by Robert M. Liu 

CNN’s interview with Time Magazine’s Michael

Shortly after the November 2004 offensive launched by U.S. and Iraqi government forces that eliminated the terrorist insurgents’ base in Fallujah, a Time Magazine reporter appeared on CNN’s News Night. He spoke with an Australian accent, and News Night Anchor Aaron Brown called him Michael.  

During the days when Fallujah was under the insurgents’ control, Michael had managed to enter the insurgency base and garner first-hand information about what was going on there at the time. Once he had reported that Abu al-Zarqawi’s men were imposing Taliban-style Islamist rule in Fallujah. According to Michael, he had received assistance from some insurgents in his trips to and from the dangerous place. 

When Aaron Brown asked him to share his outlook on the future of Iraq, Michael sounded pessimistic. First, he expressed his admiration for the bravery of the American soldiers participating in the battle for Fallujah, but then he said he was afraid that their sacrifices might be in vain. Put in another way, in Michael’s opinion, U.S. and Iraqi government forces may not be able to eliminate the Iraqi insurgency. 

About a month later, the same interview was run again on CNN and I watched it again, so I believe I understand Michael’s views on the Iraqi insurgency and the future of Iraq. However, there is an uneasy feeling at the back of my mind that challenges, “What would you say on CNN if you were Michael and had to visit Iraq and contact the insurgents again as a reporter, knowing they might be watching CNN too?” 

I guess I would have to say exactly what Michael said to Aaron Brown in the interview in order not to upset the Iraqi insurgents. To do otherwise would jeopardize not only my career as a war-time reporter with insurgent contacts but also my very existence as a human being who had to travel to trouble spots like Fallujah.  

Therefore, while I agree with Michael that the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to eliminate -- just as crime everywhere around the worlld is difficult to eliminate, I tend to take Michael’s pessimistic views with a grain of salt. The fact is that the Iraqi insurgency has suffered a series of setbacks since November 2004. For instance, the insurgency base, Fallujah, has been liberated, and U.S. and Iraqi government forces have killed or captured a total of 15,000 terrorist insurgents. All this suggests that American soldiers’ sacrifices are not in vain.  

Iraq’s Election

The success of the January 30, 2005, Iraqi election is another piece of evidence that the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi government forces to stabilize the Iraqi situation are producing fruit. It shows that with some assistance from the U.S.-led coalition, the Iraqi government’s own security forces are capable of defending Iraqi facilities and protecting the Iraqi electorate. 

True, the Iraqi insurgency continues to exist, but its weakness has been exposed in the face of the great courage demonstrated by the Iraqi people on January 30, 2005. The terrorist insurgents can murder scores of innocent people, but they cannot kill the millions of Iraqis who came out to vote despite terrorist threats. Terror can intimidate people; it cannot win hearts and minds. This means that after losing the military battle at Fallujah, the Iraqi insurgency has also lost the political battle. Isn’t this another turn for the better since the establishment of the interim Iraqi government? 

Though the pacification of Iraq remains a tough job for the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government, the number of insurgent attacks on U.S. troops has fallen since the battle of Fallujah. 

In part this is because U.S. and Iraqi government forces now receive more tips (i.e. pieces of Useful Intelligence Information) from local Iraqi residents than before. The Iraqi government’s media campaign to educate the Iraqi public on the evil nature of the insurgency gives Iraqi residents a moral reason to provide Useful Intelligence Information to the proper authorities. In the meantime, the U.S.-led coalition is publicizing certain telephone numbers that local Iraqi informants could dial -- probably in exchange for monetary rewards.  

In part this is also the result of updated modern technologies such as ground radar (which enables U.S. patrols to detect roadside Improvised Explosive Devices beneath their vehicles), thermal imaging (which allows them to peer into stationary vehicles without leaving their own) etc.  

There may be other ways to hunt down terrorists and criminals. For example, Texas State University criminologist Kim Rossmo has created a new method for tracking evil-doers. It is called “Geographic Profiling”. According to Rossmo, while criminals seem to strike in a random fashion, statistical analysis of crime locations can disclose patterns, providing useful information to those whose job it is to catch serial criminals. 

