It's a windy day in DeKalb, Illinois, as it often is this time of year. It's the first anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, and two planned demonstrations are underway: one for peace, and one for supporting the troops. Whatever they're chanting, the wind yanks away; their signs wrap them up like hot dogs. Driving through the middle I am right where I should be, since I am for peace, and I am for supporting the troops. I am for people shouting at the wind. I am against people pissing in it.
It was windy too in Iraq a year ago when 100,000 American men and women left their lives behind, fought their way through sandstorms to deliberately put themselves in harm's way.
A year ago we marveled at satellite phones and their ability to put us in the center of history as it was made. We stared for hours at roaring brown screens as the American moms and dads, sons and daughters pushed toward an unknown welcome in Baghdad.
Back then when AmeriCo CEO Dick Cheney assured us the Iraqi people would give us "open arm welcome," our military was expecting Saddam Hussein to use chemical and biological weapons. We were primed for whatever he could dish out.
First we had to destroy the country, in what was called "softening the target." We had to take out the power grid, the water supply, communications, airports, roads, hospitals, schools, some of which was not intentional, but that's war.
If we had known then what we know now, we probably wouldn't have wrecked Iraq, because there was no military advantage to it, as it turned out. Neither Saddam nor his armies nor his people were prepared for the shock and awe of Shock and Awe. Now somebody has to rebuild the country, at a cost of billions of dollars to you and me. Freedom isn't cheap when Halliburton plans a war.
Looking back through a lens of a year's worth of revelations, how different it all looks now. Nothing happened the way we expected. We found no air resistance; we bombed targets at will. Thousands of Iraqi people died. We don't know how many and we're not going to ask, but so far the minimum is 11,000 and the figure could be closer to 50,000. These are the costs of war to which we are wise to pay no heed, for if we did it would quickly bring any war to an end.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - mike
10,000 civilian casualties to re-elect a corrupt Republican administration. I think that's a fair trade off.
2 - SFC Ski
"10,000 civilian casualties to re-elect a corrupt Republican administration. I think that's a fair trade off."
So what is your take on the 10,000 plus bodies found in the mass graves here in Iraq? How many would have been killed by Saddam's regime within the past year if not for the war? If Saddam wasn't directly killing his people, he was starving them, or otherwise depriving them to build his places and monuments. Any comment to that?
I work in Bahgdad, I talk to Iraqis every day, and while they are not 100 % happy with the situation, they realize something that a lot of people in the US still haven't; things would be far worse if Saddam had not been removed from power. The Iraqis I have spoken with all agree that while the current situation is far from perfect, there is hope for the future, Under Saddam there was no longer any hope.
Destroying the power grid? Well, if you were a Sunni, and in Baath party favor, you were on the grid, and hooked to the sewers, too. If you were a Shia, you would probably find yourself with out poor or no municipal services, and marginalized in economic abilities. If you were picked by the regime's thugs, you could be picked upoff the street, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, disappeared, or executed.
It is really easy for a lot of folks in the US to muster up some righteous indignation over the President's conduct of the war, but I would hope that if they really new what it is like down here, and how it was for the Iraqis under Saddam, they would be just as indignant in wondering why nothing was done sooner.
3 - Jeff
they would be just as indignant in wondering why nothing was done sooner
I agree. And that's the point. Why didn't we go to war in the 80's to save these people? Because of geopolitics and money. If our government fought wars for human rights and democracy then I'd be in the military right now. I agree that this is a great side effect of the war but it's not the reason we went in.
4 - Shark
Nice piece, Fisher.
re. comments 2 -3: ~Indignant?
Last time Rummy was in Baghdad, he was smiling and shaking hands with Saddam. Now we're rebuilding the country and touting the freedom and safety that our invasion brought about. Curiouser and curiouser, Alice.
re: Iraq is better off -
Great! Whooptee fuckin' doo!
So we helped a small, Islamic nation (for the 15 minutes before they go to civil war), took our eye off the terrorist ball, lost ground in Afghanistan, lost 100% of the post-9/11 goodwill of most of the occupants of planet earth, pissed off, humiliated, isolated, reprimanded our allies-- and spent $100 billion (and still counting) of money we don't have thanks to tax cuts for the rich.
What's not to celebrate?
5 - CW Fisher
To SFC Ski, above:
Thank you for your comment. Since you live in Baghdad, you know more about how the Iraqis feel about our presense than I do. Please share more of what you know with us.
Curt
6 - Tom
I find it ironic that many liberals scream bloody murder when some minority in American claims to have not gotten a job or an apartment because of "Racism", and you rush to right an injustice.
When Hussein had rape rooms, and mass graves, you sat by and said nothing.
You equate the liberator of these people as Hitler.
You champion Clinton as a great foriegn policy President who, instead of securing our nation from Islamofascits was golfing and getting oral sex in his office.
You guys make me sick.
7 - Tom
Not You in the specific sense of of the word, but "you" as in all Liberal anti-war protestors.
