Wartime Reality Check

by Christopher G. Adamo

America, and that portion of the civilized world in which common sense prevails, scoffed at the notion that Saddam Hussein received 100% of the popular vote in Iraq's last presidential “election” a few months ago. Is it any less absurd to believe, as some seem to have expected prior to the onset of war in that country, that the same percentage of its civilian population is driven by a desire to immediately abandon Islamic goals and immerse themselves in cell-phones, fast foods, E-mail, and all of the other fruits of western civilization?

Certainly, free speech is a cherished cornerstone of American culture. And many Iraqis would likely relish the freedom to complain of the repression inflicted upon them by Hussein's tyranny. But among those with dubious concepts of “liberty” (and little or no experience to go on during the past eleven centuries), the free speech of others who disagree is not nearly so noble a concept. One need look no farther than the major university campuses in this country to understand this truth.

Why is it then that so many in the American media appear to be dismayed and confused at the inability of American and British forces to simply pass through an area, “liberate” it, and move on without further uprisings or difficulties of any kind among the indigenous population? Could it be that network anchors held unrealistic expectations as to how the war would play out? In consideration of their unwavering past record of sympathy towards almost any force that has ever risen up as an enemy of America, it is far more likely that the “mainstream” media is simply engaged in an orchestrated pattern of proffering unrealistic expectations, in order to exploit the circumstances that result whenever reality falls short of that which was anticipated.

In contrast, the present situation needs to be considered from a sober perspective. At this writing, America has been at war with Iraq for thirteen days. Even the first Gulf War lasted approximately four times longer than that, and the goal there was a far more modest one, namely to evict Iraqi invaders from a Kuwait that fervently wanted them to be gone. So for Americans to have taken as much territory as they have during only thirteen days constitutes an amazing accomplishment, particularly since they are in a nation where their presence is nowhere near unanimously appreciated. Furthermore, the fact that “friendly fire” has taken a greater toll on U.S. and British forces than all of the combined efforts of Iraqi resistance proves the overwhelming superiority and eventual success of the allied effort.

Admittedly, certain concerns among American and British leaders, such as minimizing civilian casualties and retaining infrastructure, may be excessively slowing down the effort to achieve victory, and might thus have to be rethought. Those Iraqi citizens who long for the squalor and oppression of the fourteenth century will have little appreciation for such thoughtful actions. On the other hand, the fact that these western governments believe that they have the luxury of doing so further proves the supremacy of their strategic position.

It is virtually assured that this war will have to get far more brutal before it is over. Certain elements of the Hussein regime are as far from “rehabilitation” or reconciliation as any member of Al Qaeda, and will therefore have to be dealt with, for the foreseeable future, as dangerous enemies of America. Perhaps they will have to be interred indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Or maybe it will be more expedient to simply turn them over to the Kuwaiti government for “questioning.” But in any case, America and Great Britain cannot afford to presume that all will be peace and tranquility once an area has been declared “secured.”

The American public needs to come to terms with the grim fact that they are in a war. And in the end, American forces will either be victorious or, if this nation lacks the resolve to do what is necessary to achieve victory, leave the Persian Gulf in total humiliation and defeat. America will either succeed at liberating the Iraqi people from the monstrous tyranny under which they have suffered for so long, and far more importantly, obliterating the foundations of worldwide terrorist activity, or it will live forever under the fear of sudden and unanticipated terrorist attacks. No other alternatives exist.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.