perfidy

At this stage, only a fool would insist that the United States military waging the war on Iraq wants to kill civilians at this stage. But as the lines between civilian and combatant become increasingly blurred, such as in the recent news of a suicide bombing that killed four American troops, there is no guarantee that will continue. We, that is, American citizens on the home front, cannot be assured that American troops will never attack Iraqi civilians, thinking them guerillas, as they did in Vietnam. Are we sure that there will not be a Mai Lai (sp?) massacre in Iraq? We cannot be sure that it will not happen, we cannot be sure that it will happen. It is useless to debate mights and maybes. Suffice to say, the possibility for higher civilian casualties exist if the U.S. military decides that everyone is a combatant. But that has not happened yet as far as we know, and it might not happen at all. The possibility, however, is something of which to be aware. 

As to the civilian casualties that have occurred, I am uncomfortable with a shrugging of shoulders. To argue that there were only four civilian casualties after the first air attacks on Baghdad is problematic. I seriously doubt that the living relatives of those four dead Iraqi civilians shrugged their shoulders, and said, "Oh, well, my father/mother/brother/spouse whatever is dead, but hey, it's only four people." The reality is that this war has and will continue to kill Iraqi civilians. Granted, the U.S. military is trying to avoid those casualties, certainly in high numbers. There have not been high numbers of civilian dead, but there have been and will be more civilian dead. I disagree that Americans should pat themselves on the back because they've only killed a few people and not a lot of people. Death is always a tragedy, in numbers large or small. 

The counter-argument to my counter-argument may be that a small number of Iraqi civilians have died to prevent another great loss of life in the United States. But there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein himself was at all involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001. The vast majority of participants were Saudi Arabians, who were religious fundamentalists that despise and detest Hussein's secular Ba'ath government. Has the CIA or even the FBI established any coherent links between Hussein and the 11 September 2001 attacks? I have heard President Bush insist that there are strong links between the al Qaeda network and Hussein, but people can just say anything. I reiterate a previous question: exactly what threat did Iraq pose to the United States? My opinion is that we have probably made it more likely, with the invasion of Iraq, that the United States risks further large-scale attacks. Now even more people of the near east are mad at the United States, and others may be radicalized. 

It would be fair to ask, "but Mr. Windy Mike, if there are no solid links between Hussein and al Qaeda, how has the U.S. subjected itself to greater risk?" There are a few scenarios. For example, near easterners who found al Qaeda's fundamentalism distasteful might now be convinced that al Qaeda was right when they accused the United States of trying to occupy the whole of the Middle East. Military action often results in the radicalization of moderates. To draw a parallel, after the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, the ranks of the provisional Irish Republican army swelled, and people lost faith in the Northern Irish Civil Rights movement, because moderates were radicalized. Some people in the north of Ireland became convinced that it was impossible to deal with Britain. Apparently, the only thing the British understood was the power of the gun. 

Perhaps, moderate near easterners who have requested fair dealing with United States will similarly become convinced that moderation is useless. Maybe moderate near easterners, who have requested a fair hearing on the Palestinian question, who have asked that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, will decide that Uncle Sam is either deaf or ignorant. "If Americans march in with guns," says the moderate near easterner, "maybe guns are all they understand, and maybe guns are the only way to convince them of our position." As I said before mights and maybes are just that, but it is clear that the vast majority of near easterners probably dislike the United States and its Middle Eastern foreign policy intensely. They won't like us more now that the United States has invaded and attacked another Middle Eastern country, Ba'athist secular government notwithstanding. Once more, did that Ba'athist secular government pose a significant threat to the United States? How? To my knowledge, none of these weapons have mass destruction have yet been found by U.S. forces. 

So, exactly why is this war being fought, and exactly why did those four Iraqi civilians have to die, in addition to others? A small number of civilian casualties, and not a large number of civilian casualties, sanitizes the fact that people who probably never even once considered attacking an American have died by American hands. Just because the numbers are small and not big does not change the fact that people have died. Saying, "Oh, well we only killed a few people and not a bunch," is nothing to be proud of. To be fair, Mr. Steyne did not write that he was proud of civilian deaths in small numbers. But for the living relatives and friends of those Iraqi citizens who died, relative numbers don't mean a damn thing. They only know that someone they loved died in a war.