It's Not About The Iraqis
 

The Iraqi city of Mosul had been relatively peaceful until recently. Now it is almost as bad as Baghdad with attacks on the US troops. The official word is that Saddam loyalists want it to be unsuccessful. Nothing has been said, at least in the American media, of the fact that our Operation Iron Hammer is destroying homes, groves and people and a retaliation was inevitable.

We continue to escalate fighting and then act shocked at any attacks. It really doesn't take a lot of pencils to connect the dots of cause and effect. We are told the attacks are performed by terrorists. What makes them terrorists is that they oppose us. In any other situation they would be freedom fighters.

Why it comes as a surprise to the administration is puzzling. Before the invasion, political pundits warned this would be the case. Rumsfeld, in just one of many miscalculations of this administration, thought our "shock and awe" bombing would so stupefy the Iraqis that their nationalistic patriotism would be quelled and they wouldn't attempt to oust our invading forces. They thought that seeing your family killed wouldn't strengthen the resolve for revenge and retaliation.

Col. Joe Anderson in Mosul said, "Like I told the soldiers when I pinned the Purple Hearts on them this morning: It's no longer about Iraqis. It's about Americans. It's about our comrades. Nothing will deter us, and nothing will slow us down. And we'll do our job until the day they tell us to go home."

It's no longer about Iraqis? If it's no longer about Iraqis, why are we in Iraq? How is it about Americans when Americans don't belong there? "We'll do our job until the day "they" tell us to go home? Who is the "they" he's referring to? It can't be the Iraqis because they have done everything they can to tell us to go home. If it's the Bush administration, again I have to ask, if it isn't about the Iraqis, why are we in Iraq? It isn't to bring democracy. They very concept of forcing democracy on anyone is un-democratic. It makes as much sense as killing people to give them freedom. But we've already done that, haven't we?

We were "lied" into the war and are being "lied" to in the occupation. The so-called successes can be measured in the death and wounding of our troops. Bush is firm in his resolve. This is another way of saying Bush is stubborn, refuses to admit he made a monumental mistake and will continue to send America's sons and daughters as cannon fodder into an area where they are not wanted, as long as he sits safe and sound and can politicize the situation to his favor. He has tied support to his fiasco to American patriotism and continues to bring up 9-11, even after he has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with that tragedy. He is playing to that group of supporters who see stubbornness as resolve, arrogance as strength and ignorance as determination. To leave now would show Bush as a failure to everyone and give him little chance in a bid for re-election.

If we're not in Iraq because of the Iraqis and we're not bringing democracy what other reasons could we have for being there? There are only two other possibilities. A wartime president is almost impossible to unseat, and oil. Are these good enough reasons to sacrifice US troops? Are either of those a reason for one drop of American blood to be shed? It's easy to be firm in your resolve when you're sending somebody else to back it up.

11-25-03