When it was time to revolt against the British, the Continental Congress chose George Washington to lead the fight. A large part of that decision was based on trust. They knew the man and trusted him to not only lead the armies, but to stick to the plan if he was successful. As to say, that he’d voluntarily hand over power to the Congress once the war was over. On December 23rd, 1783 he did just that, and became the first military general in the history of mankind to do so after overthrowing a government. A painting of this moment remains above the fireplace in the old senate chamber. The question I have is will our government mirror this enormous portion of our own history in Iraq? Will we at one point hand it back over and have the courage to walk away?
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. This is a fact that everyone will have to become comfortable with as the war continues. It’s assumed in right-wing circles that we will have permanent military bases within Iraq, and that we’re deserving of them for what we’ve sacrificed. The problem with this idea though is the belief that the United States in some way owns a piece of that country or has earned the right to stay. If this sense of entitlement were not a part of the rationale, then they’d agree that any decision on permanent US military bases would have to be made by the Iraqis themselves. Otherwise, the country would not really belong to the Iraqis at all.
Say the British insisted on and ended up having their own military bases on US soil following the revolution. What would it look like? The people would have naturally doubted the truth behind who was really in control. This is the problem we now face in Iraq, as our sincerity is the main concern of the Iraqi people. When they look around a year from now and still see US soldiers with rifles, will they perceive us as liberators or occupiers? It’s the answer to this question that matters most. If the majority of Iraqis perceive our presence as occupiers, the insurgency equals revolution in the minds of the people. The intent of our soldiers no longer translates correctly, and their good deeds are perceived as something different. Intent no longer matters.
If we’re not there, then who are the insurgents killing and why? The Iraqi who joins the insurgency because of our presence will not make sense of killing their neighbor once we’re gone. The people who are killing indiscriminately will quickly lose their allure and admiration within the country when their purpose is not to get us out. They will be perceived as criminals by the large majority of Iraqis rather than the issue being muddled, as it is every day we remain. A political justification for an Iraqi to become a suicide bomber can be religious insanity or it can be the occupation. I suspect a mixture of both in a lot of cases. Remove the motivation of revolting against the occupiers, and what’s left becomes as transparently insane to the Iraqi people as it already is to the American public.
Right now there are too many reasons for people to join the insurgency. You have pilgrims leaving their own homeland for the supposed ‘privilege’ of killing a lot of innocent people in Iraq. Who are they there to kill? What are they fighting for? Are they sacrificing their lives for the right of their people to live in anarchy? Our leaders insist that the insurgents are fighting against democracy, but what actually convinces us of this? Is the rationale that because our soldiers live in a democracy, an attack against that soldier is automatically an attack on their form of government? If so, then is it the freedom of Americans they’re defending or democracy itself? What does the flag sewn on the sleeve of a soldier’s uniform make the enemy think, ‘American’ or ‘democracy’?
The protestors in Iraq have nothing about democracy in their slogans. The phrases they use are, ‘No, no to the occupiers’ and ‘No America! No Saddam! Yes to Islam’. I don’t think the people care whether America is democratic, communist or a monarchy. It matters to us what form of government we live under, but to these people we’re just Americans. We’re in their country and they want us to leave. It’s not because of democracy or anything else other than the fact that we’re foreigners with weapons roaming their streets. These protesters aren’t out there with rifles or rioting, but simply enjoying their newfound freedom and speaking their mind. When they do, the message I get is they want us out, not that they hate democracy, infidels or non-believers.
When the words associated with this war come from religious leaders it’s naturally about Islam, Christianity and Judaism. When the words come from political leaders, it’s naturally about democracy and dictatorships. When the words come from the Iraqis themselves, it’s just as naturally about occupation. The political and religious leaders aim to skew the meaning behind the words of the Iraqis, and in terms of our understanding of the war here in America, they’re doing a great job of it. What needs to happen now though is for each of us to put ourselves in the shoes of an Iraqi. Imagine for a moment a foreign military vehicle rolling down your street and consider whether you’d bother to note the religion and system of government of the occupants. If they were of the same religion and idea of government, would you suddenly feel all right about it?
The war planners seemed to underestimate the patriotism of the Iraqi people. Can you imagine what the US would be like if some country tried to occupy it. The Iraqi population seems better armed than the US population(probably should have secured those explosives) whick makes occupation very difficult. I wonder as a practicle matter if any country can forcibly occupy another country. If the numbers are correct about 20,000 insurgents are wreaking havoc on a much larger force.
US soldgers are at a huge disadvantage because they are wearing uniforms, so they really stand out, while the insurgents look like everyone else, if they don’t want us there we will not be able to stay there.
Remember, the insurgents are also foreigners mixed with a few of the old Saddam regime. We are getting cover from the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government and are there now at their request. As for handing over power, the Iraqis already have it, they have held elections and a new government has been formed by the will of the people. We’ll stay as little or as long as they want.
The country would probably descend into chaos if we left, but it seems to be heading that direction anyway, and dragging the prestige of the US with it. For an insurgency to be successfull they must have a fair amount of support from the population, for whatever reason Iraqi citizens are not turning these people in. If it really is just a few forighners and a couple of people who want Saddam back, creating this much chaos, then it proves how difficult it is to pacify a country.
