by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 1, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

hen U.S. marines landed at Iraq's oil port of Umm Qasar in friendly Shiite territory, soldiers were met with Kalashnikovs not, as the military promised, flag-waiving, cheering Iraqis. While U.S. troops effectively control Iraq's main cities, the country remains a dangerous minefield where insurgents fight a dirty guerrilla war, planting bombs and sniping at civilians. Repeating Mogadishu, Somalia Oct. 3-4,1993, where 18 marines were handed their heads and then dragged through the streets, rebels murdered four civilians driving SUVs near Fallujah, mutilating charred bodies, stringing up corpses and toeing the remains behind a car. In the heart of the Sunni triangle, 35-miles west of Baghdad, U.S. forces encountered some of the most barbaric resistance. “Fallujah is the graveyard of Americans,” chanted locals, after playing target practice with defenseless construction workers.

      Whether the killers were residents still loyal of Saddam or foreign terrorists fomenting the current insurgency is anyone's guess. Watching inhabitants mutilating burned corpses with metal poles and dragging them behind cars reflects a level of savagery reminiscent of Mogadishu. For soldiers on the ground, they know the depth of hatred toward U.S. occupation, despite proclamations to the contrary. Hanging mutilated corpses on bridges sends at loud message about local sentiment. “The people of Fallujah hung some bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep,” said resident Abdul Aziz Mohamamed, watching fellow residents on a rampage. Disfiguring corpses gives a personal signature to the widespread violence, leaving expansive parts of Iraq a dangerous killing field to U.S. troops. While violence has ebbed and flowed since Saddam's capture Dec. 13, it remains out-of-control.

      Since the war began March 20, 2003, 597 soldiers lost their lives in a mission now described as “democratizing” Iraq. “The best way to honor those that lost their lives,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, is to bring democracy to Iraq, despite mounting U.S. casualties. President Bush originally went to war because Saddam's alleged arsenal of deadly weapons threatened U.S. national security. With no weapons of mass destruction found—and with Iraq no longer a real threat—what possible excuse justifies the continued loss of American lives? Redefining the mission has been a real battle for the White House rationalizing the punishing toll on human life and national treasury. Placing the Iraq mission in the broader global war on terror doesn't change the fact that Iraq no longer threatens U.S. national security. Finishing the job in Iraq doesn't require sacrificing more American lives.

      Former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke opened up a can of worms, telling the Sept. 11 Commission that Bush reversed the war on terror, hurt national security and endangered the armed forces going to Iraq. No one really knows whether Iraq has the capacity or will to embrace democracy. It's difficult democratizing Iraq, imposing a Western form of government. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's powerful Shiite cleric, wants free elections, allowing Shiites to seize power. Picking an Islamic government would have devastating consequences for the region, aligning Iraq with Iran's radical regime, creating the world's most dangerous theocracy. If democracy succeeds, that's the likely outcome of free elections. With June 30 rapidly approaching—the deadline for Iraq sovereignty—the White House has reason to sweat, watching Iraq embrace Iran's brand of radical Islam.

      While the 9/11 Commission grapples with nation's worst national security breakdown, the White House must look ahead at mounting casualties and the price of democracy. Without finding WMD, the U.S. mission concluded the day Iraq was no longer a threat to national security. Calling Iraq “the central front in the war on terror,” or, even more brazenly, “World War III,” goes over the top making excuses. Promising, “we will not turn back from that effort,” McClellan amplifies the same pernicious propaganda causing today's bad choices. Judging by recent atrocities in Fallujah, the U.S. has grossly miscalculated Iraq's wishes. It's not time to vilify the barbarians or promise revenge, it's time to rethink the U.S. mission a find a graceful exit strategy. Pretending that we're “wanted” and that Iraq wants democracy perpetuates the same illusion that led to the original intelligence breakdown.

      Mutilating and flaunting human remains gives some insight into the prospects for democratization in Iraq. Not only do Iraqis prefer brutal dictators, they despise U.S. efforts to impose its values and form of government. Whatever the U.S. long-range strategy in the Middle East, it's not worth sacrificing American lives for the luxury of bringing democracy to Iraq. While trashed by the GOP, Richard Clarke simply reminded the White House that Osama bin Laden—not Saddam Hussein—was the proper target in the war on terror. Depleting U.S. treasury democratizing Iraq leaves less resources to pursue truly “gathering” dangers, including Iran's feverish attempt to develop nuclear bombs. Toppling Saddam was a good thing but only in the context of multilateral security and reconstruction. Judging by the barbarism in Fallujah, the welcome mat's already been pulled.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.