April 10, 2003

U.S. "Marauders"

You would think seeing cheering Iraqis stomping on a statue of Saddam would bring warm feelings to everyone's hearts. Not so in the case of Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane.

To the uninformed eye, it's hard to tell whether this is jubilation or anarchy.

Even harder to know is whether the ordinary citizens of Iraq were more excited about the arrival of coalition troops or simply relieved the bombing had finally stopped.

The Iraqis were so relieved about the end of the bombing (which hasn't stopped) that they've offered handshakes, hugs, and tea to U.S. troops. Looks like jubilation to me.

Sure, the images from Baghdad were inspiring on some levels, but they also were incomplete when it comes to divining the actual hearts and minds of most Iraqi citizens in regard to this war.

In the history of human aggression, it's a good bet whenever an occupying army arrives in a war-torn country, most civilians are smart enough to put on the welcoming act whether they mean it or not.

My suspicion is most longtime Iraqi residents - who have lived under a repressive regime much of their lives - operate under a general rule of thumb:

When in doubt, cheer for the guy with the most guns.

Nothing can be what it appears to be. For Kane, cynicism trumps visual reality.

But wondering about the motives of happy Iraqis isn't enough for him. Kane then has to go and rip on the troops that drove Saddam's thugocracy into oblivion.

My problem with our liberating forces wasn't with their stated purpose, but rather with their decorum.

My mother always taught me to be respectful in someone else's house.

But that certainly wasn't the case with the group of cigarette-smoking American soldiers caught lounging with their feet on the furniture in one of Saddam's palaces earlier this week.

We all know Bush is quick to assume the "get-tough" Texas cowboy persona in front of the United Nations.

But is it really appropriate for our troops to act like a bunch of marauders?

In Kane's world one person's liberators are another's marauders. Our soldiers are people who endured weeks of gunfire to free a people from dictatorship and protect the U.S. from future attacks. After putting up with enemy tanks, snipers, and suicide bombers, our troops deserved to savor their progress. Note, that the troops were lounging in one of Saddam's palaces, built on the suffering of Iraqis.

Real marauders don't make pain-staking efforts to not his civilians. Marauders don't bother with the laws of warfare. Marauders bash their way through things regardless of who gets hurt or killed. Marauders rape, pillage, and collect booty. Mr. Kane, out troops have done so such thing. They've acted with great poise and have displayed tremendous respect for the Iraqi people while being ruthless with its brutal regime. They aren't marauders, they're liberators and protectors.

I won't even bother with Kane's complaint about the renaming of Baghdad International Airport. No need to bother with such pettiness. However, I must address his last point:

But for many who opposed it, the shots of cheering Iraqis and toppled statues do nothing to address the main concerns.

Mainly:

Is this what America will be for the foreseeable future, a bullying superpower that punishes any foreign country that dares to step out of line?

Kane just doesn't get why we had to topple Saddam. It wasn't about Iraq stepping out of line, it was its ABC weapons, its links to terrorism, its past regional aggression, and its threat to the U.S. Iraqi liberation is a wonderful byproduct. Kane and his ilk will look at this as "bullying" but reasonable people view this as justified self-defense.

"Were Iraqis Jubilant the Bombs Stopped?"