Amidst our self absorption with our own casualties (which while devastating to those to whom they are familiar, are trivial in the context of other wars, many less momentous than this), it's easy to forget the suffering and fright of the innocent Iraqis who must live with and through the current chaos. Sadly, sometimes necessary things have calamitous effects on those who had no part in the making of them, and it's hard to take a long-term view when bombs are falling.

To the proprietress of the Riverbend blog, and others like her, I can only offer trite, but often true cliches--it's often darkest before the dawn, and sometimes the only way out is through. For those of my readers of the praying type, say one or two for her and hers, and I hope that she knows that she is in our hearts at this time of crucial point in her country's history.

[Update a few minutes later]

And for contrast, I hope she hears and appreciates what compatriot blogger Mohammed has to say.

Good stuff. I have to agree with everything you say, although probably for slightly different reasons. Both the voices you link to should be heard and it is imperative that we not forget the Iraqis when making policy decisions. The long view valuation of this action should include the death toll of all involved. Note that in the last week alone 460 Iraqi citizens were killed. This action may have been justified in terms of stopping killings by Saddam, but at this rate the numbers of Iraqi's killed by US forces will top the number killed by Saddam quickly. We need an exit strategy.

For more perspective check out:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/ (Iraq)
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/ (Iraq)
http://gatorsix.blogspot.com/ (US)
http://www.tryingtogrok.com/ (US)

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent Iraqis. We are a long, long, long, lonf, long way from approaching this total.

One wonders if the lady realizes the irony of her possessing the ability to blog her frustrations regarding Bremer and the Coalition. I expect that under Saddam she and her whole extended family would've been anonymous worm-food for doing so, assuming they were allowed to even have a computer and Internet access.

- Eric.

I also find it interesting that she complains about the Americans, while saying nothing about the foreign fighters that are the cause of much of the current suffering.

Presumably, she knows deep inside that bitching about the former is harmless, while bitching about the latter will get you killed messily.

I just checked today's entry and seems she is really rather ashamed that other Iraqis would take hostages, especially the Japanese.

Sorry for the double-post but finding riverbend has made me realize the human stakes of what we are doing. Here is why she is a barometer of how well we Americans are doing:

Guerillas require one thing to operate, and one thing only – the support of the population. Nor do they need the support of the majority of the population, a substantial minority (generally estimated at between ten to twenty percent) is all that is required though the larger the proportion that supports them the more freely they can move. Unwillingness to cooperate with the enemy (often because retribution from guerillas is certain) is all that is needed from the rest of the population. As long as informers will not go forward to reveal what they know guerillas can disperse into the population and re-supply more or less at will.

In such a situation, no matter how many guerillas you kill you can’t stop the warfare. To do so you have to stop the support of the population for the guerillas. There are basically two ways to do this. The first, and most commonly used, is through atrocities. The US in the Philippines broke the guerilla resistance this way. Entire villages and towns were destroyed including every man, woman and child and the populations of entire towns were moved to camps. This sort of brutality will succeed, and even on a lesser scale can be successful – the Turks in the 90’s broke the Kurdish guerillas through much the same means and Russians in Chechnya are likewise using much the same means.

The second method is to prove to the population that their interests are better served by supporting you – not the guerillas. The British in Malaysia were succesful using this as their primary method. If support for the occupation forces will lead to rebuilding, to law and order and to a free and independent Iraq then the population will support the occupation troops. On an operational level this means convincing community leaders and empowering them to deal with law and order on a local level as well as empowering Iraqis to rebuild. On a strategic level it means a strong political commitment to goals Iraqis agree with.

That is taken from here:

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000547.html#547

many readers here will not like the source, but can you argue with the above quote? Since we Americans are not well suited, by moral scruples, for inflicting atrocities, we must follow the second option, prove to the average Iraqi that we offer a better option.

But remember, objective reality is irrelevant. Unless people like riverbend come to believe in us and we prove can protect them from the thugs, we cannot win point #2.

Eric:
Read this early post by Riverbend to find out how 'liberation' effected her.

Mike:
Saddam wasn't trying to build a democracy. The tolerances for civilian blood are far, far, far less.

