Silence of the Sacrificial Lambs
By Jermaine Smith
War is the most popular means to an end known to humanity. Throughout history, nations have warred over land, warred over power, warred over religion. Last spring, the United States engaged in an oft-questioned war for the liberation of Iraq. Sixteen months after the start of the war, however, hawks and doves have a common goal: the safe return of soldiers and officials who risked their lives.
Months after the incursion officially ended, the death toll in Iraq still rapidly approaches 1000. The vast majority of these deaths occurred after the administration officially declared the conflict over last May. Given those numbers, it is neither surprising nor disagreeable that the American media and citizens create heroes of the men and women who lose their lives in battle. Although the media keeps track of the deaths of U.S. troops, the unwilling sacrifices of common citizens go virtually unnoticed.
In the last few months, terrorist groups have repeatedly kidnapped civilians, American and otherwise, and made demands for nations to withdraw forces or face a penalty. This consequence, in nearly each scenario, has been the cruel death of a hostage by beheading. Perhaps more disturbing still: each hostage has been civilian. There have been no captured majors, lieutenants or even infantrymen. There were no diplomats (minus the recent kidnapping of Momdoh Kotbm who has since been released). Terrorists abducted these men, performing jobs as immaterial to Iraqi liberation as truck driving, from their work sites in Iraq.
The abductions of these men, chosen randomly, made headlines worldwide, as the terrorists’ brand of justice works, ironically, blindly. When terrorists made demands that would spare their lives, their countries often balked. America’s own Marines follow the axiom “Leave no soldier behind”: are we to believe that these civilians’ lives are expendable? It is difficult to accept these vicious deaths as casualties of war; these individuals are not warriors, they are ordinary citizens doing ordinary things under extraordinary circumstances. Each refusal to bring them home safely, when soldiers benefit from hospital rescues, is inexcusable.
The outrage stems partly from the inhumane circumstances of the deaths; while some of the groups attempt to justify their actions based on Koran interpretations, their brutality and mob-like justice sufficiently negate all attempts at validation. The natures of these crimes, compounded by the seeming helplessness of forces attempting to handle the situation, add a dimension of terror to the attacks that these men and women face daily.
The response of negotiating with terrorists, generally, is an international no-no. However, the withdrawal of Filipino soldiers from Iraq raises the question: at what point do U.S. and allied forces cut their losses and head home? While experts condemn the move, claiming terrorists will intensify the kidnappings, it is difficult to classify the effort as simply cowardly. Certainly, President Bush or Prime Minister Blair, after months of pushing for intervention, would have much more to lose politically in such a situation than Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
With politics and terrorism the major players, where do civilian workers fit in the plan to rebuild Iraq?
There is, admittedly, no easy solution to deal with this growing problem. Terrorists have recently released more hostages, but there is no guarantee or reason to believe this trend will continue. While American and allied workers remaining in Iraq will continue to live in danger, the risk of reducing forces or habitually yielding to terrorist threats presents a dilemma. Do leaders continue to accept losses when there appears to be no end in sight, to preserve political and military power? Do leaders negotiate when they have more to lose than to gain? Or, simply, do leaders find a way to protect those who cannot protect themselves, a similar idea behind the motivation for Iraq’s liberation?
Experts maintain that fighting terrorism on an international stage is a large-scale type of cat and mouse, as evidenced by the elusiveness of Osama bin Laden. However, for the civilians taken hostage, this is no game. Until the people in charge decide, the most hazardous job in post-Saddam Iraq is not behind a desk or an automatic assault rifle: it is working for Haliburton.
By Jermaine Smith
War is the most popular means to an end known to humanity. Throughout history, nations have warred over land, warred over power, warred over religion. Last spring, the United States engaged in an oft-questioned war for the liberation of Iraq. Sixteen months after the start of the war, however, hawks and doves have a common goal: the safe return of soldiers and officials who risked their lives.
Months after the incursion officially ended, the death toll in Iraq still rapidly approaches 1000. The vast majority of these deaths occurred after the administration officially declared the conflict over last May. Given those numbers, it is neither surprising nor disagreeable that the American media and citizens create heroes of the men and women who lose their lives in battle. Although the media keeps track of the deaths of U.S. troops, the unwilling sacrifices of common citizens go virtually unnoticed.
In the last few months, terrorist groups have repeatedly kidnapped civilians, American and otherwise, and made demands for nations to withdraw forces or face a penalty. This consequence, in nearly each scenario, has been the cruel death of a hostage by beheading. Perhaps more disturbing still: each hostage has been civilian. There have been no captured majors, lieutenants or even infantrymen. There were no diplomats (minus the recent kidnapping of Momdoh Kotbm who has since been released). Terrorists abducted these men, performing jobs as immaterial to Iraqi liberation as truck driving, from their work sites in Iraq.
The abductions of these men, chosen randomly, made headlines worldwide, as the terrorists’ brand of justice works, ironically, blindly. When terrorists made demands that would spare their lives, their countries often balked. America’s own Marines follow the axiom “Leave no soldier behind”: are we to believe that these civilians’ lives are expendable? It is difficult to accept these vicious deaths as casualties of war; these individuals are not warriors, they are ordinary citizens doing ordinary things under extraordinary circumstances. Each refusal to bring them home safely, when soldiers benefit from hospital rescues, is inexcusable.
The outrage stems partly from the inhumane circumstances of the deaths; while some of the groups attempt to justify their actions based on Koran interpretations, their brutality and mob-like justice sufficiently negate all attempts at validation. The natures of these crimes, compounded by the seeming helplessness of forces attempting to handle the situation, add a dimension of terror to the attacks that these men and women face daily.
The response of negotiating with terrorists, generally, is an international no-no. However, the withdrawal of Filipino soldiers from Iraq raises the question: at what point do U.S. and allied forces cut their losses and head home? While experts condemn the move, claiming terrorists will intensify the kidnappings, it is difficult to classify the effort as simply cowardly. Certainly, President Bush or Prime Minister Blair, after months of pushing for intervention, would have much more to lose politically in such a situation than Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
With politics and terrorism the major players, where do civilian workers fit in the plan to rebuild Iraq?
There is, admittedly, no easy solution to deal with this growing problem. Terrorists have recently released more hostages, but there is no guarantee or reason to believe this trend will continue. While American and allied workers remaining in Iraq will continue to live in danger, the risk of reducing forces or habitually yielding to terrorist threats presents a dilemma. Do leaders continue to accept losses when there appears to be no end in sight, to preserve political and military power? Do leaders negotiate when they have more to lose than to gain? Or, simply, do leaders find a way to protect those who cannot protect themselves, a similar idea behind the motivation for Iraq’s liberation?
Experts maintain that fighting terrorism on an international stage is a large-scale type of cat and mouse, as evidenced by the elusiveness of Osama bin Laden. However, for the civilians taken hostage, this is no game. Until the people in charge decide, the most hazardous job in post-Saddam Iraq is not behind a desk or an automatic assault rifle: it is working for Haliburton.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home