The Case Against A Military Solution to as-Sadr

.
.
.

The Case Against A Military Solution to as-Sadr

Ben Granby, Electronic Iraq
9 April 2004

/snip/

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was pressed as to the size of the Mahdi Army. His figure of 3-6000 was amended with the admission that there was no absolute knowledge. However, he continues to dismiss the capability of the militas, describing them as "thugs and assassins." It is with this picture that American and Coalition allies are preparing to move in on the widespread rebellion.

/snip/

Such insensitivities to what the Iraqi people hold in great reverence serves only to fuel the resistance to the foreign occupation. Already, many are riled up sufficiently. As Sheikh Hazm Araji was quoted in the Washington Post on April 5, "The people are prepared for martyrdom."

US Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry spoke out against the military option and called for a "political, diplomatic solution." The Pentagon responded through this past week by saying that American forces are up to the task and Donald Rumsfeld claimed on Thursday the situation to be a "test of will, and we will meet that test." The question however is why is the Pentagon responding and not the architects of this occupation in the Bush Administration? It presents a picture that there is no other strategy even being considered when the Pentagon is the one responding to the occupation's critics. As former British Foreign Secretary was quoted in the Guardian the same day, "there is no point in saying we are going to stay the course if we are on the wrong course."

/snip/

Britons were in shock over the image of General Gordan's demise in Khartoum in 1885 at the hands of the Mahdi's army. While a parallel in Iraq is unlikely, military agression in response to as-Sadr's uprising will likely not achieve the result of a pacified people ready to cooperate with the American installed Governing Coalition when it is set to take over on June 30. Frustration has run deep in the past year at the slow pace of reconstruction. As Shia who feel alienated from the political process rise in rebellion its time for the Bush administration to consider something other than brute force.

http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer1450.shtml

I do not understand why the United States thinks they can "free" the Iraqis by killing them. For every Iraqi they kill, they make a dozen or more enemies. The Iraqis just don't "understand" what "collateral damage" is.

To them it is murder, they don't think it's "OK" for the US to kill it's people to "give" them freedom.

There is no one Iraqi group or person that has any control over what the United States and it's allies do in THEIR country.

The only reasonable short-term solution I can see is for the USA to admit they made a mistake (which I don't think they will EVER do), withdraw as quickly as possible, and the rest of the World hope that the Iraqis will accept help from the International Community under the auspices of the United Nations or coutries of THEIR choice..

SURE, civil war may break out, but ANY healing process for these occupied people cannot begin until there is not one American citizen in Iraq. The United States has created a hatred that may last generations, and not just in Iraq.

The United Nations was created to prevent this sort of action, but noone could stop the Military might of the acknowleged SuperPower.

Regardless how many more people the USA manages to kill,

The USA has already lost.