Bart,
During all the hoopla over the capture of Bagdad,
I was watching the mouthpieces on Fox news and elsewhere
making claims that the left should apologize
for their opinions on how the fight for Bagdad would turn out.
In particular the issue whether the people of
Iraq would welcome the 'liberation'. As if in doing so they on the
right had been vindicated in their innitial claims
of a 'cakewalk'.
But the more I watched and read on this issue
of the celebrations the more I caught on to several facts that
seem to have been left out of the media's portrayal
of the event, and their failure to put it into perspective
with the behavior of those in Basra who were
also 'liberated'.
For starters, the people of the city of Basra
were caught within the city's limits from almost the beginning,
and were unable to evacuate without serious risk
of harm. It was during this time that heavy fighting, perhaps
the heaviest of the war was fought, and the outcome
of the war still in doubt in the eyes of the Iraqis.
Bagdad on the other hand, was in a continuous
state of evacuation before and during the fighting in Basra.
When the conflict finally reached it, the city
was technically empty of almost everyone but the military, looters,
and those diehard citizens who chose not to leave
for fear they would have no home left to return to if they
left it for the looters.
In Basra, the independent press was there to
witness that when coalition troops arrived, the locals cheered
for as long as the troops were there. They
then reported on camera that upon their immediate departure,
those same people who were seen cheering before
had then begun chanting against them. In the eyes of the
independent press there to witness the switch,
and to anyone else with a grasp of logic and common sense,
it was an obvious case of self preservation being
witnessed. When surrounded by soldiers from an invading army,
I doubt the people of Iraq would think of them
in the same light as would we. Thus it's fair to say that the only
option available to anyone, should they be surrounded
by heavily armed men who could easily shoot you, is
to sing their praises than to spit at them.
In Bagdad, when the images of the statue of Sadaam
being taken down were shown, how many people
could be seen cheering it on, 50? 100? 200? Bagdad
is a city of millions for whom all the families had fled
in the days and weeks before. This left only
the soldiers and looters to wander the streets when a battle
was still raging near by, so what does that say
to us?
It says the same thing that it said in Basra.
It also says that the only people still in Bagdad
to cheer the U.S on were thugs and criminals looking forward
to the banquet of an unprotected city from which
to plunder. Is this the kind of praise we wanted? Are these
the kinds of people whose opinions and support
we want and respect? In light of the cabal of liars and thieves
temprorailiy camped out in the White House it
seems appropriate does it not?
There is also the now-spreading accusation around
the muslim nations of the middle east that the ease in
Bagdad's capture, although inevitable, was due
to a deal which had been struck between coalition forces,
aka the White House, and the leaders of the Republcan
Guard, perhaps even Saddam Hussien's baath party leaders.
When we take into account the observations made
during the days and weeks leading up to the first shots
being fired, and during the subsequent invasion,
that the city of Bagdad was being fortified, trenches being dug,
and positions being staked out by snipers and
other forces, we could surmise that the Republican Guard
leadership was planning on going out in a grinding
door to door fight that would take weeks to win or lose.
Prior to the start of the conflict, right-leaning
experts took note that U.S and British forces had never engaged
in any serious or long-term door to door, or
house to house fighting. This was followed by those same experts
claiming that the potential for heavy casualties
and time-lengthy fighting was not something coalition generals
or the White House were willing to embrace on
a political stage back home. The White House's opinion held
that Saddam's forces were expected to cave-in
at the first sign of fighting. Another option seldom mentioned
except by members of previous white house administrations,
is that the white house expected the commanders
of those forces to negotiate once the outcome
seemed no longer in doubt. It is only natural then to assume that
the White House would willingly embrace any attempts
by Iraqi forces to surrender or prevent any close
quarters combat that could result in large coalition
casualties.
When we examine these and other facts leading
up to this point in the White House sanctioned police action,
the sudden ease of fighting in Bagdad, in comparison
to Basra, a city half it's size, the explanation for such a
quick and casualty-free fight can be seen for
what it could really be.
Just last night MSNBC spoke out about the now
growing number of conspiracy theories raging around this conflict.
They took note of the most current theory being
printed in Middle Eastern newspapers that the Republican Guard
leadership had negotiated a post-Saddam role
for themselves in the security of Iraq in return for a cease fire.
Those same newspapers reported that a secret
condition for this post-Sadam role was to have the forces protecting
Bagdad put up a token resistence of the city
as a show for the media to play back home as proof of the justified
'cakewalk' assumptions made by the White House
chickenhawks.
It is also not unreasonable to assume that an
additional condition might have been for the Republican Guard leadership
to have it's remaining forces embrace the coalition
forces with cheers, perhaps under the bluff that such a greeting
would prevent them from being shot at on sight?
When we take all of this into account, despite
the potential for such a negotiation to be false propaganda, the logic
of Basra and of Bagdad becomes much clearer,
allowing me to argue that there is no reason in HELL for me or
any other freedom loving person to apologize
for our accusations regarding this conflict.
Be well.
Jeff Grubs