ANOTHER DISPATCH FROM YOUR WAR CORRESPONDENT REPORTING TO YOU LIVE FROM THE FRONT LINES OF MIDWESTERN AMERICA... :)

Just some random thoughts about things I've been hearing about the ongoing war in Iraq and what my reactions are. I know some people I share these with like them a lot, while others disagree with them rather strongly. But I hope in all cases that I'm at least making people think and keep an open mind about issues, and every once in awhile when I slip in a joke, laugh too. :)

Unfortunately, the first part of what I write about is no laughing matter: US forces have become sufficiently engaged that they are suffering casualties, and I woke up this morning to hear discussion about how the Iraqis have made a videotape of dead American soldiers.

Before I go on, let me just make a sidebar here and ask to keep soldiers in your thoughts; I've got a good friend whose brother is in one of the units that's taken casualties (I haven't heard anything yet, one way or another about him) and I know several other people who are in the service right now, fortunately not all of them in the Gulf to be in immediate danger. But still, the more people wishing for them to come home safely, hopefully the more likely they will be to all do so.

I haven't decided about how I feel regarding the reports I've been hearing of this videotape. ABC News was talking about it, describing what the images were, but also stating very clearly that due to its grisly nature and subject that they wouldn't be showing it. On one hand, I agree that what they're saying sounds morally reprehensible, and I'm glad I didn't have to watch it while having breakfast this morning. (At least on ABC -- I was speculating that in the hour of coverage I watched this morning, how many times that it had been played on other stations with a more sensationalist bent to their journalism styles.) But...a part of me is bothered by this being kept from the public. This exact issue of American casualties has been one of the key arguments in the case to go to war or not, and withholding the tape seems to me a way to influence that debate. The anti-war movement can very legitimately claim that an important piece of evidence has been denied their cause to support their position; or conversely, that this might be a gruesome enough event that opposition would evaporate before such a blatant demonstration of Iraqi tyranny.

It also bothers me, because one of the things that the US has been using to build its case against Iraq is that Hussein runs a repressive regime and that he tries to hide the truth. I am concerned that in making an issue of how Iraqis are handling prisoners of war, that there is possibly some hypocrisy on the American part, because the Bush administration has been rather secretive about captives from Afghanistan being interned at Guantanomo Bay in Cuba. There are not many reports about the living conditions there, and in most cases, they are still being held without charge, without trial, and without any expectations being set as to when they might go free or be repatriated home to Afghanistan. Occasionally, I have seen the issue raised in interrogating Al Qaeda suspects, of whether torture is being used. And I wonder what grounds we have to complain about standards of humanitarian treatment, and what example our actions set for others in that regard.

On a similar thought, I think the FBI is on a slippery slope in its recent announcements of surveillance and interrogations of Iraqi and Iraqi-American citizens in the US. Although I've read William Rehnquist's book on wartime civil liberties and his discussion of Supreme Court precedent about Japanese internment camps, and the principle that "in times of war, the law is silent", I still can't but help feel that this smacks of a blantant disregard for civil liberties and even possibly a little bit of racism. The World War II arguments are still strong: what if the affected ethnic group was German or Irish or something else? Would there be the same push to intrude on their lives by the government, and would there be the same degree of acceptance by the general public?

It is the pathway to Big Brother, and concepts of national ID cards are not that far away from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where people were required to carry and produce "papers, please". It also overlooks the real face of domestic terrorism: prior to September 11th, the posterboy for terrorism in America was not Osama Bin Laden, but rather Tim McVeigh, a home-grown American citizen. We ourselves can cause just as much harm as can an outsider: in the last 18 months, I've heard numerous interviews where people say how they don't mind a little inconvenience in the name of security. Think about it: if a man with a gun impedes what you want to do, what really is the difference between it being a terrorist on a plane, or a security guard at a metal detector? Isn't the infringement on your rights the same in either case?

I've made the comparison with Israel before, that they have far more security restrictions than America does, yet still have terrorism problems; and in an interesting news report the other day, Palestinians were said to not be wearing gas masks, fearing Israeli actions far more than the potential threat of Iraqi chemical attack. At the same time, at least once Jewish family had suffocated to death, while sealing themselves up in their 'safe room'.

Switching thoughts, while the US has now started the war, as much as I opposed its beginning, I now wish to see it fully prosecuted, lest an effort half-way leave us with an unfinished job that will require further conflict in another 12 years. However, I do not think debate on the war issues should cease: if anything, they're more relevant than ever, as there remains a very prominent issue of how to handle post-war rebuilding. The Bush administration has made a point of saying how they will return to the UN and give the international community a chance to redeem themselves for their inaction in approving successor resolutions to 1441 to start a war, and 'offer the opportunity' to rebuild and occupy Iraq.

There is a very strong part of me that hopes that the international community does NOT accept this offer. It creates a situation that sounds too much like the US wants others to clean up our mess. If America starts the war, particularly inspite of popular international opposition, we should have the responsibility to handle the consequences. It is this lack of responsibility that is one of the reasons why the world was so strongly opposed -- the US doesn't always think ahead, and historically has always had _great_ problems in fashioning exit strategies. I didn't want the US to start the war, and I oppose political candidates who did, for reasons I have expounded upon at length in the past; yet now that it's here, I _DO_ want to make sure the US puts every effort into rebuilding Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) into a viable, self-sufficient democratic and capitalist society; and I oppose political candidates who would not support such a rebuilding effort fully.

This is especially important, because it will be very easy to shrug aside this matter, in the rush to the next target in the war on terrorism (aka, Bush's holy crusade). In the culture of the soundbite and 30-second tv spots, a large portion of America doesn't realize how long a war can really take, and how much longer it can be to rebuild. Reading deep into the middle sections of current newspapers, one finds there's _still_ conflict in Afghanistan, a front on terrorism for months long since portrayed as already pacified.

Poorly transitioning to a new topic, a lot of discussion has been made of the 'shock and awe' campaign. I've been trying to figure out how viable this really is as a strategy, remembering my Robert Pape ("Bombing to Win") that says punishment strategies don't work in wartime, and wondering if this could successfully generalize to other situations, such as a conflict with North Korea; or if the experiences of the Iraqis at the hands of American air power during Desert Storm are unique enough that the threat of an encore would only work under a conflict with these conditions. And since resistance by the Iraqis continues, it seems premature to me to even consider 'shock and awe' any kind of success here at all.

On a lighter note, I was listening to the radio, talking about the logistical needs of the US military campaign, and there was a report that US Army units have been given money to purchase gas in the field along the way, if necessary, to keep the advance moving if supply lines can't keep up. It amused me to picture the image of a battalion of M1A1 Abrahms tanks pulling up to a full-service gas station in the middle of the Iraqi desert and having someone stick their head out of a turret to yell "fill 'er up!". :)

Anyway, I now return you to your regularly scheduled email. :)
Matt