Opinion
 

Time on our side in ongoing Iraq conflict

By Richard Lutz

It's a type of headline so commonplace that it's become invisible: "Roadside bomb kills three GIs," "Car bomb kills two, wounds 17," or "Bored sniper shoots cows, trees, anything." You already know it's about Iraq and the slow process of rebuilding going on there. As you also know, President Bush declared the war over months ago. What's going on?

Despite Bush's optimism, it's clear the war in Iraq is continuing, albeit in a low-grade, guerrilla fashion. Opponents of American military presence in Iraq cite this as a clear demonstration of why it was a bad idea to invade in the first place, but since it's impossible to un-invade, they say the next-best thing is to pull out.

That would be ridiculous, to put it bluntly. Despite the continual bleed, the fact that individual deaths are considered newsworthy is a sign that this is not a harsh war, and we are winning. As Nicolo Machiavelli pointed out, the only way to truly secure a new territory is to make sure the civilians are on your side. Official structures will bend whichever way the wind points them, but the common people make uprisings possible. As long as we do not back out before the job is done, the Saddamites are bringing us closer to victory with each attack.

This is because, for one, the attacks are costing them public support. Dissatisfied Iraqis may fall into a perverse patriotic spirit when American troops are targeted, but with each Iraqi killed, the rest become angry at the terrorists. Take for example the recent shooting of three Iraqi women who were laundry workers killed while driving to work. 

Another reason Saddam's supporters will fail is that as time goes by, more foreign nations will want to become involved in the rebuilding. More foreign investment means that time is on our side; former opponents of the war will become increasingly committed to making sure the new regime is stable and friendly. At this point, one of the best moves we could make is to allow open house for investment by all, regardless of the past. Bush's current stance on allowing only those who joined the coalition to profit from the nation-building to follow is clever if we plan to enter another war soon. But if he loses the election or runs out of terms before going after, say, Iran, then a country like France might simply put pressure on the next president to cut them in after the next war, regardless of whether they helped fight it.

A more forgiving policy would mean we gain in international regard, and that peacekeepers from other nations join us in confiscating weapons. With even Japan willing to send peacekeepers, it's unlikely the offer will be refused. The new peacekeepers will also be taking fire, but in a war with only 504 casualties in its entire duration, it could be worse.

Lutz, an editorial writer for The Daily Cougar,
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu.