CNN basically suggests that all is well. German news stations are reporting on much heavier resistance than the invading troops may have expected. The BBC has been kind of vague on this lately.
However, it seems to me that the media is beginning to realize now, that there will be little cheering and more bullets waiting for the "coalition forces".
As sad as this is, I wonder why the American public is surprised about it. How could anyone expect Saddam's troops to surrender just like that? No matter if his troops like Saddam or not, they love their country. Therefore, they defend it against invasion. It seems like CNN is slowly adjusting its news coverage, gently preparing the public for more and more casualties. Basra, the city which was claimed to by under coalition control about three days ago, is now a military target. What about the inhabitants? They are as civilian as they were yesterday. It has been naive to think they would welcome invading forces. The Shiites there feel decieved by the US for not supporting them in their struggle with Hussein in 1991.
We were lead to believe that this war would be one of little civilian casualties. Also, we were lead to believe that this war would be swift and welcomed by the people of Iraq. That prooves to be far from accurate, right now. The strategy apparently underestimated Iraq. There is no point in complaining about the guerilla warfare tactics, Iraq apllies. If you face an invasion and are relatively ill-equipped the Geneva convention becomes less of a priority. The Iraqi army is pulling back into towns and wearing civilian clothes... well, this is the only strategy Iraq can take apart from surrendering or dieing. The Iraqi army would lose terribly in the open desert. In towns, the technological advantage of the US/GB forces is not as important. Also, by bringing the war to the towns and cities, Iraq achieves an objective that might be crucial to the overall success of the war. Iraq is uniting its people against "invaders". The reason is obvious. In order to defeat Saddam's fighters harder strikes will be neccessary. Strikes on towns, on cities, therefore also on civilians. Take some pictures of parents crying for their children into the equasion and you get a mood of hatred towards America. Eventually Iraq will be defeated militarily. But isn't the goal of this war to fight, weaken and defeat terrorism?: Didn't Mr. Bush set this goal? This war is about to increase muslim terrorsim. Already, violent outbursts erupt in other arabic countries. The population of the arabic world (except in Kuwait) sides with Saddam. This is sad, but it was to be expected. There are many reasons to be against this war. Some of them are connected to pacifism. I understand that the "hawks" won't agree on them. But what about the current situation? Isn't this war increasing the threat of terrorism? I am so surprised that "hawks" did not follow this argument and opposed war on this ground. I oppose the war because I think it will not help to achieve the ultimate goal: the defeat of terorism.
The bottom line is, we can expect many more casualties in the comnig days and weeks, soldiers and civilians. The American public has not been ready for that. It feels like cheap propaganda to declare Basra a military target now. Now, we have to bomb the people we are coming to liberate. Let's face it: the American strategy to win the people is going to fail. Just before the war started, Mr Bush said that this war could help to achieve long lasting peace in the region and help to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It may be, however that the exact opposite will happen: the whole region in chaos and new waves of terrorism rolling...
I am not very optimistic, right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment