Iraq - Take 3

By now, you either agree that we entered Iraq for the right reasons, or you don’t. I think you probably know my feelings by now. However, regardless of whether we agree that we entered Iraq for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, I think we might all be able to agree that American soldiers are currently in Iraq, risking their lives on a daily basis. So what exactly is the situation in Iraq? And how did it come to it’s current situation?

First off, I believe (and I think even my detractors will agree with me), that the current administration had no real plan on what to do in Iraq once we deposed Saddam. I think they underestimated significantly the different factions, the lack of Iraqi leaders who had the requisite qualifications to lead a country into democracy, and the trust of the different factions to be able to unite Iraqis into a common country. The current administration estimated that it would take about ten years, and as we near the halfway point of that estimate, I will not hazard a guess as to how accurate that figure will end up being.

There have been abuses in Iraq, and I believe the military has dealt with those people perverse enough to take advantage of the power given them, and I also realize that a handful of wrong-doers does not represent the bulk of our forces stationed there. The same as those four soldiers found looting in Greensburg do not represent the thousands of others stationed at Fort Riley.

I believe that our Commander in Chief (CinC) President George W. Bush has made many mistakes in Iraq. Even though the fighting of a war should never be a political endeavor (though war is simply another tool of diplomacy), as we learned so well in Vietnam, our CinC, to show America’s compassion, decided to have our army fulfill the role of policemen and engineers, not the professional soldiers they are.

It is only recently, with the change in the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that came with the troop surge, that our soldiers are able to do what they know best. That is the destruction of the enemy. Their hands are now untied, and they now do not have to spin their wheels repeating the same “suppression” of different zones, week after week after week.

Those who oppose the war are correct in saying that we have fought the war ignorantly. But this could also be said of almost every war in American history. I will dispute the statements of the anti-war element that state that Iraq is currently mired in a civil war.

A civil war is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as: “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”.

Unfortunately, when the people who committing the atrocities are actually members of a recognized global terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and foreigners from Iran/Syria, this becomes an insurgency, not a civil war. Do we call Lebanon a country in “civil war”? Did we say Israel was in a “civil war” when it was under attack by Hamas?

There are three major sects in Iraq, yet they are all united (somewhat) in the government. Has there been a call to arms by one of them to secede? Did I miss something?

Anyways, if you want to call it a civil war, it is your right to be wrong.

However, I digress.

President Bush, in undertaking this invasion, has made many mistakes, and has attempted to handle it as a purely political undertaking. This is the same mistake that led to our defeat in Vietnam. I am optimistic regarding the success of the troop surge, and so far, it has met my expectations. Will it be enough?

Guess we’ll talk about that in Iraq – Take 4.