When I saw this news item, I felt like I'd been kicked in the gut. At least 15 soldiers were killed in the downing of a Chinook while on their way to depart for some much-deserved R&R. No doubt the Ba'athists and the Bin Ladenists are celebrating this big hit.
I can only express my heartfelt sympathies to the families of the dead, and offer my prayers for the wounded, of this and other attacks that have befallen our brave men and women in uniform. As one who has supported the war, I cannot thank them enough for their sacrifice.
Lest anybody should lose heart from this, it should be noted that these soldiers were killed in the line of pursuing one of the most noble goals that a soldier can pursue, the liberation of a people from tyranny, and the strategic protection of our country from a regime that posed a long-term threat to us and other democratic countries.
Military people expect to take casualties, but they view casualties through the lens of whether military objectives are being achieved. Casualties at Antietam, Spotsylvania, Normandy and Bastogne were all terrible, but what we remember about those engagements now, more than the losses and suffering, is whether or not the soldiers who fought achieved their objectives.
Whether we are meeting the objectives of occupation and reconstruction may be more difficult to see than the results of a battle, which one way or another must eventually end when one side has either withdrawn or been defeated. The media brings us news of the horrors, and of the losses, but the day to day gains are apparently too mundane to notice. Like the California wildfires, where stories of the millions of Californians who went to work every day, went home and had dinner with their families went unreported, stories of Iraqis finding normalcy may not be viewed as headline material.
Instapundit has brought us some timely material, in the form of a discovery, made by some readers, that in 1946 American journalists were writing about how we were botching the occupation of Germany. The most fascinating aspect of this find, for me, was the apparent fact that the allied occupying powers could not seem to agree on the occupation's eventual goals:
The French, unconvinced that the atomic bomb has opened an entirely new era, are insisting upon establishing buffer states between themselves and Germany. To this end, they’re trying to make a friend of the Germans in their zone and to encourage them to organize separatist movements.The British, conscious, of the broader aspects of Western Europe’s economic situation, are devising schemes to revive German economic life in their zones, particularly in the Ruhr. In order to provide immediately for some of the things which Western Europeans so urgently require, they’re trying to establish some kind of international combine to operate Ruhr industries and coal mines---a proposal which they compare to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The Russians, grappling with the enormous tasks of reconstructing their own war-wracked homeland, are carrying off from their zone all the machines and tools and animals which they can use in Russia. While the Russians reduce the labor surplus in their zone by sending skilled German workers to Russia, they also encourage the remaining Germans to revive political and economic life with due attention to Russian models.
It is only in the American zone that the “pastoral economy” is emerging, which some Americans had visioned for the whole of Germany. Although the Potsdam Declaration technically superseded the American directive JCS 1067, in practice this directive never has been superseded, so far as Americans are concerned. We still are committed to apply in our zone a blue print which was designed for the whole of Germany, but which was never accepted by any of our Allies. This directive is chiefly concerned with tearing things down rather than building things up, and in the absence of any common policy for the whole of Germany, our particular zone is threatened with “planned chaos.”
And of course, the Professor puts forth the painfully obvious question: "Was the occupation of Germany a success, viewed with today's perspective? After all, we're still there. . . ."
This is certainly not meant to diminish the loss of so many good people, but merely to point out that history judges success and failure through a much longer lens than what we have before us, today. The so-called "insurgents" in the Sunni Triangle are obviously taking advantage of the modern news cycle to portray the U.S. occupation as a failure. But of course it would be a failure if we were to heed their goals and withdraw before our work is done.
The Iraqi people are caught in a battle over the future of the Middle East. The overwhelming majority seem to be rooting for us. But they are surrounded by forces that do not have any interest in seeing democracy and freedom take root in the region -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, not to mention the Islamist die-hards, themselves, whether they be from Al Qaida or some other group; it doesn't make any difference. These interests have much less regard for human life than we have, as well, so they are much more willing to sustain casualties.
They achieved their goals in Somalia in 1993, when Clinton withdrew our troops after the Blackhawk Down incident in Mogadishu. The result of that operation was to convince Al Qaida that we didn't have the stomach for a fight.
We cannot afford to give them that same satisfaction. The stakes this time around are much higher. The best way we can honor the fallen is to support their comrades in seeing this thing through to the end.
UPDATE: Melanie Phillips weighs in.
Comments