|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
Just who's emboldening
terrorism?
By Ramzy Baroud
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing.
Since the onset of
the Bush administration's ill-defined mission and
subsequent "long, long war on terror", the
American people, even the whole world, have fallen
victim to an utterly flawed, yet barely contested
voice of reason. Despite the Vietnam-like debacle
in Iraq, in which the US administration has
willfully immersed the nation, fallacious logic
continues to be infused, with the same enthusiasm
and doubtlessly with the same grievous outcome.
An independent and thorough study prepared
by the Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research
Group recently concluded that at least 25,000
Iraqi civilians have been killed and 45,000 have
been wounded since the US-led invasion of Iraq in
March of 2003. According to the study, four times
as many victims died at the hands of US-led forces
than from the flaring insurgency. And yet the
numbers produced by the study hardly tell the
story. For one, they must be examined against the
backdrop of another comprehensive study
commissioned by the prestigious medical journal,
The Lancet, last autumn, which deduced that at
least 98,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the
ongoing strife.
But most importantly,
regardless of whose computation we embrace, mere
numbers can hardly capture the madness, bloodshed,
terror and insecurity sweeping Iraq from north to
south. Undoubtedly, one can confidently argue that
the invasion of Iraq has weakened the internal
security of the entire region and has manifested
itself in desperate terrorist attacks targeting
civilians in Europe and elsewhere.
Considering the many scattered lies and
forgeries put forth to rationalize the war and to
further defend its disastrous aftermath, while
keeping in mind the remarkably similar Vietnam
fiasco which continues to stain the US reputation
like no other, one would think that a more
sensible and judicious foreign policy stratagem
might prevail.
Not in the least.
Recent events on Capitol Hill and new
resounding statements made by top US
administration officials prove that sanity is not
much of a priority on the agenda of President
George W Bush.
On Wednesday, July 20, the
House of Representatives resolved that an early
withdrawal from Iraq would "embolden terrorists",
therefore any such notion must be scrapped.
Written off as well by the House decision was the
idea of a measurable timetable for any pullout. A
withdrawal of the 160,000-strong US forces is only
possible when national security goals are met,
according to the measure. It also argued that such
a move would "undermine the morale" of US and
allied forces.
Capitol Hill's elite, as
ever detached, perhaps willingly, from national
and international realities, are determined to
disregard or diminish the untold losses suffered
by the military, economy, and their country's
reputation, not to mention the morale of the
entire nation. According to a recently disclosed
US Army report, triggered by an inquiry into the
alarmingly high suicide rate among American
soldiers in Iraq, morale among troops is at its
lowest, as is the confidence in their units'
ability to perform their mission. Fifty-four
percent of soldiers rated their units' morale as
low or very low, reported the Associated Press.
This dwindling spirit and lack of
confidence on the battlefield is met with
increasing agitation with Bush's war, as more than
half of the American population now believes that
the war has made their country "less safe". The
tiring argument that terrorists are attacking us
because of our freedom and way of life is losing
its constituents, and it is becoming clearer by
the day that the price for such hollow rhetoric
can no longer be swallowed.
One must not
subscribe to the illusion that the Iraq debacle is
just a temporary nuisance that can be weathered by
a few billion dollars and a few thousand lives;
that questioning the Bush administration's actions
is not only unpatriotic, but in fact it provides
the enemy with a moral boost and fuels their
insurgency; that the insurgents are a bunch of
disgruntled Sunnis without a cause, randomly
blowing up people because they despise democracy
and the spreaders of democracy for marginalizing
them, and so forth. Even the US administration
finds it difficult to stick to such simplistic
views.
Speaking to reporters regarding the
Pentagon's quarterly assessment on the situation
in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
admitted, once gain, that the insurgents are
"effective and adaptable". Coupled with Bush's
remarks following the terrorist bombings in London
that his "war on terror" is a long, long one, one
can be assured that the morale of the army, much
less the entire nation, is likely to deteriorate
even more.
Meanwhile, the news from Iraq,
aside from the daily fighting and loss of life,
predicts an equally grim future for the US
military. A newly declassified Pentagon assessment
disclosed, among many other alarming findings,
that only three of the 107 Iraqi military
battalions have achieved the needed standards to
plan, execute and sustain independent
counter-insurgency operations. In short, the Iraqi
army will not be capable any time soon of
controlling the anti-occupation forces that are
gaining momentum throughout the country. It also
means that the US military, which presently seems
pushed to the limit, will have to face its
antagonists, for the large part, alone. One must
wonder if the 291 representatives in the House who
voted against an early and scheduled withdrawal
are aware of the bleakness of it all.
Republican Congressman Tom Delay
commented, "To establish such a deadline [for
withdrawal], all but ensuring disaster, would be
morally and strategically indefensible."
But does Delay need reminding that a
disaster in Iraq has already been ensured; that it
is preposterous to speak of moral objectives after
years of daily killing resulting in the deaths of
at least 25,000 civilians; that his attitude, one
that is defining American foreign policy as a
whole, is what has in fact "emboldened
terrorists"; that denial of the calamity that he
and his colleagues brought upon their nation could
only contribute to what is culminating into a new
Vietnam and perhaps, strategically speaking, even
worse?
Alas, deceptive logic has once
again prevailed and will continue until the
American people and those who earnestly represent
them take control of the present and the future of
their country, salvaging its debased honor and
tarnished reputation.
Ramzy
Baroud, a veteran Arab American journalist,
teaches Mass Communication at Curtin University of
Technology. He is the author of the forthcoming
book, Writings on the Second Palestinian
Uprising (Pluto Press, London.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
