Posted on 09/03/2003 7:50:23 AM PDT by Theodore R.
See Through The Dust
To help you see through the cloud of heifer dust that the Bush administration emits, I want to point out that in Iraq there are two separate and unrelated security problems.
One is security for the Iraqi people against common criminals. As the occupying power, it's our obligation to provide it. We have failed miserably so far — though the situation seems to be getting somewhat better, thanks primarily to Iraqis who are taking matters into their own hands.
The other problem is security for the occupation forces and their allies. We have failed miserably in this task, too, but it is important to understand that if the first security problem with common criminals is solved, it will have no effect on the guerrilla war being waged against our troops. There are two different sets of what the Bush people would call "bad guys."
I have sadly come to the conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny reality. The reality it wishes to deny in Iraq at the moment is that there is a genuine Iraqi opposition to occupation. At first, the Bush people said, "Oh, this is just the remnant of the old Saddam regime hoping to get back into power."
They used that excuse for a long time until it dawned on somebody that with so many of the Saddam people either dead or in custody and still no letup in the attacks, which continue to average about 12 a day, some new excuse was needed. Aha — terrorists from outside. That's who's causing all the trouble.
As a Southerner who lived through the civil-rights revolution, that sounds suspiciously like "outside agitators." That excuse didn't work then, and I don't think the excuse of "outside terrorists" will work this time. With this administration, you always have to ask, "Where's the proof?" So far, none has been forthcoming, other than people reporting that somebody else reported that some third party said terrorists were coming in from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, you name it. You are expected to believe that, but for these outsiders, Iraqis and American troops would be holding hands and strolling down the streets in perfect peace.
On the other hand, if it is true, you can then conclude that not only is the United States unable to control the interior of Iraq, it can't control the borders either. Well, that's no surprise. The U.S. government can't control our own borders here at home.
For all I know, some terrorists might be coming to Iraq, but the main problem remains Iraqi opposition to occupation. People gutsy enough to take on an army are always a minority, but unless the Bush administration gets the electricity and water service running pretty quickly, that minority is going to grow.
Already there is a joke going around among the Iraqis: "Let's bring Saddam back for one week so he can get the electricity and water running again." Yes, 100-plus days after the conquest, we are still producing less electricity than Saddam's cronies were producing before the war. And since Baghdad is flat as well as hot, if there is no power, then neither drinking water nor sewage can be pumped to where it needs to go.
Everybody but the Bush administration seems to understand that there is a narrowing window of opportunity to make this occupation scheme work. But instead of going at it with a sense of urgency, the Bush people seem content to make speeches and simply deny that there are any real problems.
"Oh, no," they insist. "We don't need any more troops, and we're sorry, Congress, but we really can't tell you how much all this is going to cost or when it will all be over. But trust us, we are making progress."
That reminds me of the old joke about the optimist who said that this is the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist who said, "Yes, I'm afraid you're right."
© 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
This guy is trying to stretch time by fiddling with the units: "100-plus days". Why not "2000-plus hours" or "tens of thousands of seconds"? That would really sound like a long time...
The great mass of non-true-believers-of-either-party voted him in, and can kick his a$$ out.
On the other hand, the public seems to have accepted the one or two a day death toll on our troops, and even the recent bombings didn't send people into a panic, so maybe the administration's PR quietism is the right strategy. The administration weathered the no-WMD/yellowcake crisis by not saying much -- in fact, the most damaging moments were when the administration dropped the Obiwan Kanobe routine and tried to defend itself by firing the guy who vetted the African-nuclear-material sentence. Maybe there's a certain reassurance in silence, in not actively (or actively in appearance) trying to make the case that our progress in Iraq is okay. Maybe that would look desparate somehow, like "thou protesteth too much".
As it is, the president utters a sentence or two every now and then, reiterating general themes about our continuing resolve, and that's about it. The public seems a little skittish at times, but polls seem to show general support for the Iraq effort. Maybe the administration sees the public perception as being something less that gung-ho and brimming with confidence, but at the same time not perilous. Imperfect, but sufficient and sustainable, perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.