« 9/11 terrorist captured in New Zealand, deported to Saudi Arabia | Main | 'Iran accused of hiding secret nuclear weapons site' »
June 12, 2006
US "Occupation" of Iraq ?
I don't normally read the Contra-Costa Times, but this weekend I happened to pick one up. It featured an article by Robert Conger titled "U.S. must end occupaton to truly free Iraq," which appears to be nothing more than a poorly thought out argument agains our forces. The article starts off discussing the shortcomings of military investigations, particularly in regards to the "apparent massacre in Haditha."
Just as investigations carried out by police on their own have ensured the continuing travesty of police brutality, the "investigation" of military excesses, being carried out only by the military itself, has ensured the continuing travesty of American military atrocitiesHerein lies the truth about how many feel about our military. Despite the fact that "over 99.9%+ of our folks have acted by the rules," they are still portrayed as murderers. This will be a theme the author does not give up on.
The military and the administration freely use the terms "terrorists" and "insurgents" to apply to anyone in Iraq who resists the American occupation.
By the way, I support an American "occupation" of Darfur, which, I presume by his statements, Mr. Conger does not.
If America were invaded and occupied by foreign troops, I doubt very much that any American would regard any act of resistance as an act of "terrorism," and those who resisted would not be dismissed as "insurgents" or "anti-american." We regard such persons patriots.Aside from his support for the insurgency (but don't question his patriotism), the author is also being horribly misleading. If America were occupied, I would still consider an American who stuffs a backpack full of explosives, nails, and ball bearings, then detonates it in the middle of a crowded shopping mall a "terrorist." I would also consider an American group who kidnapped and murdered 50 American children a group of "terrorists," though Conger would call them "patriots."
We need to assist Iraq to regain stability, if possible. But this continual assault on Iraqis themselves is not the way to do it. We must withdraw from Iraq and invite international forces to come into Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations, forces that the Iraqi populace would find acceptable.The author extends the unconfirmed actions of .018% of our military to the rest of our brave men and women. Most of our soldiers are there building bridges and schools, providing security, and doing a wonderful job to help Iraq build a democracy. These are laudable goals, which I support, but Conger does not. But don't you dare question his patriotism.
Furthermore, is Mr. Conger serious about the United Nations? Whose "acceptable" forces continually rape women, trade aid supplies for sex with underage girls, and helped to enrich Saddam Hussein to the detriment of the Iraqi people? This absurd proposal seems to fit into the rest of his analysis.
Opposing a war on reasonable grounds is acceptable. Dissent is patriotic. But this type of slander, to accuse the vast majority of our military of being brutal murderes, while simultaneously supporting those who seek to kill them and Iraqi civilians is neither; it is disgusting, unpatriotic, and dishonest. God bless our troops.
Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket, 123Beta, and California Conservative
Posted by Flynn at June 12, 2006 12:59 AM
