Focal Point Changes In War Against Iraq

Discuss this on our boards!

Focal Point Changes In War Against Iraq
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

April 2, 2003

"Candidly Yours"

Linda A. Prussen-Razzano In the still unsettling aftermath of September 11, 2001, with instantaneous coverage allowing Americans to mourn each individual soldier lost in the war, and with rhetoric reaching vitriolic proportions, it’s easy fall into the name-calling and mud-slinging of partisanship. I’ve purposely done it; I admit it. I’ve slashed and burned my way through more than one article recently, sickened beyond measure by the actions of my fellow citizens.

Let there be no mistake: I did not support our efforts in Serbia. There was no national security threat, perceived or otherwise. The fighting was internal. The KLA, who we were fighting to protect, had been linked to heroin-for-arms trades across Europe and was under the watchful eye of Europol. The engagement had not received the blessings of Congress, formally or otherwise, until after the troops had landed and the fighting had begun. There was no begging to the United Nations, no pandering to the Security Council, and no mass demonstrations – by anyone – to stop it.

At its worst, detractors questioned the motivations of former President Clinton, accusing him of attempting to divert attention from his scandal-ridden Administration. There was never a call to kill troops, never any slanderous labels against them like "baby killers", never a question that we would pray for our men and women in uniform or support their victory. There was never a call to bring former President Clinton up on charges before the World Court, former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford did not take to the airwaves criticizing the actions of the Administration, and the mainstream media did not wring its collective hands because the engagement lasted more than a week.

I could not, and still do not, understand the opposition to this engagement, given the problematic history spanning three Administrations, the numerous sources of authorization for military force, and the links to national security threats and terrorism in Congressional Reports dating back to 1992. Perhaps more importantly, I do not understand why many detractors said absolutely nothing when we engaged in a military campaign against Serbia, an engagement lacking the crucial variables present in our current situation, but cry loudly now.

In an effort to get beyond the sloganeering and simply view the dynamic responses to our current military campaign, I chose the two most defined and politically centered sites on the internet, Democrat Underground and Free Republic.

Just today, the deaths of several Iraqi women and children made headlines when soldiers opened fire on the van they were riding in. The van was approaching a checkpoint and did not stop. According to the report, the soldiers first ordered the van to stop, then issued a warning fire into the air, then attempted to shoot out the engine block. When all these efforts failed, they shot into the van, itself. Given that a suicide bombing occurred only a few days ago, these efforts may be considered a reasonable reaction to uncertain and perceivably life-threatening circumstances. It was only afterwards that the soldiers were able to ascertain the sexes and ages of the passengers.

When viewed through the lens of partisanship, reactions to this story are dramatically different. Over at Democrat Underground, the article was discussed under the headline, "Five Iraqi Children Murdered, Under age Five!" While some of the discussion centered on why the vehicle didn’t stop, others comments were colorful and harsh. According to Liberal_Guerilla, "Since we are the invaders, that makes it murder." Poster w13rd0 astutely pointed out that the warning shots were not fired quickly enough to allow the driver a chance to respond; hence, the investigation. And Devils Advocate NZ suggested they didn’t stop for fear of sexual assault: "After all, it is not uncommon to hear of American servicemen raping women in countries they are posted to."

While the general tone of this thread was stern, review of other threads revealed that comments of support for the troops were not commonplace and support for the President was almost nonexistent. One thread where support for the troops was overwhelming specifically asked veterans to respond.

Over at Free Republic, the article was discussed under the headline of "Children die as US fires on van at checkpoint." According to nonliberal, "It would have been a tragedy if our soldiers had been killed. This incident was not a tragedy, it was a Darwin Award." Restorer was quick to rebuke: "Beg to differ. Anytime children are killed due to the idiotic disputes of adults, it is a tragedy. Young children are ineligible for the Darwin Award." Jbind offers this comment, "I feel equally bad for all those involved. The soldiers and the civilians. The soldiers will have to live with this."

In contrast, support for the troops was evident on nearly every thread. Support for the President was also in abundance.

These brief snippets obviously do not reveal the entire pictures; these glimpses are enlightening fragments, nothing more. Still, I am left with the sense that they represent a larger mindset.

What mindset is that?

I’ll allow you to decide on your own. ***

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files