Scattersez:
THE IRAQI WAR –
OR WHY IT WEAKENS THE WAR ON TERROR
(BRINGING OUT THE GARBAGE)
You know I actually went into a blogger’s block writing this, partly because I was saying to myself; “What! you’ll be actually admitting to the enemy over a vulnerable forum like joeuser.com that your country made a mistake . You’d be just providing him ammunition Wouldn’t that be unpatriotic? Why don’t you just blog about something else less controversial? ,etc” Well it wasn’t entirely blogger’s block. I was in the middle of the blog,when I was gently reminded to put out the garbage. Before doing so, another interruption came in the form of needing to use the computer urgently and that it won’t take very long ,Please? I left with a printed copy of my unfinished blog in hand to study it and came back from doing my chores without it. For awhile my dilemma was either to sit it out until PC user no.2 would relinquish the desk to me or go out with a flashlight and search the garbage bin. Never mind what I chose to do. I just want you folks to know I washed my hands clean before completing this blog.
Now, where was I? Oh, yes. Listen, one would probably be more unpatriotic if there were glaring mistakes in foreign policy that led your country to the wrong war, and you just sat there silently and gritted your teeth as body bags of young US soldiers kept piling their way back home. But why tell us now that it’s a wrong war? Weren’t you there alongside everyone else rooting that the US forces would finish the enemy off? Isn’t this just a case of nerves, wanting out when the going gets rough?
Okay, listen closely. Unlike Afghanistan at the time of September 11 whose Taliban leaders housed the source of our troubles, Terrorist No 1 himself, Osama Bin Laden, Iraq only had this S.O.B. dictator Saddam as a bystander. Sure, everybody agrees he was an evil despot, and deserved to be kicked out, but given time, the Iraqis would’ve done that themselves, with help or no help from us. I think ,by now , with the 9/11 Commission Report officially out, everyone’s convinced that the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda are, at best, weak.
For one thing, there were two types of Muslims in Iraq : the Sunni minority and the Shiite majority. Of the two, the Shiite faction hews closer to Islamic Fundamentalism, the ideological base of the Al Qaeda Terrorists. Saddam was a Sunni and as Iraq’s dictator, he made life miserable for the Shiites. In fact, when preparations for the US invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam was underway, CNN showed interviews with Iraqi Shiite clerics who were overjoyed that this was taking place. The US was actually fulfilling their lifelong mission – getting rid of Saddam, whom the US helped install , in the first place.
If we were to review the beginnings of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Modern Age, one would most certainly focus on Iran, the first Islamic State. The Iran hostage crisis gave us the first preview of the enemy’s face. For the period after that, Iraq’s Saddam, despite his blatant conduct against human rights, was useful to the US, as a buffer to the newly transformed Islamic State. This can be seen in the hesitation the incumbent’s father had in ordering the Desert Storm forces to complete the repulsion of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait with the overthrow of Saddam then, even if this was militarily already within reach.
Apparently, the current Intelligence view after 9/11 placed Saddam as more of a risk than an ally, leading to the current war. Why this view should change when the basic nature of the main contenders in Iraq did not exposes the pressure of other political factors influencing decision for war.
Just what were these political factors? Well, we just had 9/11 then and the people were crying out for justice. (The hawks were, of course, crying out for blood). Afghanistan went down easy since the Taliban with their rigid mores , were more estranged from the Afghans, unlike Saddam where most of the Sunnis actually liked him. If we were to accept the premise in Michael Moore’s film, as to the incumbent’s Saudi Arabian connection, then that would be a $valuable$ factor as well in deciding to target another Arab country other than Saudi Arabia.(not that S.Arabia should necessarily be targetted), but the deciding factor in targeting Iraq was not the correctness ( is that the right word?) or even the righteousness of the course. The deciding factor was Iraq’s vulnerability .With Saddam’s forces decimated after his Kuwait invasion and repulsion, he was a sure loser. Hawks are, after all, bullies. They go after the small guys where victory is certain. And with people crying for blood , the leader is pressed to show results.
The last political reason is just as plausible. The incumbent has identified in his axis–of- evil speech, Iran as a target. It could’ve played out this way: “ I don’t have proof yet, but my gutfeel is that all this terror is starting with your Islamic State. So invasion of your neighbor ,Iraq, is our way of warning you to be careful. We’ll change Saddam and transform Iraq into our Arabian version of Israel. “
There is, however, something basically faulty with this concept. It treats the War on Terror as a conventional War, where borders are fixed and defined and where the number of contending forces are known if not estimated. When we utilize concepts for conventional warfare and apply them to urban guerilla warfare of which the Al Qaeda makes use of., policies that emanate out of this concept would fall flat on its face. (Watch for my next blog on urban guerilla warfare)
For a time, the popularized argument for the man-on-the-street for the Iraqi War has been “See, our Leader has been so wise that he brought the War out to them in Iraq, so that we’d be safer here(US).” Nothing could be so misleading. We aren’t safer because of the Iraqi War. We are actually here in the US continent , more in danger., because of it.
Why? Look closely. The Shiites who have long been preparing for Saddam’s overthrow to take over, have been easily swayed to the Islamic Fundamentalists ‘ side with the situation of an American invasion and occupancy of Iraq. The Sunnis who sympathized with fellow Sunni Saddam have decided to join forces as “jihadists”. The leading Shiite cleric Sistani who formed part of the new Iraqi government has opted out and gone to the U.K. for “medical” reasons. That means he can’t be held accountable for controlling the majority Shiite faction.
As per Internet accounts directly from US combatants,(we don't have any reason to doubt them) the Iraqi combatants they face are not launching sporadic adlib attacks, but are capable of sustained fighting and even afford to dress up for the attack (The frontline soldiers in Najaf call them Men in Black). We have actually opened UNNECESSARILY a new front in this War on Terror where the Terrrorists train more adherents, some of whom, by hook or by crook, will find their way on US soil.
I’m not trying to scare you , man. But what happened is so serious that you can’t keep the lid on it anymore. So what the hell if a sitting Commander-in-Chief made a mistake ? I mean everybody knows it by now! I mean people make mistakes. The important thing is to correct the mistake now. Or a lot of angry voting Americans will make that correction in November.
And so, folks, that’s how this quagmire happened and.. Excuseme..
What? What do you mean walk out the dog ? Now ? Jeez...
Ok,folks, spread the word while I walk out the dog.
