When I drove past South High School in Torrance on my commute to work today, I noticed a memorial composed of flowers, photographs, and warm-hearted notes for a PFC Joseph Anzack Jr.
His was the body found in the Euphrates this week. He had been MIA.
Body Found In Iraq ID'd as Torrance Soldier
Soldier slain in Iraq joined Army to 'keep us free'
Body of Missing GI Identified as PFC Anzack
Today at work I saw posted notices pretty much everywhere; in the elevators, in the halls, near the front desk, with a synopsis of Anzack's life and career in the military. The notice was pretty gung-ho; proclaiming the virtues of wanting to serve one's country, as Anzack did, how noble he was for wanting to be in Special Forces.
Near the end of the notice was a remark that included some very derogatory and racial slurs towards Iraqis, which I thought was very inappropriate. I did not know PFC Anzack personally, but if Anzack truly believed in the United States' cause in Iraq, if he truly thought he was there to make a positive influence on the lives of Iraqi citizens, he would have been disgusted with such a remark.
I read something once when I was studying stuff on the Marines, I think it was in Making the Corps. One of the rules you must follow when liberating/occupying a country is to respect the natives of said country. Once you don't respect them, once you start to treat them as sub-humans, they will turn on you and, instead of helping you help them, they will turn against you and harbor hate for the United States.
Fostering and encouraging hate will not bring our soldiers home. It will not bring the dead back to life. It only continues the hate and racial prejudice that runs rampant in certain parts of the world, and it doesn't encourage peace.
What I read in the bulletin disgusted me.
I wish the very best for his family, and hope that PFC Anzack rests in peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The racial slurs towards Iraqis are just another ugly result of this great big ugly mess that we created and are responsible for.
I've been worried about hnk. I think she went to Syria. Her blog reminded me in a way of Anne Frank's diary.
As far as Iran goes, they just now have stability after the revolution there. That took a couple of generations. They don't want to be invaded because they know it would result in the same instability that we have created in Iraq.
I don't think we can get new leadership soon enough. I knew when this all started it would be a couple of generations before things would settle down. And things are turning out exactly as I expected. It's just a disaster on so many levels for so many people.
Hopefully hnk will be able to start blogging again soon.
I'm not sure about Iran's stability and/or intelligence, especially with their leader intent on developing nuclear weapons.
Do you think that this mess will eventually turn out better for Iraqis than leaving Saddam and his progeny in power?
Here is what I think about the mid-east situation as it stands now. Part of what I think as it's complicated.
First of all, for our own interests, as that is what we seem to be most concerned about,.. And don't get me wrong I care deeply about our own people, my own cousin just got back and I have other friends in the military.
I think it is and will most likely be worse for our allies the Saudi family (as they are mostly Sunni), and Israel as Iran (Mostly Shia) If I have it right, will be empowered in ways they couldn't have been before. Iran and Iraq had kind of a stand off before. I think there could possibly and most likely will be a conflict between the Kurds and Trurks. There could also be de-stabilization in Syria and Jordan.
I can understand the question, but it's beside the point now. It's a question that should have been asked before the war, and I hear it all of the time from some of my friends now. It's backward thinking. It's far too late for that now. Saddam is dead. It serves no tactical purpose to consider otherwise going forward.
But to try and answer your question about if it will be better for Iraqis, I guess it depends on how how the chips fall and if you are Sunni or Shia. But no matter which one, lots of people have died on both/ all sides and that is going to go on and get worse.
Perhaps in 10 or 20 years things might (a very big might) settle down to the point that you might technically say they might be better than they were when Saddam were still in power for what that is worth.
If it does get better, it won't be without a big long war and tens of thousands of people getting killed and injured on all sides. (not to mention billions of US Dollars thrown at it.) That really sucks for our economy. We are going in serious debt for this. And it has made us less able to deal with any future conflict that might really be warranted.
It will have to be a pretty darn nice outcome to make up for what has transpired so far and all of our loss not to mention Iraqi loss.
Your question at this point doesn't make a lot of sense to me for those reasons and more. But if I have to give you a yes or no, then no. Too many Lives and families will have been destroyed. Too much money has been spent. Our own well being has being as a country has been put at a very serious risk.
Yes, in theory it would be better without Saddam. But at what cost?
That's what I think. I won't go into Iran's leadership now. That's something I can speak to however.
Post a Comment