Sad but true...

Saddam Hussein could win the war in Iraq.

By this time many of the details about the slaughter in Haditha have come to light, and while judgment hasn't been passed, one can agree that not only is there a good chance that this massacre occurred, but it was bound to occur. General Sherman, the guy who ordered the razing of Atlanta in one of the bloodiest episodes of the Civil War, famously said "War is Hell." He wasn't just saying this on a ideological level, but on a pragmatic level. War is not hell simply because people die in horrific ways, but because, in order to win a war, the conquering side must make the region they fight in a hell. We use the term 'civil war' to describe a battle between countrymen, but undoubtedly there is nothing 'civil' about a war.

And do not be confused gentle readers, what's going in Iraq is a war.

Bush would like us to believe that this is a fight for the 'hearts and minds of the people.' Well if that's the case, then he's playing the wrong game. A struggle for the hearts and minds of anyone is, by definition, a non-violent struggle. For how can one truly be convinced of anything staring down the barrel of a gun. A person can be intimidated in that manner, and like torture, a person in that situation will do or say anything to protect their life, and keep from suffering. But once that threat is over the mask of agreement falls away, and you're left with a person who, rightfully so, is filled with rage and a desire for revenge.

No, the game that we are playing in Iraq is the game of war, and that means domination and death. And along with that goal must come a certain psychology for its partcipants of kill or be killed. We often talk about rules of engagement; a term that is all good for politicians, arm chair strategists, and movie titles, but again reality rears its ugly head, and we realize that as the game is not civil, so does it not have rules, for what rules are there to hell? In fact war is the province of disorder, discord, and disharmony. To win a war, there must not be an accounting for morals, or ethics. We would like to believe that--we would like to believe that there is a justness about it, but those are ideas of those who have the luxury of civilization on their side. People can conceive of justice and morals when their bellies are full, and their feet are kicked up on an ottoman, reading Plato or the Bible. Morals and ethics are the farthest thing from your mind when you're driving in a humvee, without the proper plating, and an IED explodes blowing your fellow soldier to kingdom come. What does come to your mind? In that second right after you instinctively duck for cover, what you feel is relief (that is wasn't you) then you feel guilt and shame for feeling that. Then you realize that you're even more alone that you were a moment ago, because you're thousands of miles for your homeland, your family, your culture, and possibly your religion. Then all of these compound into a furious rage that flares like the sun, and you feel the rifle in your hands, and you know what you have to do. What you were trained to do, and all that BS in your mind about "winning the hearts and minds" goes straight out the window (if you ever believed it in the first place, after all your call sign is 'killer' and you weren't trained for diplomacy) and you do what you gotta do.

We expect our troops to be better, but they are only human. It's like feeding someone an Ex-Lax milkshake, and four courses of Mexican food, and telling them to hold it for a week. You can discipline them like a Buddist monk, but eventually biology will win.

Saddam would win this fight because he had no ethics, or morals to begin with. His bread and butter was disorder, and he gained his power through war. He wasn't about winning the 'hearts and minds' of people, he was about intimidation and terror. Remember, that's the reason he was the 'bad guy,' or if you prefer, the 'evil doer.' His techniques were barbarous, his first and last method was murder and war, and his result was a state of fear.

When seeking the better angels of people's nature, one cannot resort to the strategy of demons. In doing so one only becomes a tyrant. It's a sad but true fact that Saddam would have already won the conflict in Iraq because he was a tyrant, and his nature was single-minded in that purpose. We have phrased the question; should we condemn these soldiers in the Haditha affair, or dismiss their charges? But before we begin to answer that question we must understand our reasons for begin there in the first place. Are we an invasion force or liberators? And if we say liberators, then we must then ask, why are we using the techniques of the conqueror? If a proper answer cannot be given then it doesn't matter if 15, 20, or 30 people were killed in that situation, because our entire tour there would have only been a gigantic massacre in, and of itself.