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.
A very good point. They are working on this now. A very large task indeed. Once they have the organization in place and have vetted the worst of the officer corps, there should be a large change in the security situation.
A visible Iraqi Army presence should have a positive effect on the Iraqi people.
People don't seem to understand the powerful meanings of words. When every talking head on every major news network is talking about peace, and every day we're hearing about American troops being killed on the street, the concepts don't mesh and the U.S. government looks like a bunch of liars. I've talked to people, read articles by people, who seem to whine and cry about this peace. So, if you don't want to call it peace, everyone, call it war. That's what it is.
Although I didn't go to Iraq, I have a close friend who did. He was in the Special Forces. He was back a few weeks ago and I discussed this issue with him. He agreed. I believe his exact words were, "These people (the government, the American people) just don't get it. We're still fighting a war over there."
True enough, and I've never thought otherwise. Thanks for the ping. It's important we all understand this.
In time and with prayers and faith the War against Iraq will be over. And the Iraqi people will be liberated.
Uh oh, looks like her Special Forces friend is being unpatriotic too! Or maybe you'll now imply that he is lying.
I'm sure her friend that was there had to dodge bullets. Maybe she can arrange a meeting where you tell him that his experiences over there were stupid because he tells a different story.
You are probably right. I don't know what the solution is, but there are a few things that might make it better.
I think we need to have an Iraqi police force. We can train them, we can support them, but it needs to be made up of Iraqi citizens. That would probably help a great deal - as a matter of fact, that might be the turning point.
We also have got to find and preferably kill the opposition forces that are vandalizing and attacking the infrastructure of Iraq. Having no air conditioning, no sanatizied water - this only adds to the unrest. It puts our troops in danger because it upps the likelihood that they will be attacked.
After we get the bulk of the opposition rooted out (yes, I know it's impossible to root them all out) we can bring in engineers and mechanics and electricians to do their jobs. It's completely unfair to expect the U.S. troops to do all these jobs and police at the same time.
You implied she was being unpatriotic in your post #16. You can spin that however you want.
Yes, It's the desktop commando's who will step right over a story about the many acts of appreciation shown by the regular Iraqi people in order to interview a member of the Fedayeen Saddam about how he doesn't feel liberated.
Those are your words.
Perhaps our biggest challenges in Iraq remain ahead of us. Governing the place is going to be difficult for us and it's going to be difficult for any government that is established.
When do you think Iraq might be ready for self-government? Do you think that the transition to self-government might/should be hindered/delayed by our inability to determine the current status of Saddam and his offspring?
Again, great column, Cathryn. Thanks for raising these questions - they're important ones. ;-)
I agree. The majorcombat is over. We are now doing the mop up operations now.
It is like the Pacific Islands in WWII. First we took an island. Then... it took a looong time to finsh off the pockets of resistance. It was a long, dirty and hazardous job then, as it is now.
You've changed your mind from your first post to your last?
I listen to the reports from the White House, DOD and the State Department everyday and I never here them refer to the operation in Iraq as anything other than a dangerous situation. My brother was over there for 4 months working to setup the new Baghdad police force. He told me that 95% of the people over there are glad to see us, it's just that Saddam emptied his jails and the Republican Gaurd melted back into the society and some of Saddam's most loyal are ambushing our guys, but that had to be expected.
It's a damn shame to hear about our guys getting killed over there and I hope they can get the Iraqi's to start policing themselves very soon
Cheers,
Mike
Question for you, Mike, because I'm curious. If this is true, if you didn't think that there was peace, then why did my piece infuriate you so much?
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.