At this point I don’t know what the solution to this situation is and I don’t think anyone else does either
But keep in mind Right that Iraq is a democracy now. Their leaders are a representation of the voting population. Just as polls sway policy here, they soon must as well over there. The things I’ve read about the protests and public opinion now as compared with 12 months ago is not good. As the days go by, more Iraqis voice the opinion that they want us out of their country.
We cannot honestly claim to have concrete knowledge of what the insurgency is comprised of exactally. And we’re getting to the point now where generalizations coming from our leaders do not sound right. The manner in which they describe the war to us now is entirely political. How can Amnesty International be a reputable organization to Rumsfeld one year, and then on the scrap heap just the other day? This organization has been around for a long time, and they’ll be around long after Bush is enjoying his golden years. Are they to have me think that the reports they provide are all lies?
And the insurgency…if public opinion is swaying towards the people demanding we leave, then there’s no way anyone could honestly assume that non-Sunni Iraqis are staying out of the fight. This may have been true six months after we invaded, but it is foolish to assume that what was true two years ago is still true today. Look at our own revolution against the British. Those soldiers made 6 dollars a month, and Washington was able to retain enough of them with a speech to win the war. We cannot underestimate the passion that lies within a man who is fighting against a perceived oppressor within their homeland.
As the months go by we have to reassess what is happening over there. The mantra from a year ago is no longer relevant. If the casualty rate has gone up with less attacks, it means the enemy is growing more proficient at what they’re trying to do. Bush categorizes all this as acts of desperation on their part, as he did when the violence picked up last year. I cannot trust that assessment any longer. The facts don’t match up.
If it turns out that our very presence there is the cause of free Iraqis joining the fight against us, we have to show the wisdom and honesty that Washington showed by truly handing over control. At some point we have to allow this child of ours to go off on it’s own and find it’s way. The next four months of statistics and polling data will give us a good indication of whether it’s getting better or worse, and I’m afraid that 2005 has turned against us in Iraq. Will there be a civil war? We had one of our own. We’re still here.
From my prior articles I think I’ve made it clear that I’m writing all of this from the perspective of a former soldier and someone who wants to win the war. The troops come first for me, and everything else second. If the fight cannot be won, we owe it to the Iraqi people and our soldiers to be honest about it and preserve as much life as we possibly can.
I believe that what I’ve written in the past month are some good indications of what we have to do based on what we are provided in terms of information. Pulling out is not a guaranteed loss for Iraq. I honestly think that without us there, the insurgency will have to convince these people that representative government is the evil. An occupying force is as bonafide a motivation as the enemy could have. Once we’re gone, it’s just murder for the sake of murder. Millions of people over there are not without the morality it takes to demand better from themselves.
Every society that is run by a non corrupt representative government checks itself in this way. When you see the society of Saudi Arabia, it’s clear that a brutal dictatorship or monarchy will run it’s country into the ground. A democracy in Iraq…we have to trust the system and allow it to work on it’s own. It’s a good idea, our form of government. It’s the most sane and enlightened thing man has been able to accomplish in ten centuries. We have to trust in that more than we do our bullets.
The bullets are no longer weapons. It’s not about bullets anymore. It’s about doing what we said we were going to do, and that’s liberate these people. They are not liberated if an unwanted guest wearing fatigues refuses to leave.
That is a good point, without a common enemy the insurgency might run out of fuel. Even if the situation descends into a sectarian civil war at least they will not have the US adding fuel to fire.
One thing people forget about Iraq is that at one time it was one of the more devoloped countries in that area, before the first gulf war, at least they are somewhat secular, so maybe they would have a chance if we stop meddling. The fact that Chalabi keeps coming back like a bad case of herpes shows that the US is not making things better right now, Regarding Chalabi Bush really should ask his Doctor if Valtrex is right for him.
You’re right about Chalabi. I honestly believe that any leader supported or proped up by our government will not last once we leave. Every person we support immediately is considered untrustworthy. The reason for this? We are becoming untrustworthy in the eyes of a growing number of Iraqis.
Why are they still here? Did they come to liberate us or to steal from us? We have to put ourselves in their shoes and think about it for a while. If we’re gone, what’s the excuse to kill your own people? The terrorists can’t find immediate work so easily in Israel or Palastine – the spot is Iraq, but once we’re gone, the Iraqis won’t want that element around anymore.
I was on the fence on this for over 10 months now, but the data (I’m big on statistics when it comes to policy) is starting to demonstrate that our very existence there is becoming a larger problem by the day. We can’t say we’re helping people out if they’re shouting louder and louder for us to leave.
(I’m big on statistics when it comes to policy)
Wasn’t there a famous quote by a famous person about statistics?
DI: (I’m big on statistics when it comes to policy)
RT: Wasn’t there a famous quote by a famous person about statistics?
Enlighten me – I can’t think of it. I should have said ‘domestic policy’…although, in the financial services world, statistics are also important. In the entertainment world, it turns gold into feces.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” — Mark Twain