Andrew Sullivan has a very interesting letter from from a GI in Iraq that gives the story the press won’t about how things are really going in Iraq. Things in Iraq aren’t going well, but they’re not going badly either. The process of rebuilding Germany took almost a decade, and the months after the war had thousands of people dying of starvation and disease. By comparison the Iraqis are seeing essential services restored, are seeing goods in the stores and drugs in hospitals (thanks to American pharmaceutical companies, by the way), and are generally happy that the Americans are here.
The reason why these stories aren’t making the news is because a hospital that’s rebuild doesn’t sell newspapers or get big ratings. Showing GIs teaching Iraqi kids to play baseball doesn’t have the edge of showing Iraqis protesting US soldiers. Those sort of things just aren’t sexy enough for the news these days.
That does not mean they’re not happening, however. As the situation stabilizes the attacks on our soldiers will taper down – mainly because we’re taking out more militants, and also because Iraqis are starting to take the reigns of their own country more and more as time passes. As Saddam’s sons are now dead, and Saddam himself is soon to follow, the die-hard loyalists to the old regime will soon find themselves fighting for nothing.
The radical Islamists who have invaded Iraq are likewise fighting a losing battle. The people of Iraq are not about to replace one authoritarian government for another. They see what America is offering in terms of material wealth, freedom of choice, and liberty, and it doesn’t take much convincing that such a lifestyle has much more to offer than an Islamic theocracy where women are oppressed and things like music, dancing, and art are banned. There are a few who want an Islamic state, but they’re not the majority, and they don’t have the kind of popular support needed to ever enact such a plan.
The US needs to act with patience. Our soldiers need to be protected, yes, but cutting and running on Iraq would be the worst thing that could be done. When we entered this war our goal was to leave Iraq better than we found it, and we’re not going to shirk that responsibility and leave 20+ million in the lurch because of a handful of suicidal fanatics. Rather, we’re in Iraq until the job is done. Once it is done, Iraq will stand or fall on its own and with its own leadership. However, the real story of Iraq is one of the determination to rebuild in spite of the obstacles. If we leave now, each of those American casualties will have been entirely in vain. They deserve better, and so do the Iraqi people.
The U.S. is acting with “patients”. We’re making patients out of more able-bodied young American males with each day.
I agree it’s too late to skip out of Iraq now after leaving them “liberated” and starving. The foolish part was making their problems ours to begin with, but now that we’ve done just that, we at least need to muster enough integrity to follow through with actually improving things for them. Of course, when the bar on success is lowered to the level you appear to be content with (if one GI writes a letter home giving the new Iraq a thumbs-up, things MUST be going smoothly), then we’re setting ourselves up for accepting a new Iraq that’s not much better than the old.
Expecting the media to focus on rebuilding Iraqi hospitals when American soldiers are being attacked and killed every day is not gonna work. Whatever achievements currently taking place in Iraq are clearly outweighed by the negative, both in terms of human toll and the toll on America’s financial solvency. American successes will have to become alot more significant than refilling hospitals with imports from American pharmaceutical companies with dollar signs in their eyes if you’re gonna get your wish that the media will ignore the deaths of scores of soldiers each week to make the Bush administration look good.
"…then we’re setting ourselves up for accepting a new Iraq that’s not much better than the old."
Except for that little part about not having the bootheel of Ba’athist oppressors at their necks.
The foolish part was making their problems ours to begin with
Wow! A cold hearted liberal! 😛
Of course, when the bar on success is lowered to the level you appear to be content with (if one GI writes a letter home giving the new Iraq a thumbs-up, things MUST be going smoothly)
Right. The real measurement of success is a few dozen ex baathists demonstrating in the streets. That means that all Iraqis want us out. Another good indicator of our success is an article from one of those media outlets who lied all through the war (ie, BBC, Guardian, etc). Right, Mark?
Expecting the media to focus on rebuilding Iraqi hospitals when American soldiers are being attacked and killed every day is not gonna work.
To put things into perspective: more americans die daily in NYC then in Iraq.
This is the second time today I’ve heard conservatives putting American soldier deaths in Iraq “in perspective”. The first guy told me that 300-some people die every day in car accidents, which in turn justifies a mere two or three violent deaths per day in “post-liberation” Iraq. Somehow, I don’t believe too many Americans whose sons have died (and will continue to die) in Iraq will feel much satisfaction in the fact that other people’s sons are also dying in accidents or acts of violence here at home.
This is a classic apples-and-oranges premise, attempting to justify a foolhardy “pre-emptive” military strike that’s unnecessarily putting our sons and daughters into bodybags because “life doesn’t last forever.” The same argument could be used to justify spraying illegal pesticides, police brutality, or one of any number of police state acts of government since, after all, “more people die in plane crashes than do when toxic waste is dumped into mountain streams.”
Jay, the Iraqis have the Ba’athists pressing their bootheels on their freedoms, Americans have the Baptists suppressing ours. Maybe America and Iraq have more in common than we thought. 🙂
Yes, because Baptists regular come into people’s homes and shoot them in the middle of the night.
That comparison is not only sick, but it is morally reprehensible.
It was a joke, dude. Can’t you pull that stick out of your ass for even a second? It’s amazing how a guy can call my joke “sick and morally responsible” one second and then proceed to compare Jacques Chirac to Saddam Hussein only a few minutes later.
This is a classic apples-and-oranges premise, attempting to justify a foolhardy “pre-emptive” military strike that’s unnecessarily putting our sons and daughters into bodybags because “life doesn’t last forever.”
“Unnecessarily” according to you.