8 - Hal Pawluk
Funny, I haven't heard a lot from either the right or the left on what's going on in too much of Africa - what's up with that, Tom?
Middle-of-the-roaders would like to know.
9 - Jeff
Tom,
Way to use the term "liberals". Obviously since I didn't want my country to go to war I equate George Bush with Hitler. Obviously I love Saddam. Of course I condone rape and mass murder. Just generalize everyone's motives so you don't actually have to think about our argument.
Shark,
Do you really think things aren't going to be better in Iraq as a result of this. I know the motives were BS. And maybe it'll just be a quasi, U.S. influenced democracy but you can't tell me things won't be ANY better. But I do agree with all those reasons you listed.
10 - Mark Saleski
...generalize everyone's motives so you don't actually have to think about our argument
it's called "HannityLimbaughCoulter poisoning".
11 - CW Fisher
HannityLimbaughCoulter, the cheese, is good on rye.
12 - Jim Carruthers
Tim, it's 'murricans like you who make me sick. Swaggering bullies who have dismantled any international rational means to deal with oppression (see today's NYTimes about the accountant's coup in Cambodia) without any consideration of consequences.
The USA armed and enabled the mujahadeem in Afphanistan who became al-Queda who destroyed the WTC. So why don't you go after the USAians who were the root cause?
Could somebody please explain to me why the US is so obsessed with Iraq? At least so we can point you to where you can get treatment for your obvious mental illness.
13 - CW Fisher
Every time somebody calls me a Clinton lover I picture him looking at me with a cigar.
I'm not gay but the man had good hair.
How come we can't talk about Bush's alcoholism or his various flings, but we're still talking about Clinton's blowjob, especially since he was impeached, punished and is not out of office?
I have nothing against Bill Clinton getting us out of debt and building a surplus. Without that surplus, Bush couldn't have cut taxes the first time.
But I don't obsess about Clinton. He's living in one of those neighborhoods that Tom was talking about. I'd whisper it or spell it but everybody knows anyway who HE chose to live with. We're all better off.
Much better off. Look around you.
14 - Shark
Tom, please to explain how Republicans went from ultra-isolationist anti-'nation building' - to - compassionate protectors of the world's oppressesd? Wha' happened?
And when do we march on North Korea and a half dozen other mass murderer/rapist world leaders?
And will you be joinin' the military to partake in these admirable adventure? Or do you just want others to be cannon fodder for Bush's newfound moral crusades?
PS: I'm not a liberal; I'm a Liberal Reactionary.
15 - Shark
I know you're curious as to a working definition relative to the subject at hand:
Liberal Reactionary - a person who supports the war, but is against the troops.
16 - SFC Ski
Since you asked, the majority of the Iraqis that I have met want us to leave, but only after there is more security and stability in the country. For that matter, most of us soldiers want o go home, but not if it means leaving this job unfinished or seeing the hard work and spilled blood be for nought. A lot of these Iraqis have stepped forward to work with the coalition as part of the Iraqi police and security forces, to risk getting shot by Saddam regime loyalists, criminals, and insurgents in an effort to bring some order to their country do they can feed their families, send theri kids to school and get on with their lives. Who would deny them that? Sure, that was not the topmost goal of this war, to liberate the oppressed, but it is a great by-product.
The civilian Iraqi contractors who work with us also take great risks and have been targeted for merely working as laborers or specialists for us, because doing laundry for the servicemen our base is seen by these holdouts as collaboration. As one Iraqi told me,"With Saddam, no hope; with America, hope" He was a Shia, a man pleased to be able to now earn a living on merit, not ghettoized because of his religion.
Most of us as Americans cammot really appreciate how terrible it was here under the foremr regime, and when they draw comparisons between any US leader or administration as some sort of 1984 overlord, it is so laughable in comaprison with conditions in a place like Iraq under Saddam.
For those who ask why we are going after one particular dictator, and not all of them, I say one at a time, and notice a few of them are starting to reconsider their positions. To say we cannot remove them all, so we should remove none is just a poor excuse to do nothing, and feel good about it. The way I see it.
To say that the US once supported a regime it now has deposed, therefore it is hypocritical, is to say we can never change policy despite the actions of another country. If you will remember, the Mujahideen were fighting the Russians, our enemies during the Cold War. That times have changed doesn't mean the US cannot change the way it deals with former allies now turned hostile.
You know, the term 'cannon fodder' is hardly applicable to today's Soldiers. Do you actually know any? Very few of them are mindless obeying automatons, we know what he mission is, and that it carries risks that may kill us, but we volunteered and accept those risks. This may sound alien to some of you.
Likewise, most of those who lead us know how to utilize their subordinates in a way to reduce casualties, not spend them carelessly.
17 - Jim Carruthers
What I know of the US military is that it essentially is a form of welfare, motivating people to move out of areas of chronic unemployment and offering education and healthcare to third world regions of the USA.
