With so many opinions about Iraq and the aftermath of the war, I thought I might add mine to the lot. I've heard locals discuss this in hushed voices and decided this complex subject was worth exploring, here.

The Iraqi Shi'a majority (they never say Shi'ite, here), those so oppressed by Saddam Hussein, and how they'll live out their newfound freedom is the source of much post-war consternation in this part of the world. Saddam and his minions were mostly of the minority Sunni, although his government was secular (not religion-based) and organized more along tribal and clan ties.

The Iranian government's mullahs and clerics, all Shi'a fundamentalists and radicals, are presently providing assistance and money to the Iraqi Shi'a in hopes of creating another theocracy (religion-based government) there. These protests, seen nightly on U.S. TV are mostly skillfully organized and financed efforts by Iranian and some Iraq hardliners who are distressed at the thought of a democratic country in the region.

Their organizers would have us believe that a people suppressed by tyranny for 30 years suddenly are able to stage large, professional-looking rallies, with bullhorns and placards with large photos of their favorite Cleric. The deaths at Fajullah were instigated via confrontation. The military commander should be given authority to declare Martial Law and to send everyone home. We try to show our tolerance by allowing these dangerous situations to occur.

The consequences of our complete victory in Iraq are rumbling throughout the entire Arab world and in many different ways. Much of the Arab press (Al Jazeera T.V. along with many leading Arab newspapers) outright lied about the progress of the war, as did the Iraqi government, and has lost some credibility. The daily Arab newspaper in Kuwait was amazingly evenhanded in it's coverage. Almost unanimously, the Arab press managed to find a way to celebrate the fall of the House of Hussein and to criticize the U.S. There's a story circulating about an Iraqi Colonel who was captured as he leisurely drove through Baghdad. He professed total surprise at our presence, stating that his superiors told him Coalition Forces were still 100 Km. south of Baghdad and were dying by the thousands in their futile attempt to defeat Iraqi forces. There are Arab sources circulating the story that the U.S used nuclear weapons to defeat Iraq so quickly. Others must wonder if they, themselves, have accurately taken our measure and gauged the strength of President Bush's resolve. Few here talk about the freedom of the Iraqi people as a large issue in this conflict.

There is one immutable fact about ground warfare which is you cannot successfully maneuver troops, tanks and artillery in the field without air cover. With the B-1s, B-2s, B-52s and fighter-bombers attacking Iraqi troops at will, Iraqi losses must have been terrible. I heard an isolated comment on TV stating that, "the CIA estimated losses in the last 48 hours to be in the neighborhood of 35,000 Iraqi troops." This announcement was never repeated. No wonder the Republican Guard Divisions never re-appeared to fight at Baghdad!

In the last days of the Hussein regime, "volunteers" poured in from neighboring countries to support ... what? They supported a tyrant who had given his people decades of poverty, prison camps, torture, starvation, a high infant mortality rate, a terribly low standard of living, and fear; always fear, of the knock-on-the-door. He openly lived a life of gaudy luxury while his people starved. What does this tolerance and support for Saddam's regime say about leadership in the Arab world?

Arab leaders are now quick to say that Coalition Forces should go home. They also assert that the West has applied its power in the Arab world, "inconsistently", over the last 40 years and they are correct in that. However, such inconsistencies, in their minds, only occur in Western powers. The implication is that Pan Arabism has a single Moslem voice and goal, and a single, commonly accepted method of achieving it. The obvious fact is of hypocrisy on both sides.

With our easy victory in Iraq, many of the opposition have switched to cries of, "America should go home now, and leave Iraq's fate to its people."

Now comes the difficult part.

There is little doubt that if we leave Iraq before seeing to the formation of a representative, secular and democratic government with a constitution (not a hardliner's interpretation of the Koran), our efforts, spent treasure and loss of life will have been in vain.

Does this mean that the present time is not the time to implement, in Iraq, America's basic promise to her own citizens of one-man one vote?

Yes, it does. With leadership and diplomatic skill, Iraq man be led to a representative, secular government that will give the country at least a chance to function in the near-term as a free society with attention to human rights, equal rights for women, justice, security and peace. Islam and the Koran have a place in such a government but must be separate from it, not dominate it. The theocrats (mullahs/ clerics) will completely resist this proposed government and, in the end, might still prevail.

Nevertheless, what if, just what if that genie got out of the bottle and the clerics or hardliners couldn't put it back in?

There are legitimate questions that need asking and without hysteria. If the Arab World had concern for the people of Iraq, why didn't they move against the Saddam regime before their local problem grew large enough to bring in, "you people!" i.e. non-Arabs, about which they now complain?

I hasten to remind the whole world that the United States of America has abused its political power and complete battlefield, economic and technological domination LESS than any country in the history of humankind!

William Buckley, always a cool oasis in a desert of heated rhetoric, recently voiced his usual brand of intelligent observation. He said that the West must be careful not to appear to be engaged in a religious war against Islam and that worldwide, centrist Islamic theologians must meet and decide how the Koran is to be interpreted and widely accepted, and the West must clearly understand this outcome. In effect, these respected theologians would set the true line of world Islam, recognizable to all. Deviators could then be suspect and deemed not representative, and potential enemies made more easily recognized and deterred.

A full plate, this, and I promise lighter fare next time.

Cheers!
Gaylan