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.
IMHO we are at war and will continue to be at war with the Baathists until we get Saddam or prove he's dead.
We have a local Nashville man on the ground in Baghdad who tells a completely different story about the "sense of normalcy" there, and there have been many reports here on FR that indicate that only the sensational and negative news ever gets exported out of Iraq and back to US newsrooms.
Our guy over there reports that electricity in Baghdad is on, for the most part, at least 18 hours a day. He reports that the water, too, is on, although it isn't being purified to US standards. He reports, though, that the water has NEVER been purified to that degree - this is NOT an effect of the war, their water system was ALREADY primitive. They don't even have a chlorine metering system, they just add some by guesswork. The way they've always done it.
Baghdad TV is on the air and people are watching it. That takes electricity. Businesses have reopened, there is commerce in the streets, and 95% of the contact between our guys and the Iraqi people is positive. The US reporters on the ground, of course, don't get their pieces on the air on printed in the papers, though, if they report the good news. Editors want the bad news, so they always manage to find someone - anyone - who will say what they want to hear.
There are some interests in the region who abhor the notion of a free and open Arab society and they are doing everything they can to sabo our plan. Iranian extremists and imports from around the region are the ones causing the trouble, egged on by Baathists who've known no other life than one of violence. We are handling them as well as any army could, and we will prevail. You reported that 50 Americans have died since President Bush declared the end of major combat - remember that he never said ALL combat was over - but a good half of these were accidental deaths, a point you could have easily made but didn't.
The point I make is that (1)you approach this article from the left and (2)you make the assumption of military failure. Even if you aren't "Bush-bashing," you still approach from the left - i.e., from the angle that the DNC would have if they'd written the same article. And the military has won a stunning and quick victory and is doing a fabulous job holding things together until a new government can be formed.
How long did it take in Japan after WWII? And you expect The Miracle In Three Months? There's a lack of perspective on the part of the media that annoys a great deal of us.
Michael
because it's you people in the media who use these words like "peace" and then turn around and question it's use. Nobody in the military or this administration have ever described the situation over there as peaceful and yet you write this...
"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."
If you don't mind, could you please tell me who you were quoting in this statement
Again, they've NEVER had truly purified water there, just haphazard spiking of the system with a dab of chlorine. The water system is in its present condition because it's always been sad-sack. Not because of the war.
Much of the electrical problems were due to sabo on some of the high-voltage transmission lines - which CAN be repaired by the Army engineers because all it is - is cable-stringing and splicing.
It takes time to root out the bad guys. The media is impatient.
Michael
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.
Thanks for your post, it saved me the keystokes.
I reluctantly backed the war on Iraq because of the ties to Al Qaieda(sp). That was the ONLY reason I backed that, since I knew there was no good situation possible, only the least worst. I read three reports confirming the ties to Al Qaieda. That was enough to convince me that Bush was telling the truth on that.
I don't know the best solution to what's there. I'm against 'nationbuilding' as a whole. If foreign troops were in my country, I'd be shooting.
That said, if we pick up and run now, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon will be going in. That would be from Bad to Worse. Saddam was about as bad as it gets, but a religious fanatic like a Taliban or Ayatollah would be worse.
I honestly don't know.
I still don't think you get my point. I did not approach this piece from the left. I'm not a liberal. I'd bet that I'm more conservative than most conservatives are. Ask me about Israel.
You reported that 50 Americans have died since President Bush declared the end of major combat - remember that he never said ALL combat was over - but a good half of these were accidental deaths, a point you could have easily made but didn't.
No, I didn't. Wrong article. I reported that there are an average of 25 attacks every 24 hours on U.S. troops.
(2)you make the assumption of military failure.
I absolutely do not. I think the military has done a wonderful job. However, I think (and have been told) that it is demoralizing for the troops to hear from back home that "peace" has been declared and they are still fighting tooth and nail.
If anything, this piece was a defense of the military. It's not fair to blame them for not "keeping the peace" when there is no peace to be kept.
I haven't written about Iraq since I praised Bush's speech aboard the aircraft carrier. If you can find an instance where I used that word in that way, please feel free to quote me on it.
“an uneasy peace”
This statement? Hmmm. FNC, CNN, MSNBC, The Dallas Morning News, NYT, The Washington Post...shall I continue?
Our point on that would be that the only "peace" that's been declared so far is the one the MEDIA declared. Further, I find the very idea of finding demoralized GI's in a war zone and REPORTING what they say during a time of combat to be irresponsible reporting. And I do question the LEVEL of this "demoralization." It seems to be more in the eyes of the media than in those of the soldier.
I come from 28 years in major-market media, so I'm particularly sensitive to the way modern journalism has evolved.
Since you're an engaging person who thinks well on your feet, let me ask one more question. If you had to write this same article today, would you write it any differently?
Michael
The most amazing thing he told me was that before the fall of Saddam the Iraqi police didn't patrol Baghdad, they sat around the police station and waited for a call
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.