The Uneasy War - Cathryn Crawford

washingtondispatch ^ | Jun 27, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[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.

[Cathryn Crawford]

(You're not too smart. I like that in a man.)

Never trust someone who would rather have a stupid significant other. It implies an ego problem.

[Scenic Sounds]

Never trust anyone who talks in the third person.

Why should one not trust another who speaks in the third person?

[Cathryn Crawford]

d 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.

Since I was first encouraged to write this article, in this way, on this topic, by a close friend back fresh from Iraq - in the special forces, as I said before - I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

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?

No.

[Wright is right!]

"Never trust anyone who talks in the third person."

Rampant usage in media stories are terms such as "raising questions," "giving rise to fears," etc. Passive voice allows the opinion of the writer to creep into the piece and possibly subvert reality. Who is raising questions? Why, the writer is. In whom are the fears rising? Why, the writer, naturally. If there were actual people to be quoted raising questions or voicing a rising fear, then the diligent reporter would FIND those people and quote them for attribution. Instead, we get prose along the line of "mistakes were made." Too clintonian for my taste.

Michael

[MJY1288]

When I said "you people in the media" I wasn't neccessarily meaning you in particular, I meant in general

"This statement? Hmmm. FNC, CNN, MSNBC, The Dallas Morning News, NYT, The Washington Post...shall I continue?"

That's my point... The media uses terms like "uneasy peace" and then question why it's used as if this impression was made by the military or this administration. The whole thing is a creation of the media and I wish it would stop

[Wright is right!]

"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."

Did ABC quote anyone saying that "the job is harder than we thought it would be?" Or is this the typical media mantra a la "raising fears of a quagmire?"

Michael

[Cathryn Crawford]

I wish it would stop

Me, too. That was kinda the point.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Why should one not trust another who speaks in the third person?

It shows an incredible and self-involved ego.

[MJY1288]

"ABC" Nuf said

[johnb838]

Some people get it. On the A. Lincoln, W didn't say the war was over. He said the active combat phase was and that there was a long and dangerous struggle ahead. It was the nattering nabobs that implied that he had said the war was over. Then they wait a few weeks and start questioning the false premise that they themselves had floated. This is actually a fairly common liberal dialectic. We must keep reminding people that we aren't in there for the quick fix. The people are on our side. The enemy is trying this tactic because the WMD-rationale bashing isn't getting traction.

[MJY1288]

"That was kinda the point."

Well! I must have missed that part, because I didn't get that impression from your piece. It seemed more of a "Quagmire" story refuting the "peace" story that were both entirely made up by the press. The fact is we are in a post war occupation of a country chock full of hostile irregulars and this administration and the DOD know exactly what we are up against. It's the columnist that can't figure it out

[Cathryn Crawford]

Congratulations on your promotion to the chattering class, armchair commando. ;)

Thank you! It's been an enlightening experience. ;)

[Sir Gawain]

It shows an incredible and self-involved ego.

If I remember correctly, you had your own photo on your profile page at one time. And if you have stuff like this on your profile page, what exactly does that mean?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Shows that you don't have a sense of humor.

[MJY1288]

LOL

[LS]

As Maj. Bob pointed out, an Iraqi army also serves one other pupose: it gives a job and a paycheck to thousands of young men who previously had that job, but now are without work (hence, more likely to get into trouble).

[cibco]

"You've changed your mind from your first post to your last?"

No... that is what I was getting at. We are still in combat mode. A lot of people don't understand that. Just because the major combat is over, doesn't mean the fighting is done. Lot of badguys left and it will take time to get the job done. People are going to get wounded and killed(unfortunately) in the meantime.

The press is overstating the circimstances, as they usually do, to get face time. They thrive on the negative.

[Scenic Sounds]

It shows an incredible and self-involved ego.

One would perhaps be more convinced of that position were it rewritten it to read, "I think it shows an incredible and self-involved ego."

Reading as it does, one might conclude it was hypocritical. Or maybe just hyper-critical. Something's wrong here. LOL.

[Sir Gawain]

Well I do in fact see humor in Jessica Rabbit's picture on your profile page.

[marron]

The war is not over. The first battle was to remove Saddam from power. The second is to remove the Baathist leadership from power. Those two battles are over and won.

Now the problem is to rebuild a free, secular, Iraq. Anyone who thinks that is going to be easy is not paying attention. We have disbanded their army, which means some 350,000 young men are now standing on street corners with nothing to do. That is not good. The Secret Police have been disbanded, and they have no particular career prospects that do not involve shoulder-holsters and needle-nosed pliers. And the Fedayeen are still out there, and they least of all are capable of being absorbed into a Free Iraq. The secret police at least have hopes of transitioning into an Iraqi Mafia, trading on their job skills and contacts. The Fedayeen probably cannot even do that. They will have to be killed, everyone of them. They have no future, and Iraq has no future while they live.

It is of the upmost importance that we move quickly to recruit and train a new Iraqi constabulary. First pick should be any members of the Iraqi National Congress, or their sons. Anyone who can be assumed to be untainted by the Baathists. In a country in which Baathist membership was universal, finding someone without Baathist connections will be all but impossible. But they are out there. Second choice will be Regular Army who can convince the recruiters that they have no sympathy for the Baathists. But this must be a priority, and the Constabulary must be well paid, must be something that talented young men will aspire to.

It should have US personnel blended in among them for the first few years of its existence, both at the leadership level, and at the street level. But there should be no doubt as to its Iraqi character.

Until we can field such a force, our young men are going to be taking the brunt of the casualties. We have to establish an all-Iraqi force, or a 99.9% Iraqi force, to take the fight to the die-hards, to take on the killers directly, so that the eventual free country that emerges will be an Iraqi creature. Iraqis can take pride in such a country if they have fought for it and won it themselves.

This is similar to the slow-motion disaster that is occurring in Afghanistan. The creation of a national Constabulary there is moving much too slowly. It is not being given the priority it deserves, the men are not well paid, and this is potentially catastrophic. We are on unstable ground. We cannot afford to loiter. We must move quickly and decisively or stand and watch while the ground breaks up around our feet.