In Rossmo’s opinion, criminals tend to strike close to home, but not too close. He has thus developed a software which analyzes an area where related crimes have occurred and then isolates a tiny section where the criminal most likely lives. This software allows crime-fighters to focus on specific suspects. I guess Rossmo’s wonderful software may be useful in Iraq too. 

Loyalty to the new Iraq

As mentioned in a previous article, apart from money, loyalty is an important factor in politics as in business. The large turnout of Iraqi voters on January 30, 2005, tells the world that most Iraqis want to be loyal to a new Iraq with a democratically elected Iraqi government. This shall make for a large pool of Iraqi young people from which the newly elected Iraqi government can recruit loyal fighters for the fledgling Iraqi security forces. 

Right now, there are two well-known Iraqi Army battalions who have shown themselves to be effective fighting forces: the 205th battalion and the 207th battalion. Their brilliant performances have to do with their unquestionable loyalty to the new Iraq. Hopefully, they will grow in size and strength with new recruits and new fighting equipment.  

The 205th and 207th battalions are a sharp contrast to the so-called “Fallujah Brigade” which in spring of 2004 entered the Fallujah area only to disintegrate out of existence with some of its members even joining the insurgency. Such a tragic joke took place exactly because the “Fallujah Brigade” lacked the most valuable quality any righteous fighting force must have -- loyalty to the cause of freedom. 

One of the frequently heard criticisms of Paul Bremer, former head of the Iraqi Provisional Authority, is that he should not have dissolved Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi armed forces. But how can anyone guarantee that the former Iraqi armed forces if not dissolved would have demonstrated absolute loyalty to the new Iraq?  

Remember Saddam Hussein’s armed forces were thoroughly infiltrated and controlled by his cadre of political commissars -- exactly the kind of thugs who are now leading the insurgency. Does anyone believe that the Taliban’s military forces should have been kept in place so as to safeguard the democratically elected Afghan government in Kabul?  

Calls for an “exit strategy” from the political left

Pretending that they don’t see any improvements in the Iraqi situation despite the success of the January 30, 2005, Iraqi election, “the Democratic wing” of the Democratic Party keeps calling for an “exit strategy” as if Baghdad were about to fall into the hands of the Iraqi insurgency. The fact is that the Iraqi insurgency has not been able to win a single significant battle. It has lost every major military confrontation with U.S. and Iraqi government forces. It has failed to win the support of most Iraqis.  

The Democrats’ calls for an “exit strategy” are a left-wing ploy to fool the public into believing that the Iraqi situation can only get worse. But like they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time -- exactly the problem with the Democrats. After losing the 2004 presidential election, they started whining about their failure “to get the message across”. Really? Chances are the message from the political left did “get across” but couldn’t fool all the people all the time.  

Besides, some of the Democrats seem to have a sick mentality: They seem to be wishing that the Iraqi insurgency would keep growing and deal some heavy blows to the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government, so that left-wing, anti-war sentiments in America could make a come-back strong enough to smuggle them into power. The wish is father to the thought. 

Against international law? 

It is nearly two years since the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime. Many people including United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan still believe the Iraq War was against international law because it was launched without a U.N. resolution categorically authorizing the use of military force against the regime. The question is whether Saddam Hussein’s violations of various U.N. resolutions including U.N. Resolution 1441 were against international law and had to be corrected. The world is divided on this issue.  

But now, the legitimacy of the United Nations itself may be in question. There is strong evidence that Mr. Benon Sevan, head of the U.N. Oil for Food Program for Iraq, and other U.N. officials received oil allocations (i.e. rights to purchase Iraqi oil at a discount and then sell the same at higher prices) from the Hussein regime. In other words, some U.N. officials may have been on Saddam Hussein’s payroll. In addition, France and Russia (both being permanent U.N. Security Council members) may have benefited from their relations with the Hussein regime. 

This brings us to the question: Is it wise to look to the United Nations for global leadership in a dangerous era like this? In my opinion, as of this moment, the world has no choice but to look to the United States for leadership. Though that is not “international law”, it is apparently a reality in our time that has been determined not by Kofi Annan’s “international law”, but by history. 

“Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it cannot be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force.” This quote from former Czech president Vaclar Havel is not “international law” either, but it sounds like common sense to me. My question is: Should our “international law”, whatever it may be, make some common sense? 

Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science