And then sending those people to parts of the world even worse off, so Cletus can proselytize back home for the 'murrican way of life.
18 - mike
If "SFC Ski" is really in Baghdad, then I'm in Bejing.
19 - CW Fisher
NOTICE: If you make a comment on a thread from an article I wrote, please refrain from incendiary rhetoric. Maintain your manners. There are people on the other end and they are not to be disrespected. The soldier who wrote the letter from Baghdad requires honor and respect. How dare anyone insinuate there's anything artificial about this person? He lives with real bullets on the streets in Iraq -- he should dodge your bullets too? No, no, motherfucker, not on this thread you can't.
"Incendiary" means "flammable."
Understood?
20 - David Flanagan
Sure, that was not the topmost goal of this war, to liberate the oppressed, but it is a great by-product.
SFC Ski:
The reason why we asked our military to get rid of Saddam was to protect America; first and foremost. As Dick Cheney has said, Saddam has gone from a palace, to a bunker, to a spider hole, to a prison cell. All that is thanks to you and the rest of our heroes over in Iraq. You and your brothers and sisters in the military are the best of us... The very best of America!
Part of making sure that America remains safe from people like Saddam is to now invest in the rebuilding of Iraq so that the people of that nation can take the reins of government and hopefully establish themselves as a strong and vibrant Democracy. We did this throughout Europe after we defeated Germany, we did this in Japan, and we have directly or indirectly supported the establishment of democracies all over the world.
In Iraq, you and your fellow servicemen and women removed a dictator who hated us and would have eventually found a way to hurt us directly. Through Iraq, dictators in North Korea, Syria, Libya, and elsehwere were served notice that they too could be held accountable for programs designed to kill millions of innocent people.
Libya has already responded to that message by opening its borders to the UN and is now allowing their WMD programs to be dismantled in a way that really shows could have happened in Iraq if Saddam had chosen to be an honest broker rather than a lying scoundrel. In Syria, the unrest has grown in direct proportion with the increasing success of the Iraqi people in establishing their own democracy. The Syrian Kurds are, for the first time, actively protesting, citing the independence granted to Iraqi Kurds in the new interum Constitution that was recently signed in Iraq.
In Iran, a whole generation of younger men and women long for the same types of freedoms that we have here in the US and are watching with intense interest as Iraq moves towards democracy. Though the hardliners still control the government, the winds of change are beginning to blow there too as the populace grows increasingly tired of being forced to exist with 10th century conditions here in the 21st century.
Ultimately, though, what I see, as I alway have, is our servicemen and women actively going above and beyond what is expected of them. The members of our armed forces are not just Ambassadors for our way of live, they also, in a way, are evangelists; but not in a religous sense. Instead, you are evangelists for democracy and freedom. You and your fellow servicemen and women LIVE your freedom, and express your freedom in the way you carry out your duties and in the way you go above and beyond and support the people you have liberated out of love and compassion.
Really, there is just no way that any of us can ever thank those of you in the military enough. Though, we need to try our best.
Unfortunately, hatred for one man, George Bush, has caused some liberals to turn their rabid hatred towards the military as well. For those who do, perhaps we ought to let them move to Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran, where they can be truly happy and content.
I will personally pay for their airfare. If I get enough who want to move, then I'll start a special fund.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
21 - JR
Unfortunately, hatred for one man, George Bush, has caused some liberals to turn their rabid hatred towards the military as well.
Name one.
22 - Mark Saleski
For those who do, perhaps we ought to let them move to Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran, where they can be truly happy and content.
HannityLimbaughCoulter poisoning.
so sorry pal, but this america, love-it-or-leave-it is lame.
since when do you get to decide 'correct' views on things?
scary.
23 - David Flanagan
Mark:
I'm not telling you the correct view, I'm telling you that the men and women who serve us and who put their lives on the line for us do not deserve the blind hatred that you so liberally (no pun intended) pour out for President Bush. Leave them out of this fight, they are the good guys.
As for naming one person, I'll name two: Jim Carruthers and Mike Larkin.
Oh yeah, and most likely most of your fellow posters on the Democratic Underground.
David
24 - Mark Saleski
i pour NO blind hatred out for president bush.
for of all, put your condescention back on the shelf. the word 'blind' assumes that my opinions are uninformed. they are not.
i do not hate the president, it's the policies i don't like.
25 - JR
David Flanagan: I'm not telling you the correct view, I'm telling you that the men and women who serve us and who put their lives on the line for us do not deserve the blind hatred that you so liberally (no pun intended) pour out for President Bush. Leave them out of this fight, they are the good guys.
But YOU seem to be the one dragging them into this. Now, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Jim Carruthers or Mike Larkin saying they hate the troops. I just see your statement and I start thinking that you're trying to equate criticism of what George Bush has done with the troops with criticism of the troops themselves.
It seems like you're trying to use our troops as human shields to protect George Bush from criticism.