V-Man:
You might be able to make a case that 'foreign fighters' are playing a role in Fallooja. The rest of the country is being dominated by Al Sadr's homegrown bandits. The Sunni triangle is no longer particularly relevent to Iraq's future.

The country is hardly being "dominated" by Al Sadr's bandits. They are disrupting it, but that's hopefully temporary. And they are being funded by the mullahs across the border, which is a dangerous game for them. It's unlikely that they'll continue to get away with such acts of war after November.

Well, they have half of Baghdad, all of Najaf, and knocked the Coalition out of Kut and Karbala. In Basra, at least the New Zealand contingent is confined to quarters indefinitely. That's pretty much most of the population. The Coalition is doing everything it can not to directy engage, for good reason.

And while their probably is some Iranian money involved, there are members of the IGC that have a closer relationship to Iran. For what its worth President Khatami has called on Al Sadr to knock it off. The cries of direct Iranian involvement are coming from the same places that gave us "WMD, south and west of Baghdad".

And I have no idea whose army would be teaching Iran a lesson after November.

Well, if by "teaching them a lesson" you mean removing them from power, I suspect that the Iranian people would be happy to do that, as long as they know they can get some support from across the border. Two can play at the subversion game, and in our case, we'll have majority support.

I hope you are right - but the U. S. has a pretty crappy record at sponsoring popular revolutions (as opposed to influencing elections or coup d'etat). In the Phillipines (1986), Eastern Europe (1989) and Russia (1991) the United States was decidely ambivalent; the U.S. completely missed the opportunities in Cuba (1958), Vietnam (1950) and Iran (1979); and we all know what happened in Iraq in '91. Throughout the nineties, a revolution in Iraq was the fantasy sponsered by the INC - to no avail. It was the assumption that all that was required to trigger a popular revolt was a "little support from across the border" that has lead to the current problems in Iraq.

Georgia, Serbia and South Africa might represent exceptions - except those revolutions revolved around elections. That opportunity has already past in Iran.

South Africa might be a bad example if half the things my inlaws are saying about the potential results of this month's elections are true.

Rand, you've been telling me for over a year now that things were going to be just great in Iraq. And I've been telling you that if this is handled badly it could end up with a population who hates, or, at least enough of a population to cause a decade or more worth of strife.

Rand, why do you think Iran is the primary source of insurgent funding? I have read that Iranian leaders are deeply split between supporting Sadr and supporting Sistani.

Besides, how much foreign support does Sadr need when $500 - - Five Hundred Dollars! - - will purchase a few dozen RPGs and AK-47s? Today, given the number of police stations that have been seized and looted, I suspect Sadr's thugs have more weapons and more nice new suits of American-made body armor than they can actually use.

al Qaeda, being Sunni, will support the remnant Republican Guard and Baathists in the Sunni Triangle rather than Sadr and unless we obliterate Fallajuh, Tikrit, Ramadi etc. . . even modest funding will recruit new waves of Sunni insurgents.

= = =

Today, can you really blame the Kurds if they decide they simply do not want to be part of a totally screwed up federal state? And how can we strong arm the Kurds in any event?

I've never claimed that things were going to be "great" in Iraq. I've only claimed that they would be an improvement over the Ba'athist regime. They are.

And I think that Iran is the source of the insurgent funding because that is what is reported.

A very good analysis by Fareed Zakaria.

The upshot is Zakaria thinks the only way to avoid failure is to bribe the Sunnis and give in to Sistani.

Tell the Kurds to shut up.

And try to find 100 k of troops from somewhere, anywhere.

Just so I am clear then. Things will continue to be an improvement up until which point? Are we going to do it on body count? In which case you have a strong case that it should never reach the nadir of Saddams later years.

What about other metrics?

Women's rights? Religious Freedom? Non-government related civil violence? Crime rates?

I was reading an interesting article the other day by a Union Leader who was recently arrested by US forces and later released after protests - apparently he was regularly taken by Ba'thists and tortured. I wouldn't wish them back, but it is revisionism of the highest order to suggest that things were completely black and white.