|
|
November 9, 2003 Rantings on American waffling and FUD factor concerning continued presence in Iraq (FUD factor: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) In Iraq, the
minority groups of Bathists and Sunnis benefited from Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Through the 30
years of Saddam’s rule, these were the people who received the houses taken
from the Shiites and Kurds. These
were the people who got the best jobs and power positions. These were the
people who got much of the oil money. During
the last 12 years of UN sanctions, the oil for food money was mostly diverted to
these minority groups while the Shiite and Kurd children’s starvation and
disease were showcased for journalists. These minority
groups benefited from the 30-year rule of terror and oppression. They were very loyal to Saddam. It should be expected that
they want their power, privilege and loot back. It will take
time to establish a government, laws, police system and social institutions
composed of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
The Bathists and Saddam loyalists know this and are taking aim
appropriately. The last
half-year’s deaths of our soldiers are a tragedy.
These deaths are a loss of their whole lives to the individual soldiers
involved. Yet we also have soldier
deaths in garrison and in normal training, from normal accidents and drunken
driving and boating accidents. The
death rate of the 130,000 soldiers in Iraq isn’t terribly much higher than the
death rate of those same soldiers would be if we brought them home. Even so, if
the death rate of American soldiers were to be a hundred times higher, we must
not retreat. We must not run. We ran from Vietnam and let the North conquer it (killing tens of thousands of South Vietnamese during the consolidation) and resulting in the communist conquest of Cambodia (resulting in about 2,000,000 deaths). We ran from Beirut and let Syria take control of Lebanon. We ran from Somalia and left that nation in the hands of feuding warlords. We made no response to the first attempt to kill 50,000 people by bringing down the World Trade Towers in the early ‘90s. We made trivial responses to the bombing of two of our embassies on the same day. We made trivial responses to the bombing of the USS Cole. We did force
Iraq out of Kuwait but we did not follow through to destroy Saddam – something
viewed as weakness by many people in the region.
(And yes, I know there’s LOTS more complexity to these issues – here,
I’m just discussing our reputation for cutting and running.) Finally, after
the second attempt of the terrorists to kill 50,000 people in the World Trade
Center (which fortunately only killed about 3,000) we responded. We have attacked al Qaeda terrorists worldwide.
We helped the locals overthrow the Taliban/al Qaeda control of
Afghanistan. We forced Saddam Hussein and his minions out of control of Iraq. Now, our
satellite broadcast news shows all nine of the opposition party members
continually carping about how the conquest of Iraq was a based on a lie and
should be repudiated. The world is
shown these candidates criticizing our conduct of the war follow-up (without
their ever offering an alternative). The world hears commentators saying Bush is
in trouble and that he’s down to 50-50 vote against an “unnamed” Democrat.
The world sees the breast-beating and wailing every time one or two more
Americans are killed. They see the
anguish spoken due to there being one or two Americans killed a day. Saddam and his
minions are GREATLY encouraged and see victory in sight.
They can see that, if they can simply kill a few Americans a day, the
Americans will run again. Yet this is a
war/peace we can’t afford to lose. To
let the evil people win in Iraq would be heinous. It will make it difficult or
impossible to help other regional dictator-controlled states change over to
democracy. Our defeat would, I
think, enable and encourage a great increase in direct attacks on Western
countries, especially the United States. Our defeat in
Iraq would enable the vengeful return to power of the Bathists and Saddam
loyalist minority groups. We need
only look at the films of their treatment of prisoners, hear the stories of the
shopping of schools for girls who were raped and murdered, listen to the reports
of daughters raped and children tortured before their parents in order to
torture the parents, look at the mass graves, view the remains of prisoners
which the families are STILL terrified to claim for burial. We only need to see
these things to know that letting Saddam and his minions return to power would
shame us forever. And we would
DESERVE to be shamed forever if we let that happen. On the other
hand, our success in helping Iraq change to be a civilized democracy will go
very far to putting the terrorists and fanatics on the defensive.
Doing this at OUR cost and without taking their wealth from them, giving
them their freedom and then stepping back to let them BE free will be to our
credit worldwide. Responses:
Ed,
I really enjoyed this piece and couldn't agree with you more. In our
sound byte, microwave culture we want everything now. If it doesn't
happen quickly, we begin to lose patience. I know this administration is
resolved to see the task accomplished. I hope for both ours, and
the world's sake, the American people see the comments of some of the
democratic candidates for what they are: Despicable (I personally
would call some of their comments treason!), politically motivated, and very
harmful to the safety of our citizens here at home and our poor
troops, who are just trying to get the job done and get out of there.
I have not forgotten about the anti-war activists whose misguided opposition
of the war gave false hope to the Hussein regime, and helped strengthen the
resolve of many who would have rapidly surrendered upon our entry into Iraq. I
have no doubt that many of the fine soldiers who gave their lives during
Gulf II paid this price needlessly (Many Iraqi's paid this price
needlessly as well). Likewise, the opposition that is being launched
against our post war Iraq effort is being spearheaded not by those who think
it's wrong, but by those who simply hate the man who currently resides in the
White House. Who pays the price? Our soldiers, of course.
Anyway, I commend your efforts to educate people in this matter.
Hopefully we will stay the course, and, like WWII, history will vindicate our
efforts.
Chris [vet - fairly recent active duty till about '99 or 2000]
Percy responded: I'm interested in continuing the debate, Ed, although I am certain that you will NOT agree with everything I have to say! Portland State University had "Alumni Weekend" this past, and I went to a lecture on Iraq. My remarks are from that and my own thoughts. Ed
wrote: Percy says: This is true. But, as the lecture pointed out, a lot of Baathists were like a lot of Communists in Russia - they only joined the party to get a job! These are the ones that we can convert, and to lump them all together is a big mistake. Ed
responds: Percy, I’ll
agree about the Bathists group containing a LOT of people who joined them some
because they had to and many because they wanted to be part of the power
structure in a repressive country. We are now recruiting a lot of these
people to be part of the new government. You don't think we should just
accept them all just as Saddam hired and placed them, do you? It takes
some time because the new government needs to interview co-workers to see
which of the former functionaries are likely to work properly for the NEW
government. Percy
says: And time is precisely what
America Does Not Have. We came in as an Army of Liberation. With
each passing day, we become more an Army of Occupation. Since the
current administration (which I feel should be replaced) did Not Plan the
post-war, they do Not Have a Clue as to what to do. They need to turn it
over to someone NOW! Ed
responds: I don’t agree
about the time. In my humble
opinion, we can’t afford to NOT take sufficient time to make an orderly
transfer of government function to the Iraqis. To
whom would you “turn it over to someone NOW”?
The UN who just cut and ran after their one building got bombed? To the
French who have a huge vested interest in having Saddam return to power (the
same Saddam who gave France exclusive right to develop the richest unproven
oil fields in the world)? To the Russians who hold billions of dollars of IOUs
from Saddam? To a consortium of
Arab dictators (and which ones)? Percy
answers: Ed
says: As
yet, the Iraqi leaders aren’t yet ready to assume control of Iraq but
they’re getting there. At this
point, I think we can expect to see a progression of responsibility shift to
the new Iraqi government. I
expect you’ll see them write a constitution, organize and hold elections and
develop a bureaucracy loyal (mostly) to the new government.
As these things happen, you’ll also see Iraqi institutions take more
and more day-to-day power in their country. Sensible Iraqi citizens will see and ARE SEEING these changes. Percy
answers: Ed
comments: You're right and that's going to be a major
problem. Yet their neighbors are very insistent that the
state of Iraq NOT be broken up into sub-states based on its
nationalities. I seem to kinda-recall that we agreed we wouldn't allow
the breakup of Iraq as a precondition to getting some coalition
assistance. (Maybe we should just forget that coalition stuff in
the future, considering the problems it's caused in the recent past. Just a
joke, I think.) Percy
wrote: Ed - the best diplomatic place to be is one where one can advance
without danger, and retreat without losing face. We are Not there now.
Advancing will bring more than just causalties! It could wreck the
economy (deficetes) and sour the body politic, besides costing us whatever
good will we have remaining on this planet. Ed
responds: Percy, I disagree that
we want to be in a place where we can advance without danger.
There is danger in living. There
is a lot of danger in staying home and hiding.
I also don’t give much for saving face.
I DO think we need to follow through to give full protection to the
Iraqis who would like to make a government without their murderous dictator. Maybe
they’ll yet call up a fat, old retired Staff Sergeant to be retrained as an
MP. If so, I’ll go willingly. Percy
says: You are correct in that it
was a Big Mistake not taking out Saddam the first time. A Signal
Blunder. But George I listened to his advisors, some of which talk to
George II, and was convinced that that minority you speak of would raise up
and finish the job. They
Totally Misread the situation, as events showed. Which
brings up another reason for our invasion of Iraq - one I have not seen
anywhere. That is the R word - Revenge. "You snookered my
daddy, and you ain't snookering me!" And it is not George the
Younger, but the entire clique he has with him that feel that way. Ed
responds: But I didn’t say that
it was a “Big Mistake not taking out Saddam the first time.” Our permission to base our war on sand instead of salt water
was that we had to promise to NOT go all the way.
Had we gone on, we could well have been shooting behind us as well as
ahead of us and our entire supply train was on the soil of the people to whom
we had made the promise. Whether
the promise was a good idea or not, I don’t know. You’re
sure right that we sold out the southern Shiites and Kurds.
I wouldn’t blame them a bit for only believing what they actually SEE
us do. Revenge
as the main reason for this invasion? Poppycock!
President George I wasn’t shamed by Saddam.
He shamed Saddam. He was
limited by keeping the promises he made to the Saudis and other Arabs. Just
as stated by the President, the reason for this war was to prevent weapons of
mass destruction (in deployable quantities) from falling into the hands of one
of the most evil dictators on the planet – the same dictator who had made
flat-out invasions of conquest on TWO neighboring countries in 10 years.
This
is the same dictator who had positive weapons development programs prepared
though largely in mothballs. The
pressure came from the imminent breakdown of the sanctions and inspection
process. The sanctions had
already begun to leak like sieves as France, Germany, Russia and others made
some good profits selling arms to Saddam. Saddam’s
steal-the-wealth-and-let-the-children-starve publicity program was working
well and the sanctions wouldn’t have lasted another two years.
Inspections with NO coercive power would have found nothing or been
dropped. The time to stop
Saddam’s weapons development program had to be this year or never.
Saddam knew it just we well as we did. Revenge
for daddy? Percy, please don’t
repeat the childish poppycock of Bush’s enemies. Percy
says: You'll note that they did
not say that about `Nam... I feel our fate is in the hands of the
Dems and Al Queada. If the Dems don't come up with a viable alternative,
and Al Q. gets in another good lick, Dub-yuh has it wired! I'm saddened
that there is not a good debate going on, and I feel we will end up all the
worse for it. Ed
answers: “Our fate is in the
hands of the Dems and Al Queada” you say?
God help us, then. The
filtering process has put a bunch of the dumbest anti-military, anti-war
politicos into the Democratic party already.
The
TOTAL lack of any coherent proposals by the “magnificent nine” (the seven
dwarves and two jokers) has shown that we’d better not put our trust in THE
DEMOCRAT’S hands even (or especially) if things get a LOT worse. I’d rather put our national safety in Al Queda’s hands
than in the hands of any of the seven dwarves (or the two jokers). I
hope you can count on Bush having the next election wired. The economy is well established on the rebound and no
rational person would put our national defense in the hands of Democrats. Actually,
I do wish the Democrats would make a rational debate. Their continually trying to bash Bush, in an irrational
manner, to feather their personal political nests sickens me.
Percy
says: We did not lose in Viet
Nam. If we would have, then Washington DC would have been renamed Ho Chi
Minh City, not Saigon. We lost
the cold war after the Russians did. America is bigger than any defeat a
foreign power (or a bunch of fanatics with plastique and Kalashnikovs) can
render. We only defeat ourselves - sometimes by overreaching! Ed
responds: Western civilization
did lose in Vietnam. We weren’t
defeated by the North Vietnamese, except by their continual pressure till we
cowered and ran. The North
Vietnamese were weak but they didn’t give up.
We were strong but we did give up.
They won, we lost and tens of thousands of South Vietnamese paid with
their lives and freedom. I’m
ashamed. If
we lose in Iraq, then the local nationals in the conflict area will suffer
grievously. Percy
says: Truly, Ed, I respect you.
At least you are willing to look at what is going on geopolitically.
Just do not mistake pressure against your points as hatred, "America must
leave,' or what have you. We both saw the Viet Nam war, which, IMHO,
almost distroyed the country. Ed
responds: Percy, Indeed, I
respect your thoughts as well, even when I disagree with them. I also learn from your thoughts and you sometimes change my
mind when you bring up good points.
Another respondent says:
You want to
know how to do this? Simple. Get a history book. Read
about the denazification of Germany. There were lots of roving bands
of Nazi after the war. But they were suppressed by our level of troop
strength.
This cowboy
fool correctly estimated the troop strength required to TAKE Iraq. He
failed to even consider the troop strength required to KEEP Iraq. Now
we are 250.000 troops short and those that are there want to come home: they
like everyone else was told 'something for nothing' and 'we will be home for
Christmas'. Poppycock. Fixing Iraq will take 10 years of hard
work.
All of this
gibberish about 'weapons of mass destruction', etc. is NOW a smoke screen
for the fact that the cowboy and his rabble failure to plan. Don't
point out the his daddy's 'failures', etc. Don't point out that Sadam
was evil. SADAM IS DEAD. (Or else in hiding low enough that we
can ignore him.)
Ed responds: I do think that Saddam was so evil
and struck such fear into the Iraqi people that he will be a factor until his
dead body is put on display. Some Iraqis will fear his return even
then. Many Iraqis are afraid to join the new government or even speak
out for freedom for fear of Saddam's minions. There's a darn good reason
for this. Read this link: Here's a web link with some good very recent history
and analysis of troop strength and composition. This does support the
troop strength assertion made in the previous response.
|
|
|