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.
In Afghanistan, how long was it post-invasion before a new Afghanistani government was formed?
This is similar to what I'm hearing as well.
I don't either, Cathryn, but I think the biggest factor the Iraqi people have going for them is their tremendous oil reserves.
I'm not saying that money buys peace, but it will make the citizens more conducive to peaceful solutions.
When people have to live like animals, they think like animals.
Conversely, when they begin to experience a more comfortable life style the propaganda from the terrorists groups will lose significance.
It takes time, money and effort to develop the infrastructure necessary to produce from an oil reserve the size of Iraqs, but this is the Bush Administration's ace in the hole.
BTW: Great article!
This is YOUR article; how about linking any article you can find where the White House, the DOD, or the Pentagon used the word "peace" in the context of the Iraqi war, indicating that the United States government believes we are at "peace" in Iraq.
She doesn't say she's quoting the administration in her article. It's directed at the news agencies!
To use a medical analogy, we performed major surgery to remove a life-threatening cancerous tumor and are now dealing with the expected post-operative effects of a patient who will eventually have a full recovery. But we have already won, as long as we stay patient and focused on helping the patient recover to the point that he no longer needs our help.
At least that's the way I understood it. ;-)
To: MJY1288
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.
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?
39 posted on 06/27/2003 12:32 PM EDT by Cathryn Crawford
That clearly indicates to me that she is saying that she doesn't believe what Mike said is true.
Maybe, maybe not. Here are a couple of other quotes from the article that make it appear the administration is also being blamed:
...all the back-slapping going on in Washington....it doesn’t look good for Bush and his administration...
It is a case of the wrong words being used by the government...
The war only started 100 days ago. Major combat was over in record time, but I think it's a little naive to think a new government would be established and everything would be totally peaceful at this point.
How long did it take to re-establish governments in Europe and Japan after WWII?
Well, when I asked (at post 81), "[H]ow long was it post-invasion before a new Afghanistani government was formed?", the point of my question was to encourage some discussion about the possible differences between Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of the time it might take for the establishment of a new government post-invasion.
As your question suggests, perhaps these things must be viewed on a case by case basis. ;-)
Perhaps I'm confused at what you're trying to say in the article. You seem to be upset that someone is saying that the war is over, when it isn't really, but I'm having a hard time telling if you're angry at our government or the media.
The last paragraph of the article makes me think it's the government you're angry at:
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.
This last paragraph implies that those who said Iraq had been liberated - and I believe President Bush did say that - are lying. It also sounds as if you're saying that the government is saying the war is finished and calling this 'an uneasy peace', when neither is true.
I don't think anyone in the government has said that it's finished, even though the media implied that it was when they brought most of the embedded reporters home and reduced the coverage of Iraq.
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.