U.S. “Occupation” of Iraq
I don’t normally read the Contra-Costa Times, but this weekend I happened to pick one up. It featured an article by Robert Conger titled “U.S. must end occupaton to truly free Iraq,” which appears to be nothing more than a poorly thought out argument agains our forces. The article starts off discussing the shortcomings of military investigations, particularly in regards to the “apparent massacre in Haditha.”
Just as investigations carried out by police on their own have ensured the continuing travesty of police brutality, the “investigation” of military excesses, being carried out only by the military itself, has ensured the continuing travesty of American military atrocities
Herein lies the truth about how many feel about our military. Despite the fact that “over 99.9%+ of our folks have acted by the rules,” they are still portrayed as murderers. This will be a theme the author does not give up on.
The military and the administration freely use the termos “terrorists” and “insurgents” to apply to anyone in Iraq who resists the American occupation.
By the way, I support an American “occupation” of Darfur, which, I presume by his statements, Mr. Conger does not.
If America were invaded and occupied by foreign troops, I doubt very much that any American would regard any act of resistance as an act of “terrorism,” and those who resisted would not be dismissed as “insurgents” or “anti-american.” We regard such persons patriots.
Aside from his support for the insurgency (but don’t question his patriotism), the author is also being horribly misleading. If America were occupied, I would still consider an American who stuffs a backpack full of explosives, nails, and ball bearings, then detonates it in the middle of a crowded shopping mall a “terrorist.” I would also consider an American group who kidnapped and murdered 50 American children a group of “terrorists,” though Conger would call them “patriots.”
We need to assist Iraq to regain stability, if possible. But this continual assault on Iraqis themselves is not the way to do it. We must withdraw from Iraq and invite international forces to come into Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations, forces that the Iraqi populace would find acceptable.
The author extends the unconfirmed actions of .018% of our military to the rest of our brave men and women. Most of our soldiers are there building bridges and schools, providing security, and doing a wonderful job to help Iraq build a democracy. These are laudable goals, which I support, but Conger does not. But don’t you dare question his patriotism.
Furthermore, is Mr. Conger serious about the United Nations? Whose “acceptable” forces continually rape women, trade aid supplies for sex with underage girls, and helped to enrich Saddam Hussein to the detriment of the Iraqi people? This absurd proposal seems to fit into the rest of his analysis.
Opposing a war on reasonable grounds is acceptable. Dissent is patriotic. But this type of slander, to accuse the vast majority of our military of being brutal murderes, while simultaneously supporting those who seek to kill them and Iraqi civilians is neither; it is disgusting, unpatriotic, and dishonest. God bless our troops.
Cross-posted at The Gentle Cricket
June 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Furthermore, is Mr. Conger serious about the United Nations? Whose “acceptable†forces continually rape women, trade aid supplies for sex with underage girls,
I think you will find it is the minority of soldiers with the UN as well.
But good post I agree with the rest
June 13th, 2006 at 12:20 am
So our airstrikes that killed thousands of Iraqi civilians during our invasion of Baghdad doesn’t make us terrorists? I guess so long as we didn’t directly target them, despite knowing that many civilians were likely going to die, it’s ok? So having a couple thousand Iraqi civilians (women, children, and yes even men) die is ok, but killing 50 kids is terrorism. I just find it interesting that the word terrorist has such pejorative connotations. I tend to judge things by intent and outcome. A so-called “terrorist” decides he wants to pay back U.S. forces for bombing his home accident and killing his family, but he knows it’s suicide to just attack them head-on. So he decides to build an IED and uses it to kill a couple Iraqi translators because he seems them as sympathizers. Congratulations, he is now officially a “terrorist” for having slain civilians to make a political statement. On the other hand, U.S. leaders decide it would be wise to attack Iraq, knowing that in such a war, at least hundreds of Iraqi civilians will be killed, not to mention thousands of Iraqi troops (I know, they’re soldiers, but damn they’re still people, right? Do they deserve to live any less than civilians? Just like our soldiers. An American soldier shouldn’t be treated like his life isn’t as important just b/c he signed on for a dangerous job). So what is a terrorist then? I would argue that the distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter or soldier is mere semantics and point of view.