The tragedy of it all [Archives:2005/837/Opinion]

Bob Herbert of the New York Times could not have put it better when he wrote yesterday in his Op-Ed column about the tragic loss of so many innocent lives in Iraq. Mind you, Bob was only talking about those who are dying by collateral damage or frantic shootings by American GIs. Needless to say there are now hundreds more dying out of the misguided targeting by insurgents, who fail to understand that shooting Iraqis is not a very good way of propagating the message of the insurgency. How can they expect the Iraqis to welcome the insurgency with open arms, if most of its victims are the Iraqis themselves? Even if we can assume that the struggle against the American occupation is legitimate, it goes without saying that this struggle will need the support and backing of the Iraqi people themselves. Otherwise, how can the insurgents expect to gain the sympathies of the people most relevant to this struggle; i.e., the Iraqi people themselves. The observer is still inclined to believe that an insurgency that follows a methodology of victimizing the supposed beneficiaries of this “struggle for liberation” is certainly not working with the intentions expected to be pursued by such an insurgency. No this is not a genuine struggle for freedom. One might find it easier to believe that this insurgency is working for the benefit of the occupier. By the sheer numbers one is getting over the newscasts: 30 dead coming out of a mosque, 20 lining up looking for jobs, etc. There is no legitimacy in the killing of unarmed people coming out of a house of worship or the killing of desperate people like for sources of sustenance.

Another distressing thing one finds that these so called insurgents are apparently well financed and well supplied with all the killing tools that have the maximum impact. Many of these senseless bombing attacks are carried in BMWs, the cost of which can be used to purchase hundreds of light armaments that perhaps could be used more effectively against the “real enemy”. Yet, we see this going on as if these people are not really guided by any sensible tactical approaches that wins the hearts of the intended beneficiaries of this struggle.

Once in a while there are even victims that are actually helpful in the struggle against the occupation. Bob Herbert mentioned the death of an American woman, who has been trying to get the message across to her fellow citizens in the United States that hey this war is all wrong. There are so many innocent people hit at random by American weapons and by an insurgency that forgot whose cause it is fighting for.” Of course the death of innocent Iraqis by the insurgency does not raise the hairs of any one, because the insurgency is proving that the American presence is wise and prudent. For the Americans, Mr. Bush has indicated that indeed progress is being made. The death of so many people is of no concern to the White House, because the White House is not worried about American GIs getting killed or the death of advocates seeking a peaceful end to the demise in Iraq. In fact, the White House only believes in what its friends and war lords in the Administration are telling it. Everything is rosy, especially now that Iraq had its elections. Washington is busy chasing the Syrians for not preventing the death of Rafiq Al-Hariri, with its 14,000 troops in Lebanon. The US has a force of over 200,000 under its disposal in Iraq and it has not prevented the death of one innocent civilian, let alone protect the cooperative Iraqi leaders who are working with it in Iraq.

So, how can Syria with its far lesser means and capabilities be expected to forestall an attack that most likely was engineered by outside forces. Even if these instigators were Syrian or Lebanese, the motive just does not serve the interests of Lebanon or Syria. This observer was surprise to find that former President William Clinton would go about insisting that the Syrians were to be blamed for the death of Hariri. Even after admitting that the UN report on the investigations of the killing did not at all put any direct blame. The only argument Clinton finds in the report was that Syria should have been able to prevent the killing. Well, this observer is inclined to suggest to Mr. Clinton that the same argument can be used 10,000 fold for the Americans in Iraq. The Americans are indeed more capable and possess greater means, but we find that they are unable (or more likely unwilling) to put an end to so much senseless killing of civilians in Iraq. Shouldn't logic be applicable on an equal basis on both situations. More important, on what tangible evidence does Mr. Canton pointedly accuse Bashar Al-Assad, while not using the same logic to accuse Mr. bush for the killing of thousands of innocent people, whether by American weapons or the erratic behavior of fly by night contractors of death, who have been given a free unchallenged hand to carry out their thirst for blood. The most intriguing thing is that it does not even seem that the Americans are even looking for the people behind all the senseless killings Iraq. One wonders, if they are really interested in finding them or even if there isn't a clandestine link between the occupation and their energetic and deadly presence in Iraq.

It is often proven that people who tend to follow an agenda based on vested interests, rather than real moral motives to justify their actions, will never look seriously at the negative consequences of their actions. This seems to be the case in Iraq. An invasion was undertaken for the vested interests of the American military-industrial complex, which is reportedly recording record earnings these days (even if at the expense of a huge budget deficit). Never mind that the declared intention of averting the dangers of Saddam's WMD have been declared hogwash by the very same organs that initially raised the alarm about them. It does not matter. Iraqis can keep on dying forever as far as the Washington war lords are concerned, as long as the bottom line is in the black for the machine that thrives on war and bloodshed.
——
[archive-e:837-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-04-28-p:opinion]