure that Kosovo was not in a position to be as much of a threat to United States interests due. But yes, our troops being in a place where their lives are in danger is uncomfortable. But as for them being there for much longer?

I did support Iraq, because I felt that the argument for WMD's was strong enough. And I don't think we've given the Bush administration enough time to look for the WMD's in Iraq. I'm not willing to call them liars at this point.

But if they are not found, then they are? Despite the fact that Iraq had said they had things, such as anthrax and VX gas (they inventoried it after the first Gulf War), and we have not found them? Despite the fact that up until it became a political issue (out of necessity for the Democrats), that there was unanimity on the fact that Iraq had these weapons? And that it would be impossible to say the unanimity was because the Bush administration pushed it, because the unanimity was present back when Bush was still Governor of Texas?

And, I never said that the job should be finished by now. I simply was stating that it isn't, and that angered people.

The job isn't done now, it is true. And unfortunately, it is not going to be done any time soon; that is going to play on your feelings of discomfort. You may as well make a decision now- do you support finishing the job? That means probably two or three more years. Or do you think that is too long? That means the job doesn't get done.

As for your line that it has angered people, I think it has angered some people. I do not think it has angered a significant number of people who were not looking for reasons to be angered at the administration anyway. I think that once you get out of the Democrat base and the Greens, there is a distinct lack of anger directed at the administration over the travails in Iraq.

I predict that the coming months are going to be very frustrating for those who passionately believe that they can turn the public against the administration over Iraq. It generally is frustrating when one believes that everyone should see things their way but the majority doesn't.

Napalming?

Ayuh, napalming. Let's go to the tape:

calling Iraq liberated simply doesn’t make sense.

These kids would disagree. So would the women who no longer have to worry about being raped to secure their (or a loved one's) confession to some act of human dignity that shouldn't be considered a crime anywhere. So would the 99% of the Iraqi people who were suffering in that glorified torture chamber for 30 years. So would any of the tens of thousands of Iraqi-Americans who thronged the streets of Detroit on April 9th. If you are going to refer to Iraq as un-liberated, you may want to begin referring to the South as The Confederate States of America. It's about as up to date.

At the best guesstimate of the Pentagon, an average of 25 attacks are carried out against peacekeepers during every 24 hour period.

America's shame right now is not that our soldiers are under fire in Iraq; it is that they are still statistically safer than citizens living in Chicago, DC and some parts of Milwaukee.

Some are tossing around the idea that having combat troops as peacekeepers is simply a bad idea.

Not people who know what they're talking about. Though it is always better to have troops who are MPs or have had special peacekeeper training, the American frontline combat soldier is an excellent peacekeeper. The difference between the 3rd ID and the 333rd MP Company is similar to the difference between a National Guard infantry unit and a police department. One has better training for policing, but both are more than up to the job. For decades, the American fighting man has been one of the few soldiers that no civilian need fear, and this is true in Iraq.

They already face death – in their mind, they have nothing to lose.

This comment is just plain silly. The electricity is spotty, so otherwise peace-minded citizens "face death" so imminent that they will decide to become terrorists? Ludicrous and overblown rhetoric.

There is, at this point, no peace in Iraq.

There is no peace in the United States, either. We are at war with terrorist forces. These same forces will be trying to act against the new Iraqi governement even after things calm down. Liberation has already come; peace is a long way off, even if you get what you're asking for in this article almost immediately.

Iraqi citizens are still living under the tyranny of the old regime; it is simply not as open as it once was.

Who are you, Howard "Maybe they're not better off" Dean? Though it sucks that there has been a chilling effect on the exercise of new freedoms, let's make no mistake here: The tyranny of the old regime involved the torture of children, the jailing and torture of citizens on trumped-up charges of crimes that never happened, conscription at gunpoint (or by holding wives and children hostage) and the beheading of so-called "prostitutes" who spoke their minds or refused to sleep with men who had the wrong connections. Who would be able, right at this moment, to bury 200 little Kurdish kids alive in a mass grave. Nobody.

Still living under the tyranny of the old regime?

Hardly.

Not liberated?

Fat chance.

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.