July 7, 2003, 5:30 P.M.
On May 1, 2003 President Bush declared the official end of major hostilities in Iraq. From May 1 to July 4, 25 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 177 wounded. Three more American soldiers were killed this past weekend. The most recent killings have included assassination by lone gunmen, demonstrating the enemy’s clear understanding of how to attack a soldier wearing body armor.
At least with respect to those 200 Americans killed and wounded, as well as another number of British killed and wounded, there are still major hostilities in the Iraqi theater of operations. Coupled with the release of a recent audiotape, which the CIA has determined is “most likely” Saddam Hussein’s voice, it seems that the President’s irresponsible “Bring ‘Em On” speech has provoked a lethal response.
Escalating violence against U.S. and British troops and the apparent emergence of Saddam fosters an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in Iraq. In his most recent address to the Iraqi people, U.S. civil administrator Paul Bremer acknowledged that until the whereabouts of Hussein and his supporters are known, “. . .their names will continue to cast a shadow of fear over this country.” The sentiment was amplified by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine who admits that “there’s a pervasive climate of fear that is impeding the recovery, particularly in central and southern Iraq.” She adds that “there is a fear that he will return, that he will come back.” If you couple this very destabilizing uncertainty with the ability of some apparently well organized guerilla fighters to pick off well equipped and well trained troops at will, I’d say we have a real crisis on our hands. I’d also say that the recent announcement of a $25 million bounty for Saddam is no coincidence. Certainly someone believes that there is a link between Saddam and the attacks and it is obvious to me that such a link exists.
Whatever the current strategy is for dealing with the terrorist threat, it appears to be inadequate. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden: we didn’t. We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. Here again it appears that we didn’t. The recently released audio tape describes the fall of Baghdad as nothing more than a strategic retreat. Now we are offering money for information leading to the capture of both bin Laden and Saddam. With our inability, despite an enormous effort so far, to locate or capture either of these notorious thugs, how can we expect that a reward of money will do what an invasion and occupation could not?
What’s more, we are not wanted in Iraq (or Afghanistan or Liberia for that matter) and the attacks on Americans and British must be viewed in the context of almost continuous demonstrations against our presence in Iraq. Despite Secretary Rumsfeld’s views to the contrary, we are now facing a situation analogous to the program of pacification undertaken in Viet Nam after the Tet offensive. That program called for American troops to occupy villages, to befriend, organize and defend villagers, to feed and defend the inhabitants, and to “convince” the people that the U.S. had their best interests at heart. The problem was that the Viet Cong lived in those villages, too. The message conveyed by the American “visitors” never stuck because the people knew that the Americans would leave, and that when they did the villagers would be left to deal with the Viet Cong. In the case of Iraq, it is clear that there is an organized resistance to the U.S. and British presence. The efficiency of the resistance suggests clear communication, articulation of goals and objectives and methods and means of carrying out objectives. Coupled with the fact that the resistance is on its home court, this obvious condition makes “bring ‘em on” a stupid and irresponsible thing to say.
