Iraq: A ramble
(I hope this makes sense and isn't just a rehash of what's already been said repeatedly -- ed.)

A Vietnamese colonel on America's Iraq problem: "No country in the world will accept a foreign invasion — this is a fundamental truth."

Raed, an Iraqi blogger:

The 1991 war was much more destructive to the Iraqi infra-structure than this one, electricity plants were destroyed, bridges and main roads, and many other important sectors, but the Iraqi national reconstruction campaign was really successful in rebuilding the entire country in no time (some months), in spite of the embargo and economical challenges. That reconstruction campaign gave the Iraqi governmental sector establishments a great experience, and enhanced the Iraqi engineers and technicians capabilities in discovering appropriate methodologies in the reconstruction work.

Iraq doesn't need any foreigner companies to come and take a part of this post-war reconstruction. American companies must be pulled out of Iraq as soon as possible and the Iraqi people must take back their right in rebuilding their country by themselves depending on their ministries and national government, that will create hundreds of thousands of vacancies for unemployed Iraqis (maybe fighting against the occupation now), and will reduce the costs of the reconstruction to less that 25% of the current expenses; the Iraqi labor market is very cheap comparing to any foreign one, and the Iraqi reconstruction methodologies are based on local materials and practice.

The national reconstruction campaign (that should have started one year ago) must include more items than mere physical buildings construction and services reconstruction; it must reach to rebuilding the Iraqi community? the civil society its self, that can start by activating the participation of the local communities in rebuilding their neighborhoods through micro-projects programs, activating civil society institutes.

I don't mean to ignite the Iraq vs. Vietnam debate; the colonel's nationality is purely coincidental. But what he said struck me as a perfect soundbite: Superficially, it rings of truth, while in actuality it overlooks one important caveat. It's that word "country." It implies that a group of people, united, would obviously never choose to be ruled indirectly, so they of course fight the imposition of such rule to the end.

But our invasion of Iraq seems like a special case because it was aimed at only one man who was largely unrepresentative of the people he ruled — like one case of indirect rule being supplemented for a hopefully better temporary one. Remember when Bush got on television and told the Iraqi people that this was in no way an attack on them? Of course, such assurances mean little once the fighting starts.

Regardless, here we are about a year later, and those assurances are practically worthless to even the most grateful of Iraqis. That is, there is nothing practical, no tangible evidence to the people of that country, that indicates we had their best interests in mind when we invaded, despite all of the Western war supporters who undoubtedly did. Whether our president numbers among them, I can't say. When he talks, he can sound like he believes in the principles we're supposedly exporting. What he does says the exact opposite. And all the principle in the world is worthless to a man who has nothing to eat.

I think that after one year, the Iraqi perception has shifted. What was once an occupation is now perceived as the lingering effect of an invasion. And I don't have a fucking clue how to change that. I don't think anyone does. This is why it irks me so much to see Bush say shit like, "I have a plan to win the war on terror," and to hear people deride Kerry for not having a better solution to the irreperable situation. You can't solve a car wreck after it happens. All you do is try to untangle things and call in help. And as my confidence in the U.N. waivers, I'm even more confused about what's next.

Many, many months after the fact, I can finally put words to why I opposed the war — even as I felt a sense of relief and optimism when it began. To act unilaterally, with Cold-War scare tactics swirling around WMD claims, indicated to me that the people of Iraq figured little into the Bush administration's equation. They were the "Get out of jail free" card — the undeniable justification for invasion — with no consideration given to whether the ends justified the means.

For had the Iraqi people been the center of our concerns from day one — and I think they should have been, for reconstruction absolutely required their support and patience — we would have done so much differently. The symbolic ramifications to Iraqis (and the Muslim world at large) of any action should have taken foremost consideration, except in matters pertaining to the safety of our soldiers. Instead, we completely unnecessarily, and quite publicly, did things like forbidding non-coalition-based companies to contract in Iraq. (And as Raed pointed out above, Why the fuck were we contracting out in the first place?)

But what I couldn't put words to, or claim to foresee with any certainty, was the utter incompatibility of what we would have had to do to make the Iraqis happy and what we have to do to preserve our interests — even at such a basic level as keeping soldiers alive.

Take the closing of Al-Hawza. From what I understand, the paper was in the business of inciting people to kill Americans through the printing of lies and demagoguery. So, leave it open, and soldiers likely die. Shut it down, and the impression that we don't actually care about freedom of the press leads to many, many soldiers dying. This equation seems to apply to the great majority of decisions we make in Iraq today.

Of course, one should rightly say that Saddam is gone and this is a good thing beyond reproach, and that the real criminals in Iraq are the ones inciting the violence. Regardless, we knew resistance was coming, and it is precisely why we needed the backing and trust of every possible Iraqi citizen. Instead, a year later, they have no jobs while we pay ourselves to do the work.

Then again, I'm sure there are many reasons the higher-ups think it's necessary to do things the way they are. I don't buy into these conspiracy theories. If Halliburton, etc., didn't exist, it'd just be some other well-connected firms reaping the benefits of government expenditures. The connections themselves did not spur the actions; they only dictated who would benefit from them. Regardless, I have very, very little insight into how to run a sortie, much less an invasion or an occupation. But a successful occupation would have required us to take steps such as those proposed above by Raed. Whether this was in any way feasible is simply impossible for me to say.

At the very least, it would have required a great sacrifice on our part — of both money and righteousness — to change the the world's and the Iraqis' minds about our intentions. But sacrifice is not something we as a country care to make. Over and over again, in remembrances of Pat Tillman, the former NFL player who joined the Army after Sept. 11 and who was killed in Afghanistan this weekend, the phrase "ultimate sacrifice" appeared. From the day he left the football field, Tillman fascinated us because he was making a bigger sacrifice we were willing to make; he gave up what we as a country want for ourselves: money, fame, and comfort. Talk all we want about ideals and principles, Tillman very visibly reflected our hypocrisy, even if no one said it. And it is in honor of people like him that we search and search to give our actions validity. For if what they did was good and just, then our support of them, both vocal and at the voting booth, shields us from that ugly reflection in the T.V. screen. We, as a culture, are only concerned with this war in so much as it affects us, relates to our lives, and helps to define our country's image. This is why Tillman's story gets so much media coverage and why there is such a stink about supporting the troops and why a woman gets fired for publishing a picture of coffins draped in American flags. Because it is about us.

Now, I hardly mean to indicate that this a specifically American disease. Countries by their nature act in this way. Take France, to once more pick on the class wimp. While chastising us for the imminent invasion, they failed to mention their own cloudy interests in preserving the status quo. And for all their indignation at our tactics, they proceeded to implement a ban on religious head dress in schools, Americans would find antithetical to our concept of liberty. As one of my professor's says, "Institutions change very slowly," and countries are the greatest organizational symbol of all. Because of this, they are hard pressed to ever apologize or admit they were wrong, and they are even less likely to change their ways at the imposition of another equally selfish country.

Usually, in fact, it requires violence and invasion and defeat.

And so we are back: "No country in the world will accept a foreign invasion — this is a fundamental truth."