The four-year anniversary of the illegal war in Iraq began with a new method of insurgency: chemical weapons.
A chemical weapon is one of the biggest fears of any fighting unit, the effects often further-reaching than most conventional weapons and more devastating. It is not as if things were not difficult enough without the AK-47-touting fanatics, suicide bombing zealots and Improvised Explosive Device-planting extremists.
The U.S. military is trained to fight a conventional war such as those in Europe and the Pacific during World War II. We have never had adequate preparedness to fight a counterinsurgency campaign against a determined enemy.
This is not to say the military does not train hard- during the opening days of the war, the conventional fighting went almost as planned. But as each day passed after completion of this campaign, we became further immersed in a war we were not equipped, properly trained or prepared to fight.
Some of the pro-war pundits attempt to criticize the difference in the winning attitude of World War II and the attitude toward the Iraq war.
The campaigns of World War II were fought over pieces of ground, mile after grueling mile of death. The rules of engagement were simple: Kill Germans or Japanese, and there was a tangible heart and soul to the enemy.
In Iraq the war is fought over religious fanaticism, economic security and greed. The rules of engagement are complex, restrictive and political. These rules are another landmine in the path of a soldier trying to do his job. If they mind the rules it makes their job all the more difficult and dangerous, and if they do not, they facilitate unrest and distrust among the local populace and risk persecution by the command.
Here is the simplicity of the moment: When you are behind the stock or in front of the muzzle during a fight, your actions do not depend on an orange card in your pocket theoretically guiding your conduct. Your conduct is guided by the pounding in your chest, the screaming in your ear and the all-encompassing desire to live.
Further hindering the conduct of the troops on the deck is the discrepancy between what the real situation is and what the American public is told.
After the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, outrage over the homosexual acts the prisoners were forced to do surfaced within the media. A huge calamity was made over the violation of Islam code and the supposed extreme distaste of homosexuality the followers of Islam have.
While forcing any kind of sexual act on individuals or groups is appalling, in my contact with Islamic men in Iraq I found some to be openly, and often forwardly, homosexual or bisexual. It seemed to me that their code of conduct was a loosely followed creed until convenience necessitated adherence.
The Middle East is a region of the planet seemingly always on the verge of violence. Only the presence of oil has cooled the fires of ruthlessness by their leaders and spurned our leaders into mitigation.
During World War II, and during the rebuilding that followed, we were on the side of good. We were saviors in a time of desecration and destruction, and we performed admirably. Since that time we have assumed the position of domination and control, and our time to always be on the side of good is over. With each decision made by the United States, thousands may benefit and, equally, thousands may perish. Our time for good closed a long time ago in Iraq. I believe the evils of civil war are inevitable in the region, and our continued presence is only drawing out the bleeding.
Sgt. John McCary of the U.S. Army said it best in the opening days of the war, "I know this isn't any divine mission. No God, Allah, Jesus, Buddha or any other divinity ever decreed, "Go get your body ripped to shreds, it's for the better." This is Man's doing. This is Man's War. And War it is."
Write to Jason atjlhodson@bsu.edu