Another Mogadishu?

Gwynne Dyer seems to think that the barbaric actions taken by the mob in Fallujah will have the same effect that the deaths of eighteen Rangers in Mogadishu did in the 90's. I think he's an idiot. Let me count some of the ways:

• The Iraqi "resistance" is not a popular uprising. The Iraqis may be suspicious of the US's motives, but we have more support than they do. Just because Dyer prefers fascist remnants to foreign liberators does not mean the Iraqis do. Most Iraqis, while unhappy with being occupied do prefer it to being ruled by Saddam. Dyer appears to be one of those people who preferred to leave Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq.


• "Bush's Adventure", as Dyer calls it really does have something to do with fighting terrorism so the United States will not back down, since in the view of the United States government draining the terrorist swamp is a vital national interest. Dyer does not mention the money paid by Saddam Hussein to support suicide bombings or the sanctuary he provided to terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.


• Americans can fight bloody wars at need. WWII and the American Civil War are prominent examples. By just about any standard American losses, while painful, have been light by historical standards. Furthermore, the US will keep its commitment to give control of Iraq to the provisional Iraqi government at the end of June, as promised. This will have the side effect of reducing American exposure to casualties.

In short, Dyer is dreaming. Removing Saddam from power in Iraq is indeed a calculated risk and one that may not pan out. However, the Iraqi people are being given a chance to control their own destiny, without the spectre of torture, rape rooms, and dictators. In the long run, the success of this project depends not on the United States, but on what the people of Iraq do with this opportunity.