"Iraq was a just war"

Excerpt from "Iraq the Model," a blog I have followed since 2004 and written by Iraqi, Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi:

People of my generation who were born in democracies may take the freedom they enjoy for granted. This is certainly not the case for me or my people. I was born a decade after the murderous Ba'ath Party grabbed power in Baghdad in the sinister coup of July 1968. To us, the war brought an end to that 35-year-long nightmare and the beginning of an era of freedom, thanks to our friends in the coalition.

For me and many Iraqis, it was certainly worth it. Life is better today than it was before 2003. That is even though we were on the receiving end of this war in all its phases, from initial invasion through the bloody sectarian violence and terror that paralysed the country for years. Despite the high price in blood, today is brighter than yesterday. Above all, we have hope - something we did not have under Saddam's dictatorship - that tomorrow will be even brighter.

Thanks to our troops, the commitment of the coalition, and the endurance of the Iraqis for their continued efforts.

Iraq War Movies

I recently watched to movies about the current Iraq war. In the Valley of Elah is a drama/mystery that drives home how "messed up" and "crazy" the Iraq war is. It implies that American soldiers are dealing with fear, pressure and chaos so profound that it leaves them returning home desensitized and amoral. The movie is interesting and well made.

However it leaves me asking, are our soldiers really desensitized and amoral? If so, then is this war so different from wars of the past? Are these soldiers so different? I want to say our military has a history or training people to be upstanding citizens and promoting such a culture. There is such thing as PTSD but this movie is showing something else: normal young men now left emotionally and mentally destabilized. Tommy Lee Jones portrays a retired army military police sergeant who maintains his fortitude, discipline and mental sharpness. Why then are the present day soldiers portrayed so different from Jones? The movie does not give an answer.

The other movies, Full Battle Rattle, is the documentary displaying the U.S. Army's simulation of an Iraq town in the Mojave desert as part of the Army's training before soldiers go to the actual war. The town and military outpost are made up of Iraqi refugees, dummies and military personel. I am thankful for the refugees volunteers. The movie is fascinating and honest and I will have to see the first half of the movie before I make additional comments. I would recommend it.

Watched the documentary Iraq for Sale. The approach has politically left leanings though any political bias does not mar the critical information presented.

The film targets private contractors funded by our tax money in a manner of war profiteering that is destroying "the war effort" in Iraq. Haliburton, KBR, Titan, Caci, Blackwater are the guilty parties served contracts without any competitive bidding and allowed unregulated spending and waste. These companies are pepper with ex-high ranking military and governmental types with tentacles apparently penetrating deeply into the federal government.

It portrays an infrastructure set up for American troop support that is essentially crap, has endangered all involved, and is leading to countless, unnecessary deaths. If this is the infrastructure for our troops, what of the infrastructure of the rebuilding effort? I believe it is one reason why the war is going on "for so long."

Private and civilian forces involved in security and interrogation operate apart from the U.S. military's chain of command and oversight, but are in positions to direct soldiers and blur service and profit.

An example of endangerment is Titan provides the bulk of linguists as interpreters for the military. However there is absolutely no grounds to trust the interpreters as these linguists are neither testing nor certified; there is no guarantee they know Farsi or if they are accurately translating versus just saying their opinion.

I do recommend watching it just to be in the know of what has happened and ensure it does not happen again. We need to have better oversight of private contractors, their selection and spending, and perhaps staffing, training and decisions. The last three may not be feasible as that would essentially take on the role of contractors. One unpopular but practical alternative is reinstate the draft, eliminate contracting and place everything under the jurisdiction of the military.

I listened to This American Life episode "By Proxy." Act II focuses on a former Iraqi translator for the American army. The Iraqi translators need our support because they work under such suspicion by their fellow Iraqi's. I don't know how else to support them except in prayer; because any visible assistance from the Americans just makes them and those around them a target. Over 250 interpreters have been killed. Many Iraqi imams are calling people to kill translators. Even speaking an English word is grounds enough for murder. This particular translator said he does not regret working for the Americans, because Americans are there to show a better way than under Saddam–specifically citing how they treat prisoners with respect and how they deal with crowds without the use of force.

It seems as though everyone now presses for pullout of Iraq. Democrats & Republicans who initially pushed for war were not eager to go to war in Iraq then–we already were managing war in Afghanistan–but the majority still voted "yeah." Let's not obscure the fact that both the American & British governments had faulty intelligence, intelligence showing that Iraq was developing WMD's against the UN Security Council recommendations. It was only post hoc that no WMD's were found (though the facilities for developing WMD's were in place); and that the intelligence information was in error. Yet so many are ready to call foul or betrayal with our hindsight. So can we call it a mistake? That's hard to answer or perhaps I'm unwilling to because a preemptive attack by the U.S. is unprecedented.

NPR was in Bagdad before the U.S. announced it's declaration of war. They interviews the people and the response was surprising, "Saddam has thrown down the gauntlet. The U.S. must and will respond. It is inevitable."

What wasn't planned for was the resistance to restructuring, stability, and unity. If there was stability there wouldn't be such an outcry around the world. What effected unity and stability before war? Fear of the Bathist government. In part America saw it's work as liberation. And it was. The tyranny was real and cruel. Even retired military types, photojournalists and eyewitnesses say that the Iraqis suffered brutally under Saddam Hussein and welcomed the overthrow...but not the following instability...no one wanted that.

What can fill the void left by the departure of tyranny? Something an entire nation can hope for and rally behind. That is why there is such an emphasis on creating a viable democracy in the Middle East, but can the Iraqis grasp that? I don't know. There is a war of ideals. We cannot desert them and leave them to self destruct or be overtaken by a new hostile regime.

Sometimes it seems hopeless. I guess that's why people are calling for pull out, they doubt the cost will pay off.

By radio I listened to the discourse between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Secretary Condoleezza Rice and honestly Boxer was hostile, attacking, and unhelpful towards addressing the Iraq war.

In reference to the plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Boxer jabbed,

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Rice responded,

"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom ..."

Cutting Rice off Boxer said,

"Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

So politically motivated and lacking in professionalism or respect.

Later Boxer defended herself for "speaking truth to power" and trying "to draw us together, and not apart." It was anything but drawing together. Boxer's purpose was to provoke.

And Condi later said, "I thought it was okay to be single. I thought it was okay to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn't have children."

Come on Boxer, is the 1st 100 hrs of Democrats in Congressional power so precious as to foment bad blood? Don't make everyone's job harder.