The war in Iraq: A deepening betrayal

Marvin Campbell Guest Writer

Three years after that bleak September morning, I too look on in a mixture of dismay and outrage at the devolvement of the war in Iraq. Unlike the vocal majority of the anti-war contingent, however, I do not think the war in Iraq was illegal. A half-century of abject appeasement in the face of Middle East aggression warranted action against a regime that--despite the absence of WMD caches and evidence of a link to Al-Qaeda--had the potential and willingness to actualize both. Simply stated, under-reaction no longer remains a viable option. But if under-reaction, represented by this policy of appeasement, characterized the events leading up to Sept. 11 and even this war against Iraq, then appeasement has taken us one step further: inaction.

After the statues fell, the people danced in jubilation, the Hussein progeny died at the hands of our peerless soldiers, and Saddam himself was reduced to an unwashed, unshaven bum. The ticker-tape parade ended and our administration refused to confront the enormity of the task that lay before us. Instead of embracing the role of occupier, they have shirked it at every turn, pledging to free the country, neither understanding what such freedom entails nor exercising sufficient force to secure it. Instead of crafting a constitution upholding the rights of the sovereign individual, we have attempted to balance one faction against another, granting political participation to the Sunnis and the Shiites alike, among a myriad of other groups, even when they may well create another Iranian style theocracy.

Instead of fighting a war of unremitting attrition, we have tread lightly and stumbled badly. Every day, our troops, skillful as they may be in the art of war, remain hamstrung by parameters enacted by an irresponsible policymaking apparatus that, with deference to international opinion and the Arab street, refuses to let them perform the duty with which such brave people are entrusted: destroying the enemy.

Time and time again, our soldiers have conducted themselves with undue compassion--from allowing enemy fighters in Samarra to leave the city unharmed to searching houses only with permission of their occupants--and if you do not think we have suffered for the consequences, one need look no further than Fallujah and Najaf.

In the case of Fallujah, the destruction and desecration of four American contractors caused people to recognize that what threatened America was not a horde of disaffected young men with specific grievances, like the support of Israel or an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, but rather barbarians with a deeply-rooted hatred for Western culture and life.

It too appeared that some principled rage had resurfaced, prompting the silent majority to both roar and effectuate this cri du coeur: "never again." Indeed, senior coalition officials, acting against the inclination of the field commander himself, ordered that the city be "pacified." Over the next few days, our soldiers moved in, exchanging heavy gunfire with the insurgents, before--in an act of brazen defiance that was, perhaps, the most inspiring example of our untested mettle--finally casting sensitivity aside and bombing a mosque with as much consideration as our enemies had for their holy site. But just as the fighting reached a head and we seemed to have victory within sight, the president shrugged. A ceasefire was followed by a pullback and delegation of responsibility to Iraqi soldiers; thus the entire episode ended in senseless defeat. Setting aside whether these soldiers had sufficient training to cope with the threat, the ammunition and vehicles given to this force found their way into the hands of the insurgents.

Tragically, Fallujah has proven to be much more than a single military defeat or even an unstable morass prohibiting national cohesion. It is also, more importantly, a symbol in how we approach conflict in the country, especially when considered alongside our subsequent failure in Najaf. Refusing to confront the anti-American Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, with overwhelming force, we have not only granted him greater popularity, building up the ranks of his Mahdi Army, but in an act of depravity, we have allowed him to participate in the political process, as if a murderous thug could ever be a legitimate statesman. One might be tempted to argue, as some members of the sunshine punditry have done over the course of the reconstruction, that neither the Sunni Triangle nor Najaf represent all of Iraq, but even supposing that is true, we cannot have a moderately free country without them.

And yet the most sickening aspect of this tragic farce lies in that the war was only ever supposed to begin in Baghdad. And now, just as administration officials acknowledge that Iran is backing the insurgency as Iran itself--closer to an atomic bomb than Iraq, perhaps, ever was--speeds closer to the completion of this Manhattan project, disobeying another toothless agreement; as the Saudis continue to finance militant Islam, using oil that was never theirs to profit from in the first place: the Bush Doctrine--"you’re with us, or with the terrorists"--has been abandoned, and therefore, it is not to the UN that he must answer, but rather to a far worthier judge lying beyond the East River, Lady Liberty.